HomeMy WebLinkAboutAA Plan Commission #1 7-6-87.':NDA
ACTXON AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING C(WI41SSION
NO. 1
7-6-87
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 29, 1987,
CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Counctl Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGTANCE/ZNYOCATXON
ROLL CALL:
Present: Puckett, Wet1, Le Jeune, Pontlous
Absent: Baker
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
.(Limited to 3 minutes per person for 1rems not on the agenda)
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL
OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(ALL MATTERS LZSTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR
PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.)
Approval of Minutes of June 8, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
Final EIR 87-1 - North/South Road Project
Adopt Resolution No. 2415: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin that the Enviromental Impac~ Report prepared in conjunction with the
North/South Road Project is recognized as adequate and complete making findings
with respect to mitigation of significant environmental effects and
recommending to the City Council certification on Final Environmental Impact
Report 87-1
3. General Plan Consistency / North/South Road Project
Chatr~an Puckett pulled Item 2 for further discussion. Co.missioner #etl moved, Le
deune seconded to approve the consent calender Items I and 3. Vote: 4-0.
Item 2 - Commissioner Well moved, Puckett seconded to recognize EZR 87-1 as adequate
and complete and to recommend to City Counctl the certification of EIR 87-1 by the
adoption of Resolution No. 2415 vlth the addttton that the Response to Com~nts
reflect the addresses of Hs. Capp's concerns expressed at the ConaHsston meettng of
3un, 8, 1987. Hotton carrted 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-02 - Large Famtl¥ Day Care Homes
P1 anntng Corem1 sston Act1 on Agenda
June 29, 1987
~age two
Recommendatt on:
Recommend to the Ctty Counct1 approval of Zontng Ordinance
Amendment No. 87-02 by the adoptlon of Resolution No. 2408.
Resolution No. 2408: A Resolution of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn
recommending amendment of Sectton g223a$ of the Tusttn Municipal
Code relattng to'Large Famtly Day Care Homes
Presentation:
Jeffrey S. Davts, Sentor Planner
~tsstoeer #etl moved,. P.uckett seconded appreval of Zontng Ordinance Amendment 87-2
by the adoptton of Resolution No. 24O8 with the folloutng changes: Page 1, Sectton TT
a) the last phrase to read "and a 11st of property ewmers vlthtn 100 feet of the
extertor property boundaries of the proposed day care home." and Page 2, Sectton g)
to read 'The play yard of the home must be enclosed by a mintmum s?x-foot htgh fence
setback from the requtred front yard." Vote: 4-0.
PUBLZC HEARZNGS (continued)
5. Use Permtt No. 87-12
Applicant:
Location:
Zontng:
Request:
Resolution No. 2410:
Bonnte Engleberg_of Saba's Market
13841Tusttn East Ortve
Tusttn, Ca. 92680
14161 Newport Avenue, Suttes C and D
C-l; Retatl Commercial
Authorization for an off-site beer and wtne 11cense
con]unction wtth a 890 square foot convenience market use.
tn
A Resolution of the Planntng Coretsston of the Ctty of Tusttn,
authorizing off-stte beer and wtne sales tn con~unctton wtth a
8go square foot convenience market use at 14161 Newport Avenue,
Untt C and O.
Presentation: Laura Cay Ptckup, Associate Planner
Commissioner Le ~eune moved, #etl seconded to approve Use Permit No. 87-12 by the
adoptlon of Resolution NO. 2410. Vote 4-0.
The Comdsslon recessed at 7:55 p.m.
The CoumdssJon reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
Location:
Zone Change 87-1, 87-2 and General Plan Amendment 87-1
Recommendation:
Properties located on the west slde of Newport Avenue between
the I-$ Freeway and Mttche11 Avenue and on the east stde of
Newport Avenue between Main and San Juan Streets.
0trect staff to advertise a publlc heartng for Zone Change 87-1,
87-2 and General Plan Amendment 87-1.
Presentation: Laura Cay Ptckup, Associate Planner
Planntng Commission Actton Agenda
3une 29, 1987
~age three
Colmlsstoner Puckett moved, Pontlous seconded to dtrect staff to advertise a pub]tc
he~rtng for Zone Change 87-1, 87-2 and General Plan Amondient 87-1. Vote 4-0.
NL:N BUSZN[S$
STN~ CONCERNS
7. Report on Ctty Counctl Acttons ?aken at June 15, 1987 and June 22, 1987
meettn~s
Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Otrector of Community Development
8. Re-organization of Plannln9 Commission
C{)ltqZS$I0# CO#CEE#S:
ComHsstoner Le Jeune asked the status on St§n Code and Parklng 0rdlnence neetlngs.
Comlsstoner ¥etl asked that staff agendtze the tssue of sl§# guidelines at Tustt,
Plaza tn order to t,¢lude orange and asked the status o, the neettng with Clty
Counctl for ~olnt morkshop. She requested an tefor~l agenda for that neettng.
AD~)URBIE#T:
At 9:10 p.m. the meettng was adjourned to the next regular scheduled meettng on July
~3, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
/per
AGENDA
TUSTIN PLANNING COHMI$$ION
REGULAR NEE'TING
· IUNE 22, 1987
-_ _- -_ -__-
CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., Ctty Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGZANCE/INVOCATION
ROLL CALL: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Ponttous
PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for 1rems not on the agenda)
IF YOU HISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL
OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
CONSENT C~ENDAR:
(ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE 'AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR
PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.)
Approval of Minutes of June 8, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
Final EIR 87-1 - North/South Road Project
Adopt Resolution No. 2415: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City
of Tusttn that the Envtromental Impact Report prepared in conjunction with the
North/South Road Project is recognized as adequate and complete making findings
with respect to mitigation of significant environmental effects and
recommending to the City Council certification on Final Environmental Impact
Report 87-1
3. General Plan Consistency / North/South Road Project
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Zontn9 Ordinance Amendment 87-02 - Large Famtl¥ Day Care Homes
Recommendation:
Recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance
Amendment No. 87-02 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2408.
tesolutton No. 2408: A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin
recommending amendment of Section g223a6 of the Tusttn Municipal
Code relating to Large Family Day Care Homes
Presentation:
Jeffrey S. Davis, Senior Planner
Planntng 'Corem1 ssi on Agenda
June 22, 1987
Page two
PUBLTC HEARTNGS (continued)
5. Use Permtt No. 87-12
Appli cant:
Location:
Zontng:
Request:
Resolution No. 2410:
Bonnte Engleberg of Saba's ~arket
13841 Tusttn East Drive
Tusttn, Ca. 92680
14161 Newport Avenue, Suites C and D
C-1; Retatl CommercJal
Authorization for an off-stto beer and wtne 11cerise
conjunction with a 890 square foot convenience market use.
in
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn,
authorizing off-site beer and wine sales in conjunction with a
890 square foot convenience market use at 14161 Newport Avenue,
Unit C and D.
Presentation:
OLD BUSXNESS
Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner
6.
Location:
Zone Change 87-1, 87-2 and General Plan Amendment 87-1
Recommendation:
Properties located on the west side of Newport Avenue between
the I-$ Freeway and Mitchell Avenue and on the east side of
Newport Avenue between Main and San Juan Streets.
0trect staff to advertise a public hearing for Zone Change 87-1,
87-2 and General Plan Amendment 87-1.
Presentation:
NEll BUSINESS
Laura Cay Pickup, Associate Planner
STAFF CONCERNS
e
Report on City Council Actions Taken at June 15, 1987 Meeting
~on: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Develqpment
-*tton of Planning Commission
-cheduled meeting on July 13, 1987 at 7:30 p.m.
MZNUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COIgtISSION
REGULAR MEETING
dUNE 8, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
7:30 p.m., Ctty Counctl.,Chamber's
PLEDGE OF ALLEGXANCE/XNYOCATZON
ROLL CALL:
Puckett, Hetl, Baker, Le Jeune,
Commissioner Ponttous arrived at 7:32
ca11.
immediately after roll
PIJ~LTC CONCERNS:
(Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda)
IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL
OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE
YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
Mr. George Jeffrtes, representing Tusttn Area Sports Council asked that the
Comnflssion consider the children and their sports facility needs in any decision they
,ake. Chairman Puckett asked staff to keep in touch with .Mr. Jeffries.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
(ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED
ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE
VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR
PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED
FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.)
1. Mlnutes of May 26, 1987 Planntn9 Commission Meettn9
2. Final Tract Map 12763
Resolution No. 2409:
A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn,
recommending to the Tustln City Council appreval of Final
Tract Map No. [2763.
3. General Plan Consistency/Airport Notse Monttortn9 Station
Chairman Puckett asked that Item 2 be removed from the consent calendar and testimony
be allowed on this item. Commissioner Well moved, Baker seconded to approve the
tonsentcalendar. Motion carried 5-0.
r. Chris La)ton, president of Tusttn Unified School District spoke on Item 2. He
Was of the opinion that the. Conditions of Approval have not been met, that the TUSD
had not been properly notified of this Map, that the map was not in conformance with *
the tentative tract and that the City did not allow the DistriCt the twenty days to
respond. He noted that they do intend to respond within the twenty day period.
Commissioner Wetl moved, Ponttous seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2402 recommending
to City Council approval of Final Tract Map [2763. Motion carried 5-0.
Planntng Comrlsston Htnutes
June 8, 1987
Page t~o
PUBLTC HEARINGS:
4. Vartance Ho. 87-2
Applicant:
Location:
Shoshafla's.
17480 [. Seventeenth Street
Presentation:
Laura Cay Plckup, Associate Planner
Request:
Request for a varlance to permtt a tenant Identification stgn of
Zg square feet with less than the requtred setback.
Reso]utton No. 2407D:
A resolution of the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tusttn,
denytng authorization for a Yartance of the setback
requirements to allo~ tenant Identification on a free standtng
monument stgn at 17480 £. Seventeenth Street, Tusttn
Resolution No. 2407A:
A resolution of the Planntng Con~lsston of the Ctty of Tusttn,
authorizing a Yarlance of the setback requirements and the
commrctal dtstrtct stgn requirements to allow tenant
Identification on a free standtng monument stgn at 17480 £;
17tb Street, Tusttn.
Recommended actton: Pleasure of the¢onantsston.
Commission asked staff to clartfy stgn tssues regarding colors, lighting, banners,
dtstance from other signs and setbacks.
The publlc heartng was opened at 7:58 p.m.
The public hearing was closed at 7:59 p.m.
Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker seconded to approve Variance No. 87-2 by the adoption
of Resolution No. 2407A. Hotlon carried 5-0.
5. Draft Envtronmontal Zmpact Report 87-1 - North/South Road Pro~ec~
Presentation: Jeffrey Davls, Sentor Planner
Rob Balen, LSA, gave a brief summary of the Draft EZR. He offered to answer any
questions and noted that the ftnal EZR wou!d be available on June 22, 1987.'
The publtc hearing was opened at 8:04 p.m.
~, 9371 Villa Hoods Dr, Vtlla Park, representing Sea and Sage Audobon
~oclety, noted that the Society would support the most easterly alternative to the
North/South Road tn order to preserve the Peter's Canyon Reservoir Regtonal Park.
Planntng Commtsston Mtnutes
dune 8, 1987
Page three
u ' 10031 Deer Haven, CoNan Hetghts,~noted that the Draft £IR stated that
ld be able to be seen from six (6) homes in the area. She asked that the
location of these homes be disclosed.
~e publlc heartng was closed at 8:09 'p.m.
Staff was dtrected to prepare responses to these tssues for the June 22, 1987
Planntng Comnrisston meeting.
Commissioner Wet1 clarified wtth Mr. Balen that there wtll be sufficient land set
astde, for the posstble expansion of the full length of the road, to be slx (6)
lanes.
Commission also asked the status of the ptpeltne 'In regard to the Road. Mr. Balen
responded that the Road wtll dtsplace the water ptpellne and they must be rerouted
under the road.
0U) BUSIES:
6. Summer~ of Results of Residential Stun Code Survey
Presentation:
Laura Cay Ptckup, Associate Planner
Comrlsstoner Le Jeune noted that he was glad to see the survey, that tt would help
gtve the Ctty a sound program to uttltze. The Commission noted to recetve and ftle
the report on the Residential Stgn Code Survey.
NE~ BUSZNESS:
7. -Large Famtly Day Care Homes
Presentetton:
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Resolution Ho. 2408:
A Resolution of the Planntng Conlrisston of the Ctty of Tusttn
recommending amendment of Sectton 9223a6 of the Tusttn
Municipal Code relattng .to Large Famtly Day Care Homes.
The Commission clarified wlth staff the following: nuisance procedures; exterior
boundaries and distances; mektng the Resolution extremely, clear regard!ng the abtltty
to hold a publlc heartng; the avatlabllty for adequate drop off sttes; and whether
the department w111 send publlc hearlng notlces to the already extsttng licensees.
Staff also clarified that thts wtll not apply to already extsttng day care
facilities.
Comflssloner We41 meved~ Baker seconded to dtrect staff to advertise a publlc heartng
as soon as possible and upon the coepletlon of any necessary environmental revtew for
Zoning Ordinance Amendment Ho 87-01. Motion Carrted $-0.
STAFF'COIIC~RNS:
8. Report on Ctt~ Counc11 Actions of June 1, 1987 meettnq
Presentation: Christine Shtngleton, Otrector of Community Development
Planntng Commission Heettng
3une 8, 1987
Page four
9. Status Report on Southern 0range Counttes Plannln9 Commission Heetlngs
Presentetton: Laura Cay Ptckup, Associate Planner
·Thts report Nas recleved and ftled by unanimous tnformal consent.
10. Status Report on Smmar~ of Work Pro~ects
Presentation: Christine Shtngleten, Dlrector of Commntty Development
Thls report NaS recetved and f11ed by unanimous tnformel consent.
C(]II4ZSSZON CONCERNS:
Commissioner Ponttous asked that staff look tnto the stgns at Karl's Hercedes and
Drug £fl~ortum.
ComBdssloner Baker asked that code enforcement be stepped up regarding cars parked on
the ll00 block of [1Candno Real and questioned bellcopter notse monitoring devtces.
Commissioner Le Jeune noted that the tent at Untted Rent-all Nas not tn conformance
and asked further questions regarding the atrport notse menttortng devtce. He Nas
also concerned about trafftc blocktng the street at Intersections such as Red Htll
and Ntsson.
Commissioner Wet1 asked that the Commission meet Ntth Ctty Council for clarification
of guidelines for alcoholic beverage control and the stgn code.
Commissioner Puckett asked that the graftttt at Bro~nlng and Hlsson be removed.
At 8:45 the meettng Nas adjourned to the next regularly scbeduled Planntng Commission
meettng on June 22, 2987 at 7:30.
Charles [. Puckett
Chatrman
Penn1 Foley
~ecordtng Secretary
Planning Commission
B&TE:
SUS,]£CT:
~UNE 2Z, 1987
FIliaL EIR 87-1 - NORTh/SOUTH ROAD PROdECT
RECOI~ENDED ACT[OIS:
I. That the Commission review comments to Draft EIR 87-1 and responses
thereto;
2. That the Commission by the adoptton of Resolution No. 2415 recommend to
the City Council certification of final E[R 87-1.
BACKGROUND:
On June 8, 1987 the Planntng Commission held a publtc heartng for the purposes
of soliciting comments on draft Environmental Impact Report 87-1. Following a
presentation by staff, the publlc hearing was closed and Commission action on
the subject document deferred unttl all responses to comments could be forwarded
for review,
DISCUSSIOM
Attached with this transmittal are written responses to all formal comments
submitted by responsible agencies and interested parties. Additionally,
responses to testimony received at the Commission's regular meeting on June 8,
1987 are also included.
The action before the Commission in its capacity as an advisory body is to make
a recommendation to City Council on the adequacy of the Final EIR. As the
provisions of the Caifornta Environmental Quality Act have been followed, and
documentation verifying this process is.included herein, it is recommended that
the Commission recommend to City Council that £IR 87-1 be certified as final.
Staff recommendation is based upon the summary of findings listed belovr'.
That all proper notice and public review periods have been met.
That review of environmental issues required to be considered under CEQA
have been adequately addressed and responses to comments have been
prepared.
That adverse impacts associated with.the proposed project have either been
mitigated to a level of insignificance or are addressed via a statement of
overriding considerations included in Resolution No. 2415.
~ ..... community Development Department
Planning Comnflsston Report
North/South Road
dune 22, 1987
Page two
Upon compilation of the Draft EIR, comments and responses thereto, minutes'of
the June 8, 1987 and June 22, 1987 Planning Commission hearings and a resolution
of the Commission forwarding recommendaHons to the Ctty Counctl EIR 87-1 wtll
be in its final form. The Oraft EZR wtll be modified to reflect any changes
brought about from response to comments.
.lSD:per
Attachments:
Response to Comments Package
Resolution No. 2415
Christine Shtngleton//
Otrector of Communtt~T Development
Corn rnuni~¥ Dev¢loPrnen~ DeparYrnen~
RESPONSE TO CO~ENTS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NORTH-SOUTH ROAD
PREPARED FOR
City of Tustin
300 Centennial I/ay
Tustin, California ggG80
PREPARED BY
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500
IRVINE, CA 9Z714
dune, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES
PAGE
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
A. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TP~ANSPORTATION ........................ 3
B. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD-
SANTA ANA REGION ............................................... g
C. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION .......................... 12
D. COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY ............... 19
E. CITY OF IRVINE .................................................
F. CITY OF OILANGE ................................................. 39
G. THE IRVINE COMPANY ............................................. 47
H. PUBLIC HEARING- CITY OF TUSTIN
PLANNING COMMISSION ............................................ 54
APPENDIX A - Memorandum of Understanding And Attached Map
APPENDIX B - Errata Sheet
APPENDIX C - Aerial Photograph and map showing Agricultural Headquarters,
City of Tustin Boundary, project location, and "outbuildings".
INCORpORATION INTO FINAL EIR - CEOA INTENT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088, the following
Response to Comments section has been prepared for the North-South Road Draft
Environmental Impact Report. The Draft EIR (DEIR) was distributed for public
review and comment on March 27, 1987. The public review period ended on April
Z7, 1987. This document contains Responses to Comments received from persons
and agencies who have reviewed the Draft EIR. The comments within each
letter have been numbered for reference. Responses to each comment are ref;
erenced to the numbered comments.
Corrections to the EIR have been incorporated in the Final EIR {FEIR),
and are shown on an errata sheet in the FEIR. The errata sheet has also been
included as Appendix B in these responses. To assist the reader of the FEIR,
the Draft has been cross-referenced to the Response to Comments by marginal
citations. A copy of the FEIR will be on file at the Tustin City Hall after
certification.
PROJECT SCOPE
The comments and the responses to these comments included in this docu-
ment become part of the environmental documentation for the proposed project.
The comments and responses help to clarify the OEIR and provide the public
and decision makers a complete documentation of the possible environmental
effect of the project. The comments, representing concerns of individuals or
agencies, have been responded to in a manner which addresses each concern
within the scope of the project and consistent with CEQA Guidelines. The
comments and the responses are herewith incorporated with the DEIR to form
the Final EIR.
Many of the comments received relate to project phasing and prcject con-
nections with other related regional roadways. Many of these regibnal road-
ways are in the initial planning stages, and final alignments have not been
chosen. The Eastern Transportation Corridor, the Foothill Corridor, the
realignment of Chapman Avenue. and Santiago Canyon Road, and the northerly
extension of the North-South Road are the major regional roadways related to
the project that are still in the early phases of alignment study.
Project phasing becomes an important issue within the 'context of the
regional circulation system. Within this context, the North-South Road is
one of the initial road projects in this region and is, therefore, proceeding
ahead of the other projects that do not have final alignments. In addi-
tion, these other projects have not yet been reviewed for environmental ef-
fects, some of which are alluded to in the comments received.
Because the North-South Road is proceeding ahead of these other pro-
jects, many of the environmental and circulation issues brought up in the
comments are more appropriately answered in studies for these subsequent
projects. It is the intent of the North-South Road EIR to address the en-
vironmental effects of the project within the project area boundaries, and to
discuss the relationships to other regional roadways to the extent possible
based on current available plans. A full and detai)ed discussion of the'en-
vironmenta] effects associated with other planned regional roadways and road-
way connections, would not be' reasonable due to the uncertainty of future
alignments of the regional circulation network now in various stages of
planning. However, the relationship of the North-South Road project to other
regional road projects and potential road connections and potential environ-
mental effects are clarified in the following responses to comments to the
extent possible within the scope of this EIR, based on current plans.
A,, CALTFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'~.ate of California
,vlemorandum
To :
W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief
Environmental Planning Branch
Attn: Deborah Harmon
Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Date : April 29, 1987
File :
From :
R. G. GOODELL
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Subject:
North South Rd.
Draft Env. Impact Report
We have reviewed the above document prepared for the City of
Tustin by LSA and have the following comments.
According to your document. "The proposed North-South Road
does not preclude or dictate the locations of the ETC."
However, if the most westerly alternative or segments o~ the
various westerly alternatives of the ETC were selected there
seems to be insufficient horizontal clearance or
questionable clearances for locating the ET~at the
following sites: ~.-~_~.!~'oi,~ ~.,. ~-~,J~ ~1/~/,~/~,~.
1) Near Irvine Blvd. - between the North-South Road and the
Irvine Ranch Agricultural Headquarters
2) At I-5, proximity of the North-South Road and I-5
Freeway Interchange and the ETC and I-5 Interchange
3) South of Santiago Canyon Rd.
These would depend on ultimate number of lanes for the ETC
and difference in elevation between the ETC and North-South
Page 8, paragraph 1
Page 8, last paragraph
Figure 11
Page 45, last paragraph
Page 55, paragraph 1
Road.
Reference:
Page 8, paragraph 1
If the ETC were to cross over to the westerly side of the
North-South Road major costs would be incurred for
additional structures that would be required.
Page 45, past paragraph
"The proposed North-South Road does not preclude the most
westerly ETC alternative, since this alignment could be
IA-;
W. B. BALLANTINE, Chief
-2-
April 29, 1987
superimposed over the North-South alignment." This state-
ment is contrary to your statement on page 55, paragraph 1
concernin~ the MOU re~uirin~ separate interchanoes at I-5 ~_~
Freeway. Also, the document traffic volume projections for
Dost-2010 indicate a need for both the North-South Road and
the ETC.
Page 57, DaraqraDh 1. T'~ere seems to be something missino
between the end of line 3 and the beoinning of line 4.
Pane 57 - Accordin~ to the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual,
Special ReQort 209, by the TranSportation ~esearch Board the
V/C ratios are hiqh for levels of service that are
indicated.
Page 58, Table A
(1) Some of the volumes are not the same as Figure 12, yet
both are shown as "exist'in~".
(2) The V/C ratios seemed to be based on ADT. V/C ratios
based on peak hours have more significance.
(3) "Capacity" should also be based on peak hours
o Figure 17 (Post-2010) - Name of Street is missing.
o Figure 18 - Indicate street that is represented by this
cross - section
Appendix D, Figure 5, Page 10
Rte. 5 - This segment of freeway has been approved for
widenin~ to an 8-lane facility with 2 auxiliary lanes and 2
HOV lanes. The estimated date of completion is 1991.
IA-
R. G. GOODELL
Senior Transportation Planner
Transportation Planning Branch
RESPONSE TO COI~ENTS
RECEIVED FRO~
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RESPONSE TO COt4MENT A-1
The possible future alignment of the ETC near Irvine Boulevard may have
engineering or physical constraints resulting from the construction of the
project. Many variables may affect the validity or importance of these con-
straints, which are not known at this time and should be discussed in any en-
vironmental documentation done for the ETC.
Beyond potential physicall or engineering constraints are existing policy
constraints which p.reclude the .alignment of the ETC west of the Agricultural
Headquarters. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the cities of
Tustin and Irvine states: "The alignment of the ETC north of I-5 shall be
east of the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters..." Please see appendix A for a
copy of the MOU. To reiterate, the location of the North-South Road does not
preclude alignment of the ETC in the Irvine Boulevard area - however, exist-
ing policy, outside the scope of this project, will have an effect on align-
ment options.
The proximity of the North-South Road at I-5 to potential alignments of
the ETC at I-5 is noted. Preliminary engineering studies indicate that two
interchanges may be acceptable. It is anticipated that placement of the
North-South Road at its planned intersection with I-5 does not preclude an
interchange for the ETC. Therefore, no environmental effects are antici-
pated.
The alignment south of Santiago Road has had a preliminary engineering
study which determined that the roadway will not preclude alternative ETC
alignments currently being considered by the County.
RESPONSE TO CO)91ENT A-2
Comment noted. Alignment constraints for possible future projects, such
as the ETC, would have to take cost factors into account if engineering
and/or construction solutions are not available. There are no environmental
effects associated with these design alternatives.
RESPONSE TO COflMENT A-3
The comment refers to apparent inconsistencies in statements regarding
ETC alignment constraints. The comment regarding the ETC alignment over the
proposed North-South R°ad alignment refers to physical engineering alterna-
tives. The comment precluding this alignment alternative on page 55 refers
to the policy statement included in the MOU. The former statement which
states that the alignments may be superimposed is from an engineering per-
spective, and the latter statement is from a policy perspective.
A copy of the MOU is attached for clarification. 'The MOU clearly states
that, "The alignment of the Eastern Transportation Corridor north of 1-5
shal) be east of the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters ....
RESPONSE TO CO~'~4ENT A:4
Appropriate revisions to the EIR have been made (page 58), and are
indicated on the Errata Sheet, {Appendix B).
RESPONSE TO COl~l~Nl' A-5
The Level of Service (LOS) criteria presented in the EIR is the criteria
commonly accepted and utilized by the County of Orange for arterials within
the jurisdiction. The source for the LOS indicated is the American Associa-
tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials' A Policy ox Geometric
Desiqn of Highways and Streets (1984) and the Urban and Suburban Arterials
sections of Chapter 10 of the Hiqhway Capacity Manual (Transportation Re-
search Board, 1965).
RESPONSE TO COftlENT A-6
Appropriate revisions have been made to Table A (page 5g) and Figure 12
(page 55), and are indicated on the Errata Sheet, {Appendix B}. ~
RESPONSE TO COMMENT A-7
Peak hour data was used in the ICU analysis and is presented in Table B
(page 61).. This analysis is considered indicative of peak period volumes.
RESPONSE TO COM)IENT A-8
Table A is a presentation of existing average daily traffic (ADT) condi-
tions for links in the vicinity of the North-South Road. Therefore, capacity
indicated is based on ADT volumes, and this method is commonly utilized in
Orange County.
RESPONSE TO COf~IENT A-9
Figure 17 has been corrected in the Final EIR and is indicated on the
Errata Sheet, (Appendix B).
RESPONSE TO CO('~qENT A-lO
Figure 18 represents a typical cross section of the North-South Road for
the portion from Irvine Boulevard to Tustin Ranch Road and for the portion
fromTustin Ranch Road to realigned Santiago Canyon Road.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT A-]I
Comment noted.
B, CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD -
SANTA ANA REGION
em° andum
To
From :
Subject:
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
The Resources Agency
Nancy A. Olson
Sanitary Engineering Technician
California Regional Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region
eeos INDIANA AVENUE. SUITE ZOO. RIVE"SIDE. CA ez$oe (ATSS) 632-4130
NORTH-SOUTH ROAD, SCtI #86102219
Date: April 17, 1987
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this
project.
We wish to reiterate the comment made in our response (August 29, 1986)
to the Notice of Preparation for this project: an erosion/siltation con-
trol plan for all phases of construction should be submitted for approval
by this office prior to initiation of construction activities.
In addition, if dewatering is necessary and the discharge of wastewater
to receiving waters is proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge require-
ments) must be obtained from this office prior to initiating the discharge.
The project proponent should be advised that processing an NPDES permit
may take as long as 180 days. Any questions pertaining to the permit
should be addressed to Hisam Baqai of our RegulEtions Section.
B-1
B-2
Enclosure: State Clearinghouse Form
NAO:eyp
RESPONSE l~O COmmENTS
RECEIVED FRON
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER OUALI~ CONllU)L BOARD - SANTA AJ~A REGION
RESPONSE TO COI~4ENT' B-1
Mitigation Measure #6 has been revised to provide review of erosion/sil-
tation measures by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and is hereby
incorporated into the Final EIR. The measure reads as follows:
e
Erosion control measures will be developed and incorporated into
final grading plans by the project proponent to minimize potential
increases in erosion and sediment transport during construction.
An erosion/siltation control plan shall then be submitted by the
project proponent for' approval by the appropriate responsible
agencies, including the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Santa Aha Region, prior to 'initiation of construction acti-
vities.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT B-~
Mitigation Measure #6(a) has been added in response to this concern and
is hereby incorporated into the FEIR. The measure reads as follows:
6(a).
If dewatering is necessary and discharge of wastewater is
proposed, an NPDES permit (waste discharge requirements) shall
be obtained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board
prior to any dewatering activity.
11
C. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
12
moranclum
TH ESOUI~__~ A~NCY OF ~u. Ir.O~NIA
Dr. Gordon F. Snow
Assistant Secretary for Resources
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680 '
Departmentof~nservatlon~Office ~th®Dkect~
APR 2 8.1g 7
Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR)
for North-South Road
SCH# 86102219
The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring
farmland conversion on a statewide basis. The Department also
administers the California Land Conservation (Williamson) Act.
We have reviewed the City of Tustin's DEIR for the project
referenced above, and have noted that the proposal may involve
the conversion of valuable farmland. The Department, therefore,
offers the following comments.
The proposal would involve building a North-South Road that is
4.9 miles in length. The project will require using land that is
currently under Williamson Act contract.
The Department realizes that the following information may have
been addressed in the Tustin General Plan and the East Tustin
General Plan. We suggest that such information be addressed in
specific detail in this document.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) should provide
information on the number of acres of agricultural land to be C-2
developed, the potential agricultural value of the site, the
· impacts of the conversion of that land and the possible
mitigation actions which would reduce the significant residual
impact on prime agricultural land. We recommend the FEIR contain
the following information to ensure the adequate assessment of
the project's impacts in these areas.
o The agricultural character of the area covered by the
project and of nearby, or surrounding lands which may be
affected by the project.
- Identify agricultural preserves and number of acres of
land, type of land, (i.e. prime/non-prime) and
location. . .
- Types and relative yields of crops grown.
- Agricultural potent, iai, based on Important Farmland
Series Map de. signatlons, as prep?red by the Department
of Conservation (a/~-~!~revlew showed nearly all
land in .the' projejKt<~~currently mapped as
prime lands).
- The i.mpact u~ ~rent ~ future agricultural
Dr. Snow
Page Two
The impacts of any required cancellations of Williamson Act
contract(s) affecting the property, as well as any of the
following data.
The location of Williamson Act contracts on land within
and adjacent t~ the project area.
A discussion of the effects that cancellation of
Williamson Act contracts would have on nearby
properties also under contract.
Farmland Conversion Impacts
The type and amount of farmland conversion, if any,
that would result from implementation of the plan,
including potential crop yields that would be lost.
The proportion of the County's total farm/and that this
conversion would represent.
The proportion of the County's total acreage of those
crops currently grown at the proposed sites that this
plan would represent.
The growth inducing impact of the plan on other
farmland in this area of Orange. County.
The cumulative impact of the plan on other farmland in
and around the project area and the City of Tustin.
Mitigation measures and alternatives that would lessen the
farmland conversion impact of this project. Some
possibilities are:
Con~ersion of non-farmland to new farmland of
equivalent quality and quantity elsewhere in the area.
Minimizing agricultural conversion impacts on higher
quality soils by directing conversion onto lower
quality soils.
Protection of other, existing farmland through the use
of Williamson Act contracts.
Establishment of greenbelt areas.
Use of setbacks, buffers, and right-to-farm ordinances
to offset nuisance impacts of urban uses on n~ighboring
agricultural operations, and vice-versa.
A no-project alternative.
Dr. Snow and Mr. Ledendecker
Page Three
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the
DEIR. We hope that the farmland conversion impact and the
Williamson Act contract issues are given adequate consideration
in the FEIR. If I can be of further assistance, please feel free
to'call me at (916) 322-5873.
cc:
Dennis J. O'Bryant
Environmental Program Coordinator
Stephen Oliva, Chief
Office of Land Conservation
RESPONSE TO CO~ENTS
RECEIVED FROM
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
RESPONSE TO COMM[NT C-!
No response required. The comment is correct.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT C-2
As prOvided for in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 1510 (Incorporation
by Reference), responses to comments received from the Department of Conser-
vation will cite the East Tustin Specific Plan Final 'Environmental Impact
Report {SCH #85052217) discussion of agricultural resources. Incorporation
by reference is appropriate in this case because the proposed North-South
Road is included in the East Tustin Specific Plan Land Use Plan. No addi-
tional impacts beyond what was described.in the document are anticipated. As
stated in the CEQA Guidelines, "the incorporated language shall be considered
to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR." The information
requested is briefly summarized in response to comment C-3. Additional
information is provided in the following responses where necessary to supple-
ment the discussion and to provide project-specific data.
RESPONSE TO COI~,IENT C-3
Construction of the North-South Road will convert approximately 69 acres
of agricultural land uses designated as prime farmlands, farmland of state-
wide importance and unique farmland. As described in the Earth Resources
section of the EIR, soils in the southern portion of the project area {East
Tustin Specific Plan Area) are mostly excellent and are very well suited to
general intensive farming.
The project site includes 0.9~ of the County's total agricultural acre-
age. The project site represents approximately 14% of the agricultural
acreage of the East Tustin Specific Plan which was approved in March of 1986.
The project agricultural acreage is considered an insignificant percentage of
the total County acreage. In adopting the East Tustin Specific Plan, which
contains the portion of the project site in agricultural production, the City
of Tustin accepted the Plan's provisions to minimize impacts to agricultural
production. The Specific Plan allows for the continued operation of agricul-
tural acti.vities within areas not subject to immediate development. The
North-South Road represents an initial phase in the implementation of the
East Tustin Specific Plan. {Also, please see response to comment C-5).
16
The farmlands of the project site are currently orchard crops. The
estimated gross dollar yield of orchards in East Tustin is approximately
$651,967. Depending on the specific type of orchard crop grown on the pro-
ject site, 14~ of the total East Tustin acreage could yield a gross dollar
estimate of $gl,275 of agricultural produce per year (lg82 values) on the
project site.
As described in the Land Use section of this EIR and in the East Tustin
Specific Plan EIR, the area in agricultural production meets the criteria for
the "Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use" category. This category is
applicable due to the project's consistency with the adopted TustinGeneral
Plan, the East Tustin Specific Plan and the Tustin Zoning Code. The project
area is currently under Williamson Act contracts. An area including the
project site has been filed for Non-Renewal or termination of agricultural
preserve contract. Although construction of the North-South Road is sched-
uled to begin prior to this contract termination, a public infrastructure
improvement such as this project is an allowable and compatible land use
under the Williamson Act.
The majority of agricultural land in the project site is designated
prime farmland. In the central area of the alignment, a small portion of the
land is designated unique farmland and a smaller portion is designated farm-
land of statewide importance. As previously discussed, conversion of the
farmland of the East Tustin Specific Plan area to urban land use was acknow-
ledged and determined to be an unavoidable adverse impact in that EIR. The
Plan minimizes impacts by providing for the gradual phasing out of agricul-
tural activities as development occurs. That EIR also determined that seve-
ral factors, such as the economic lifespan of existing crops and orchards,
market demand conditions and operation costs, currently limit the agricul-
tural potential of the site.
The transition from agricultural uses to urban uses has been anticipated
in applicable land use plans. The adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan
has further specified the future urbanization of this area. The Nbrth-South
Road is in accordance with these plans. The proposed alignment will termin-
ate current agricultural production on the project site, and is anticipated
to preclude future agricultural activities on the site.
Due to the project's insignificant percentage of the County total agri-
cultural acreage (0.9%), consistency with the approved East Tustin Specific
Plan, consistency with City of Tustin planning documents and expected term-
ination of agricultural preserve contracts prior to project completion,
17
the potential impact of the project on valuable farmland has been determined
to be insignificant.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT ¢-4
As stated in the EIR, the North-South Road alignment is located within
an agricultural preserve contract area in the City of Tustin and the County
of Orange. The contrac.t currently in effect will expire on January 1, 1988,
having been noticed for Non-Renewal. Notice of Non-Renewal was filed for the
entire East Tustin Specific Plan area.
The North-South Road is a public purpose project consistent with per-
mitted uses within an agricultural preserve. The expiration of the William-
son Act contract is independent of the North-South Road project.
RESPONSE TO COI~ENT C-5
As previously stated, construction of the North-South Road will convert
approximately 69 acres of orchards. The estimated yield of farmlands to be
converted is approximately $91,275 based on calculations of the East Tustin
Specific Plan area.
The farmlands in the vicinity of the North-South Road are included in
various jurisdiction's land use plans as described in the Land Use section of
the EIR. The North-South Road can be considered to be removing a constraint
to growth by allowing approved development, such as the East Tustin and Upper
Peters Canyon Specific Plans. Conversion of farmland to urban uses has been
discussed in the EIRs done for these planning actions. No significant cum-
ulative impacts to farmland have been identified for the North-South Road.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT C-6
Comment noted. These measures are incorporated into the FEIR from the
required mitigation measures included in the East Tustin Specific Plan FEIR.
These measures include establishment of greenbelts, and use of setbacks,
buffers and right-of-way and have been incorporated into the Specific Plan
performance standards. Please see the Specific Plan FEIR which has been
included, by reference, in the subject FEIR.
18
D. COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGE)lENT AGENCY
19
N'I-~' OF
GE
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
PLANNING
April 28, 1987
Mr. Jeffrey Davis
City of Tustin
Co,~,,,,untty Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
ERNIE SCHNEIDER
DIRECTOR, EMA
ROBERT G. FISHER
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
LOCATION:
12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
RO. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA, CA 92702-~48
MAILING ADDRESS:
RO. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA, CA 92702~1048
TELEPHONF~
(714) 834.4643
SUBJECT: North-South Road Draft EIR
Dear Mr. Davis:
The County of Orange Environmental ~anagement Agency has reviewed the above
referenced document which addresses the environmental impacts of the proposed
construction of a new arterial highway extending northerly from Irvine Boulevard
to Chapman Avenue near the Irvine Regional Park entrance.
We have the following co---ents for your consideration:
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
Construction of the North/South Road would cause one alignment for the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (ETC) to shift to the east. This will increase the
impact of the ETC on the Irvine Agriculture Headquarters. This increase in
impact could, in effect, cause gTC alignment link Numbe?s 6 and 6a to become
unacceptable alternatives. This could negatively impact the Route Location
. Study/Environmental Impact Statement process as well as future decisions on
the ETC alignments. Our concern on this issue has been stated and restated
since September 12, 1986.
In response to this concern, addition of the following mitigation measure
in the Final EIR is recommended:
"In the event that either link 6 or 6a is selected as the preferred ETC route
alignment through the Tustin Plain segment, the City of Tustin will enter
into an agreement with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency
.to participate ia the relocation of the North-South Road in a manner meeting
the approval of FHWA/CalTrans or its designee."
This additional mitigation measure will ensure that the North-South Road will
not adversely impact the ETC planning process, should either link 6' or 6a
be selected.
Another concern is focused on providing a safe and adequate access to Irvine
Regional Park, which is the most heavily used park in Orange County. Before
any approval can be given to the proposed realignment plans, we need to fully
D-1
Mr. Jeffrey Davis
Page 2
understand how the interim and permanent access to the park will be provided
for. We request that alternative design solutions be explored at the Park
entrance. The alternative treatments should address interim as well as
permanent concepts. The County of Orange Traffic Engineering Division
recommends that the park entrance road join the. North-South Road 1,000 feet
north of the proposed Santiago Canyon Road/North-South Road intersection.
If, due to topography or other constraints, 1,000 feet cannot be provided,
a 800 foot m/n/mum would be acceptable. Alternative concepts for the extension
fo the North/South Road across the Villa Park Dam Tailwater Basin need to
be developed.
D-1
The extension of the North/South Road and the park access road could possibly
intersect northerly of a potential extension of Santiago Canyon Road, which
is being considered by the City of Orange. Alternatives for the Park access,
the' extension of Santiago Canyon Road, and the extension of the North/South
Road Should be evaluated prior to an approval of the Santiago Canyon Road
Realignment.
A:R
Pages 90 and 91, Monitored Air Quality: The EIR should include a table to
'indicate ambient air quality trends monitored at the E1 Toro Station. The
table should reflect at least the last three years of measured data (1983,
1984 and 1985) and state and federal air quality standards.
Pages 91 and 92, Short Term Construction Related Impacts= A reference should
be cited for the emission factors used in estimating construction related
vehicular emissions.
Page 92, Projected Emissions= Total project-related emissions should be [
compared with the appropriate South Coast Air Quality Hanagement District
Source Receptor Area. While the project's emissions may be insignificant D-5
from a regional perspective, they could be significant at the local level.
Page 93, Table H and Appendix F~ All assumptions used to develop the projected [ 5--6
emissions should be referenced and shown with sample calculations.
FLOOD CONTROL
In the discussion of Drainage and Flood Control on page 19, the text states
that the 100-year discharge at the point where North-South Road crosses Peters
Canyon Wash is 3200 cfs. No justification for this figure was provided in
the EIR. The origin of this discharge needs to be discussed in the EIR. Also,
the text suggests that a triple reinforced concrete box culvert be provided
to accommodate the ~stimated 100-year discharge of 3200 cfs at Peters Canyon
Wash and the North/South Road unless a retention basin can be provided. Some
justification for this suggestion needs to be included as a part of the EIR.
Also, the applicant is advised that the County of Orange has adopted a new
Hydrology Manual, and that the new manual should be used to design the facility
where the North/South Road crosses Peters Canyon Wash.
D-7
Mr. Jeffrey Davis
Page 3
The EIR should discuss in more detail the drainage improvement program now
being developed in conjunction with the East Tustin Specific Plan. This should'
especially be done if the retention basin alternative is going to be used
in the design of the culvert beneath the North/South Road at Peters Canyon
Wash.
D-8
PARKS AND RECREATION
The proposed project may set the location for the reali~nment of Santiago
Canyon Road. A reali~nment of Santiago Canyon Road between Irvine Regional
Park and the ridgeline southerly of the park could create significant viewshed,
noise and biological impacts as'well as operational conflicts to Irvine Regional'
Park. Because the proposed project is integrally linked with this realignment,
these impacts must be addressed.
0-9
Implementation of the North/South Road will create impacts to access at the
main entrance to Irvine Regional Park. This needs to be addressed in the
EIR. 'On holidays and weekends stacking may occur from the park entrance up
to and even beyond the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Santiago Canyon
Road. This situation could be substantially aggravated by removal of the
existing Chapman Avenue approach to the park, resulting in significant impacts
to both traffic circulation, recreation facilities and public safety. The
following mitigation measure is reco.,.,ended~
"Design and construction of the North-South Road shall include a
permanent access to the main entrance of Irvine Regional Park in
a manner meeting the approval of the Director - EMA/Parks and
Recreation."
The EIR should analyze what effect the planned elevation of the nOrtherly
terminus of the North/South Road will have on the elevation of its ultimate
extension, which crosses through the Villa Park Dam Basin and Irvine Regional
Park. It should be discussed whether or not the northerly terminus will require D-J'
a bridge condition, or fill within the Villa Park Dam Basin. The effect of
the future extension on aesthetics, recreational utility of the park, and
on the ability of the basin to accommodate flood waters, should be discussed
in the EIR.
The construction of berms, as described on page 105 to mitigate viewshed impacts
to residences in the Cowan Heights area, should be employed to block views[ D-~
of the proposed project from Peters Canyon Regional Park as well.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft EIR. Should you have
any questions, please contact Chris Miller at (714) 834-6932.
Very truly yours,
Michael M. Ruane, Manager
EMA/Environmental & Special Projects Division
CM:pa (051)
NTY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FILE
ERNIE SCHNEIDER
DIRECTOR, EMA
12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
MAILING ADDRESS:
RO. BOX 4048
SANTA ANA, CA 92702',4048
TELEPHONE:
(714) ~q4-2306
Bob Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
· ustin, CA 92680
April 28, 1987
Dear Bob:
Recent discussions related to the centerline alignment plans for the Rorth-
South Arterial and the reali~ment plans for Santiago Canyon Road have raised
several Concerns for protection of the ingress/egress to Irvine Regional
Park. For example, the North-South Arterial (Jamboree) plans by Boyle Engi-
neering dated December 3, 1986 show temporary access, both in the near and
far term, to Irvtne Regional Park. This temporary access is different from
the one sho~ra on the plans by Fusco, et.al., dated February 27, 1987.
Our concerns are focused on providing a safe and adequate access to Irvine
Regional Park, which is .the most heavily used park in Orange County. Before
any approval can be given to the proposed realignment plans, we need to fully
understand how the interim and permanent access to the park is provided for.
We request that alternative design solutions be explored at the Park entrance.
The alternative treatments should address interim as well as permanent con-
cepts. Alternative concepts for the extension of the North-South Arterial
across the Villa Park Dam Tailwater Basin also need to be developed.
The extension of the North-South Arterial and the park access~ road could
possibly intersect northerly of a potential extension of Santiago Canyon.
Alternatives for the Park access, the extension of Santiago Canyon Road and
the extension of the North-South Arterial should be evaluated prior to an
approval of the Santiago Canyon Road Realignment. Finally, drainage plans
for each of the above solution/alternatives should be prepared for review.
D-13
Bob Ledendecker
Page
Please call Ralph Hudson at 834-3812 or Max Andersen at 834-6921 if you have
any questions.
Very truly yours,
Ernie Schneider, Director
HA, cs(LRF1/2/041)
CC:
Gary Johnson
Helmut Stolpp
Duane Platen
Ken R. Snith
Tim Miller
Hal Krizan
RI~$PONSE TO COPtlENTS
RECETVED FROM
COUNTY OF ORANGE ENV:[ROI~ENTAL MANAGE)tENT AGENCY
RESPONSI~ TO COMMENT D-1
The problems noted in this comment relate to Phasing and other facility
planning constraints. Please see response to comments for Department of
Transportation, comment A-1. This response explains physical engineering
alternatives and the policy constraints to an alignment west of the Agricul-
tural Headquarters. Also, please see discussions relating to regional cir-
culation planning on page 55 of the Draft EIR and the introduction to the
Response to Comments, page 1.
The design alternatives available for connection of the North-South Road
to the Irvine Regional Park have been considered in the design of the project
and allow for either maintenance of the current approach, using existing
Chapman, on a minor extension from realigned Santiago Canyon Road. The
alternative connections are dependent on the ultimate alignment of Chapman
Avenue and Santiago Canyon Road, within the jurisdiction of the City of
Orange. Also see response to County's comment C-10.
RESPONSE TO COI~,IENT D-2
Comment acknowledged. Co.#,ent is directed at conditions for realignment
of Santiago Canyon Road which is a related project currently being designed
by the City of Orange. The North-South Road does not preclude these options.
Also, please see response to comment D-lO.
RESPONSE TO COld, lENT D-3
Table I of the Air Quality Assessment contained in Appendix ~ presents
the air quality levels measured at the E1 Toro air monitoring station for the
last seven years and State and federal standards.
RESPONSE TO COl.,tENT D-4
The typical emission rates for a diesel powered grading vehicle were
obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality
Handbook.
25
RESPONSE TO COIqENT D-5
The project site is in SCAQMD's Source Receptor Area 19. The table
below provides a comparison of the emissions generated by the project with
emissions for Source Receptor Area 19 and the project percentage of area
emissions.
COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS
North-South Road
2.65
SourCe Receptor Area 19 154
Percentage of Source 1.7~
Receptor Area
* Tons per day
NA - Not Available
Source: Mestre Greve Associates
NOX SOx PART H__CC
0.21 0.04 0.06 0.25
17.g NA NA NA
1.2% NA NA NA
The emissions for the project are less than two percent of the total
emissions for the Source Receptor Area, the local area possibly affected by
the project, l The emissions from the proposed project are very small in
comparison to local emissions, and do no~ represent a significant local
impact.
RESPONSE TO CORRElfr D-6
The appendix to the Air Quality Assessment presented in Appendix F
contains calculations for each of the pollutant emissions analyzed for the
North-South Road. References used for the assessment include the SCAQMD Air
Quality Handbook, the traffic analysis for the North-South Road~ {Austin-
Foust Associates, Inc., March, 1987) and the CALINE3 computer model'.
RESPONSE TO COI~ENT O-7
The reference for the quantification of the lO0-year discharge of Peters
Canyon Channel at the North-South Road crossing is the preliminary design
report for the project prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation (1986).
Peters Canyon Wash, along with San Diego Creek, are the major tributaries of
the San Diego Creek watershed, and drain an area of approximately 150 square
miles, which includes discharge for Upper Peters Canyon Reservoir. Drainage
26
facilities required in the preliminary design of the North-South Road were
determined by Boyle Engineering Corporation. The new Hydrology Manual of the
County of Orange is currently being incorporated into the final design plans
by the Project Engineer.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT D-8
The Drainage/Flood Control Concept Plan proposed as part of the East
Tustin Specific Plan includes drainage improvements necessary for runoff
.conveyance, sediment control and flood protection to provide adequate drain-
age for future project development and to correct existing drainage problems.
The final plan is currently being developed. The preliminary concept for the
North-South Road crossing at Peters Canyon Channel is a bridge crossing. The
final design *of the channel crossing for the North-South Road will be in
compliance with agency standards and specifications of responsible agencies,
and will be compatible with drainage plans for East Tustin.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT D-9
The North-South Road has been designed to be compatible with the real-
ignment plans for Santiago Canyon Road and Chapman Avenue. The realignment
of Santiago Canyon Road extending east of the North-South Road intersection
and Irvine Regional Park is a related project but is not predetermined or
otherwise affected by the project. Because each project can stand alone and
they are not contingent upon each other, the environmental effects are not
sepprate. The visual impacts associated with .the realignment of Santiago
Canyon Road should be addressed separately.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT D-lO
The main entrance to the park is located east of the intersection of the
North-South Road with existing Chapman Avenue. Issues associated with Irvine
Regional Park access from existing Chapman Avenue should be addressQd as part
of the jurisdictional transportation planning for the realignment df Chapman
Avenue. Although the road design does accommodate the future plans for the
realignment of Chapman Avenue and would allow an interim park entrance, the
North-South Road does not predetermine the removal, of the existing Chapman
approach to the park. Therefore, no additional environmental effects on the
park or the park entrance are anticipated.
27
RESPONSE TO COt4MENT D-Il
The planned northerly extension of the North-South Road is a separate
project which is in the initial stages of alignment selection. An environ-
mental impact analysis of the extension should occur during the processing of
that project.
The design of the terminus of the project at "future" Santiago Road is
projected to be at an elevation of ±600 feet. The terminus would be ap-
proximately 200 feet south of existing Chapman Avenue. Existing Chapman
Avenue~is at an elevation of 585 feet to 5go feet where the future extension
of theNorth-South Road would cross it.
Given the alternatives that the 'extension of the Road can take within
constraints of the elevational differences described above, vertical and
horizontal curves can be accommodated which allow maximum flexibility for
future design of the extension of the project to the north. This flexibility
in the ultimate horizontal alignment and vertical alignment can be used to
avert or lessen the impacts of the future extension of the North-South Road
on the Villa Park Dam Basin area. The proposed project, designed to ter-
minate at "future" Santiago Canyon Road, does not preclude such design op-
tions for the ultimate extension of the Road, which crosses through the Villa
Park Dam Basin and Irvine Regional Park access. Precise design of the exten-
sion has not been completed, nor has an alternative been chosen for which a
thorough environmental analysis can be done.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT D-12
As determined in the viewshed analysis of the EIR, the topographic
conditions at Upper Peters Canyon Reservoir are such that the North-South
Road is not visible from the reservoir and does not require viewshed mitiga-
tion. The berms and/or other visual blocks proposed to mitigate viewshed
impacts to residential units southwest of the reservoir will effectively
block views of the North-South Road in the southern portion of Peters Canyon
Regional Park.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT D-13
The North-South Road will not predetermine provision of park access.
Although a possible related project, the realignment of Chapman Avenue and
Santiago Canyon Road will affect the park entrance. Please see response to
comments D-l, D-2, D-g, and D-lO.
28
E. CITY OF IRVINE
April 22, 1987
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Mr. Ledendecker:
SUBJECT: NORTH SOUTH ROAD DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(E;R)
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and co~ent on
the subject doct,~ent. The following details our comments:
General
Page 3 - The City of Irvine is identified as being
responsible for the consideration of the EIR and the
adoption of the mitigation measures. In the analysis of the
environmental conditions, however, the role of Irvine is not
expanded as is done for the County of Orange, City of
Tustin, and the City of Orange. The Final EIR should
explain more clearly the role of the City of Irvine in the
project.
TransDortatioD/Circulation
Page 57 - The proposed 4 lane major highway designation for
portions of the North/South Road are inconsistent ~ith the
County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH).
Additionally, the EIR should define a 4 lane primary versus
a 4 lane major highway and explain what determines 'the
variations in roadway capacity?
Page 67, Table C - The EIR shows a significant capacity
deficiency along the North/South Road (Jamboree in the
Table) north of the I-5. It shows a projected volume to
capacity (V/C) ratio of 1.64. Although this is not a part
of the project as defined in the EIR, the roadway segment is
directly adjacent to the project site. Thus, the EIR should
address the impact of the North/South Road extension on this
roadway segment and include mitigation measures.
Additionally, an ADT volume/capacity table should be
provided for the post-2010 project scenario to allow for a
basis of comparison.
E-1
E-2
E-4
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
April 22, 1987
Page.Two
In the event that only the extension of SR-133 is built as
the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC), would the
North/South Road as currently proposed be adequate to
accommodate traffic that would utilize the western leg of
the ETC? Is adequate right-of-way being reserved to allow
for the widening of the roadway if found n~cessary?
A n~er of the Eastern Transportation Corridor Phase II
alignments (A1-GP, AZ-GP, CZ-GP) include alignments for the
Foothill Transportation Corridor which would terminate at
the North/South Road. This could be the situation if no ETC
were to be built or if the ETC were not to be located
parallel to the North/South Road. If this were to happen,
how would the terminus be configured? What would be the
impacts on the North/South Road?
As determined in the March 1986 agreement between the City
of Irvine and the City of Tustin, the centerline of the
proposed North/South Road will be the future boundary
between the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. This is not
discussed in the EIR. Text should be added to the EIR which
discusses City boundary issues and access controls that are
agreeable to both cities where the centerline of the roadway
acts as the city boundary.
Cultural Resource~
The City of Irvine does not feel that the impact of the
project on the Irvine Ranch Headquarters has been adequately
addressed. The EIR indicates that alignment of the proposed
North/South Road would traverse through the property
adjacent to the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters. It
further indicates that the alignment will divide the
property eligible for inclusion in the National ReGister.
Although no structures will be directly impacted, the road
could affect the continuity of a potential future h~storic
district.
The EIR should note that the City of Irvine General Plan
Cultural Resources Element identifies the Irvine Ranch
Office/Headquarters as an historic site. It is the goal of
the Cultural Resources Element to ensure the proper
disposition of historical resources in order to minimize
adverse impacts. It is possible that proper disposition
would involve preservation of the site in a manner Similar
to that adopted for East Irvine. The Cultural Resources
Element of the Cityts' General Plan and the projects
consistency with the Element should be discussed under the
Relevant Planning Programs section of the EIR. To implement
the goals of the Cultural Resources Element the City has
Mr. Robert Ledendecker
April 22, 1987
Page Three
formed a Historical, Archaeological, and Paleotological
(HAP) Committee. The findings and recommendations of the
Draft EIR should be presented to the HAP Committee by the
city of Tustin prior to the Final EIR being certified.
Additionally, the EIR should include alternative alignments
or explore mitigation options that would be less disruptive
to the Ranch Headquarters. One possible mitigation measure
would be the relocation of the structures which are to be
separated from the Ranch Headquarters. The reasons for not
choosing alternative alignments should be justified. The
EIR also should provide a map of the buildings described in
the documentwhich illustrates the impact of the project on
the Ranch Headquarters. The extent of the possible impact
is difficult to determine without a map.
The Irvine Historical Society was not included as an
organization/persons contacted, as a reference, nor on the
Notice of Preparation distribution list. The Irvine
Historical Society is currently in the process of creating a
Blue Ribbon Committee to address the preservation of the
Ranch Headquarters. Contact with the society should be
initiated prior to the certification of the Final EIR.
We would appreciate receiving one copy of the Final EIR when it
becomes available. Should you have any questions, please
contact Jennifer White at 660-6109.
Sincerely,
~~ment
Services
JM/JW/ss
DENNIS WILBERG ~
Manager of Transportation
Services
cc: George Devine, Principal TransportationAnalyst
Paul Balbach, Senior Transportation Analyst
Steve Letterly, Principal Planner
Eve somjen, Senior Planner
Jennifer White, Senior Planner
Jay Tashir0, Principal planner
Mike Thiele, Principal Planner
Dan Jung, Assistant Planner
E-lO
E-11
E-12
RESPONSE TO COIIqENTS
RECEIVED FROM
CITY OF IRVINE
RESPONSE TO COMMENT E-1 '
Upon further review of the City of Irvine's role in reviewing the DEIR,
it has been determined by the Lead Agency that the City of Irvine is not a
Responsible Agency. The approval of discretionary actions necessary for the
construction of the project must occur by the City of Tustin and Orange and
the County of Orange. Because the road is going to be constructed within the
City ofTustin, in the near proximity to the City of Irvine's Sphere of
Influence, there are no known permits or discretionary actions required by
Irvine to commence the project. In addition, there are no known resources
being impacted that are within the City of Irvine. Therefore, formal con-
sideration of the FEIR by the City of Irvine is not required.
RESPONSE TO CO(~4ENT E-2
Special ~htghway designations have been added to the County MPAH designa-
tions to reflect the interim condition of arterials which are not completed
to their ultimate conditions. A four lane major highway classification for
the North-South Road represents the initial construction with a design for
future widening to the ultimate configuration. As noted in the traffic
analysis in the Draft EIR, Appendix D, pages 3 and 4, major and primary road
capacities are given and shown on a map. Typical cross sections for the road
are shown in Figure 1.7, page 74 of the DEIR.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT E-3
Depending on decisions arising out of the Eastern Transportation Cor-
ridor (ETC) studies, and other arterial connection studies, the regional
share of volumes on this segment attributable to the North-South ~oad could
increase or decrease. Because of this uncertainty as to the future regional
share, the right-of-way reservation for the addition of an overpass connect-
ing Old Myford Road is noted as a mitigation measure in the East Tustin
Specific Plan EIR. When the regional studies are completed and further
evaluation can be made as to the amount of regional traffic to be carried by
Jamboree {southerly extension of the North-South of Irvine Boulevard), the
actual need for that overcrossing can be assessed. In the meantime, the
capability for adding such a facility in the future is preserved and is
required mitigation in the East Tustin Specific Plan FEIR and Development
33
Agreement FEIR. Mitigation measure #4 of the Specific Plan FEIR is as fol-
lows:
North-South traffic demands indicate that additional
freeway crossings, such as Browning and Old Myford.may be
needed to supplement Red Hill, Jamboree and Myford. The
need for Old Myford will largely depend on the level of
regional capacity that will be provided by the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (ETC) and on the selected bottle-
neck solutions. To a lesser extent, it will also depend
on whether the Browning overcrossing is retained in the
City's circulation system. Hence, it is recommended as a
mitigation measure that. adequate right-of-way to be
reserved north and south of 1-5 until a final need deter-
mination can be made. At that time, a suitable fair
share funding mechanism can be devised if the facility is
needed, or the right-of-way could revert to other uses if
it is not needed.
In addition, the portion of the roadway between I-5 and Irvine Boulevard
will be built as five lanes in one phase with provision for a sixth lane to
be built, as needed, at a later date. This segment is anticipated to be
built in 1987.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT E-4
The focus of the traffic analysis has been placed on the lggl condition
in order to detail the short range conditions to determine capacity needs
prior to the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC). The ETC is currently
under study and 2010 assumptions have not been finalized. For this reason,
primary emphasis was placed on the short-range with and without project
conditions.
RESPONSE TO COHHENT E-5
Please see introduction to response to comments for a discussion of
relationships to other regional circulation studies. This also relates to
comment E-6. Please see response to comment E-6.
Right-of-way for future widening to ultimate planned capacity of the
roadway has been accommodated in the East Tustin Specific Plan and the design
of the roadway. Reservation of additional right-of-way beyond six lanes is
not justified based on the traffic analysis included in the EIR. The options
34
being studied for the ETC must determine future need for regional circulation
improvements. It is premature to discuss each of the alternatives in the
detail requested considering the other ongoing studies to address additional
regional circulation options.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT [-$
These comments relate to possible-future, partially-defined alignments,
road connections, and regional transportation corridors. These alternatives
cannot be accurately or reasonably predicted within the scope of this study.
Please refer to response E-5.
The Draft EIR was based on certain assumptions, as necessary to plan the
project and set the scope of the environmental analysis. These assumptions
include the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the East Tustin
Specific Plan. If the assumptions change later, further environmental docu-
mentation will be prepared at that time, as required by CEQA.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT E-7
Inter-jurisdictional issues relating to future access and city bound-
aries are negotiated between the appropriate agencies and agreements docu-
mented.
The centerline of the roadway is projected to be the future boundary
between the cities of Tustin and Irvine after Irvine annexes the. adjacent
'County land. Each jurisdiction would have their own local access controls,
unless modified by future agreements. This is not an appropriate arena for
such negotiations or environmental analysis. Each future access should be
analyzed on a case by case basis for potential impacts.
The Memorandum of Understanding establishing future boundary lines in-
cluded as Appendix A. This document is herewith incorporated into.the FEIR.
RESPONSE TO COHNEN"r E-8
As stated in the Cultural Resources Section of the EIR, the research
conducted by the architectural historian/historic preservation consultant
revealed that the small group of structures west of the North-South Road is
not related historically to the main group of buildings at the Agricultural
Headquarters. In addition, it has been determined that there are no direct
physical effects on the three "outbuildings" resulting from the project.
35
As related in the DEIR, the local structure within the "outbuildings"
does not appear on the 1927, 1931, 1939, or 1947 aerial photographs, and has
no historical connection with the other buildings. Based on stylistic analy-
sis, the house would appear to date from the era of World War I, and is,
therefore, a historically important structure on its own right. However, it
is apparent that the structure has been moved to the site since 1947. It has
been assessed as a "non-contributing" structure because it is not original to
the site. In addition, as shown on the aerial photo in Appendix C, the
buildings within the City of Tustin do not relate spatially or functionally
to the Agricultural Headquarters. For these reasons, the EIR concludes that
this group of buildings does not meet the National Reqister crit6ria for
designation as part of an historic district. This information is contained
in the letter/report in Appendix G of the DEIR.
Although~not a required mitigation measure of the project, the project
proponent should consider relocation of the three potentially historic build-
ings identified in the EIR as the "outbuildings" to a new location, or offer
to donate these buildings to a bonafide community based organization whose
interest it is to preserve and maintain potentially socially important or
historically important buildings. Should no community based organization be
found willing to accept said donation, proof of notification and rejection of
donation by potential recipient organizations must be forwarded to, and be
reviewed by, the Director of Community Development. The project proponent
may be permitted to demolish said buildings not less than 30 days from noti-
fication of the Director of Community Development, City of Tustin, of why
said buildings can not be relocated.
This statement, as a project betterment, is herewith included in the
FEIR.
36
RESPONSE TO CO~tENT E-9
The Irvine Ranch Headquarters is located within the County of Orange
jurisdiction and within the City of Irvine Sphere of Influence. The Irvine
General Plan Cultural Resources Element identifies the Headquarters as an
historic site. *The goal of insuring the proper disposition of historic
resources is acknowledged as a relevant planning issue, and the issue has
been addressed and impacts are required to protect the Headquarters and to
preserve the "outbuildings". The Headquarters {proper} is located in the
City of Irvine, outside the City limits of Tustin. Please see exhibit in
Appendix C. Therefore, consideration of City of Irvine General Plan consis-
tency is not appropriate.
RESPONSE TO COt~4ENT E-]O
The City of Irvine received an NOP to provide the City and its commit-
tees with an opportunity to specify in writing the scope and content of the
environmental information relevant to the Committee (CEQA, Section 21080.9).
In addition to this notification and opportunity to determine the scope of
the EIR, a public scoping meeting was convened prior to preparation of the
EIR to provide further opportunity for agency and public consultation {CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15082, 15083, and 15084). Notification of the scoping
meeting was accomplished through newspaper advertisements in Irvine, Tustin
kpd Orange local newspapers. As a result of this process, no indication of
interest or communication was received by the Lead Agency from the City of
Irvine HAP Committee to review the Draft EIR.
A Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR was submitted to the City of
Irvine Community Development Department. The City of Tustin continues to
rely on input from the City of Irvine on these matters, absent comments from
other interested parties. Subsequent to the receipt of comments, the Lead
Agency has arranged with the City of Irvine for appropriate review through
Mr. Steve Letterly of the Community Development Department. ~
RESPONSE TO COMMENT [-11
As determined in the EIR, the North-South Road project will not result
in any direct significant impacts. The mitigation required for betterment of
the project will require relocation of the buildings, which directly addres-
ses comment E-11. See response to City of Irvine comment E-8 for an explana-
tion ..of the impact assessment and mitigation. For a map of the existing
Irvine Ranch Agricultural Headquarters, please refer to aerial photo com-
posite in Appendix C. Additionally, please refer to the map attached to the
37
MOU between Irvine and Tustin, found as Appendix A to these responses to
comments.
R~SPONSE TO COI,4FIENT E-12
As stated in Response to Comment E-10, an opportunity to comment on the
scope of the EIR was provided throughout the comment process. The City of
Tustin has, in the interim, made additional contact with the City of Irvine
to ensure that all interested parties are contacted.
38
F. C~TY OF
CITY OF ORANGE
ORANGE CIVIC CENTER · 300 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE. ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666 o POST OFFICE BOX 449
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION (714) 532-0444
MS. Ashley Brunda
LSA
610 Newpor. t Center Dr., %555
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: COMM~2F~S ON NORT~-SOb/~ DRAFT EIR
Dear Ms. Brunda:
May 18, 1987
We are pleased to see the completion of Draft EIR for the North-South Road,
as both the cities of Orange and Tustin are most interested in pursuing the
construction of this facility in order to service the anticipated 'development
along the preferred alignment.
We have reviewed the Draft EIR and, following, is a s~,,ery of our cc~,L~nts:
While we are in agreement with the report's conclusion that the
North-South Rd. between Tustin Ranch Rd. and the northerly project
terminus should be built, initially, as a five lane facility (4-through
lanes plus a turn lane) within major arterial right-of-way requirements
we also have reason to believe that the traffic demand on this facility
will ultimately be dictated by influences beyond the scope of the subject
EIR. Our premis is predicated on the following factors, which should, in
our opinion, be incorporated in the final EIR document:
l(a)
As far as the City of Orange is concerned, this proposed Arterial is
intended to have two primary purposes; first, to provide a direct service
for the 230-acre Upper Peter's Canyon's development located in the
vicinity of Chapman Ave. and Newport Blvd., and secondly, it is to
alleviate traffic congestion on Chapman Ave. and Santiago Canyon Rd. by
providing alternate access into and out of the east Orange area.
The development of the 230 acres Upper Peter's Canyon will likely be
completed by 1991' and will generate up to 28,000 daily ~rips, the
majority of which are expected to use the proposed facility to and from
the major employment centers in 'the south County.
Additionally, the report also projects 8,000 daily trips being diverted
from surrounding arterials onto the North-South Road. The importance of
provinding the North-South Rd. with adequate traffic carrying capacity
can be further illustrated by if, for example, widening im.Drovements on
Newport Blvd., a parallel roadway to the proposed facility do not occur.
It is our opinion that the i~aense neighborhood opposition to the Newport
F-1
Blvd. in~provements, especially northerly of Crawford Canyon Road, will
result and the roadway may not be improved. There are certainly other
road~ facilities where political or economic pressures may preclude
improvements.
The report also indicates that the traffic ground count data, which was
used as the basis in the traffic forecast analyses, was developed in
1984-85, and that this information was the only source of its type
available at the time of the study. Recent city traffic count data has
indicated higher traffic volumes on a number of arterial segments than
had been forecasted, in the EIR for 1991. This again implies a higher
traffic demand on the North-South Rd. than has been forecasted in the
draft EIR.
It is therefore our opinion that the deviation of reco~endation for
constructing four through lanes is not based merely on any arbitrary
professional opinion but rather on sound technical justifications
formulated to adequately meet the projected traffic demand.
Consequently, we feel the study should identify these justifications as
shown on page 73 accordingly.
The report'is correct in indicating that the North-South Rd. was removed
from the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) studies, and that the
proposed facility should not preclude or dictate the location of the ETC.
However, we strongly believe that the alignment of the ETC will
significantly alter the regional travel patterns and, depending on the
ultimate selection of the ETC alignment, may dictate the need for a much
larger arterial classification than initially precieved for the
North-SouthRoad. Without an established ETC alignment, it is our intent
during both current and future planning efforts in the east Orange area,
to incorporate and apply the enhanced intersection concept on mjor
arterial crossings as an effort to best acco~,,L~date anticipated future
traffic demand and, to insure acceptable intersection service levels.
This concept is basically the widening of a respective intersection to
allow dual left-turn lanes, three through lan~s, a right turn only lane
and a far side bus stop/merg lane on each leg.
Also, with the development of the 7,500 acre East Orange General Plan
Study and subsequent site specific plans, the City will concurrently
reevaluate the adequacy of the North-South Roadway facility in terms of
its classification compared to proposed land use intensity and, in
conjunction with the selection of ETC alignment, expand or institute the
master planned arterial highway system in the East Orange area.
Additional arterials and possible reclassification of existing facilities
may be deemed necessary in order to properly service the transportation
needs resultant from future developments in the east Orange area and to
minimize their negative impact and dependence on existing congested
arterials.
An additional consideration is that although the City supports the
construction of the North-South Rd. within a major arterial right-of-way
classification as illustrated on Fig. 18, we also foresee the need for
additional landscape area on both sides of the- roadway. For various
topographical reasons, there will be only limited' opportunities for
developments alon~ the North-South Rd. in the segment between Tustin
Ranch Rd. and the future extension of Canyon View Avenue. While it is
not our intent to associate this facility with a scenic highway
classification, additional landscape setback will greatly enhance the
roadway's aesthetic appearance and ability to "ble~d in" with the
surrounding residential environment. We also feel the additional
landscape setback will facilitate future implementation of the off-road
bike or equestrian trails, which currently exist on the County Master
Plan in the general vicinity, and also are a part of the planning
objectives in the 7,500 Acre East Orange General Plan Study.
Page 4 of the report is correct to point out the exact limits of the
proposed project locations, that is, between Irvine Blvd. and the future
realigned Santiago Canyon Rd. (or approximate location of the existing
Chapman Ave. at which a revised entrance to the Irvine Park will be
provided), rather than the existing Santiago Canyon Rd., which is to be
connected to Chapman Ave. to the west. In fact the report in several
occasions adopted the naming convention of "the realigned Santiago Canyon
Rd." as being the northern-most project terminus and "the
Chapman/Santiago Canyon Rd." as being the existing Santiago Canyon Rd.
easterly of the proposed roadway. In the absence of a better naming
convention, we feel that for the sake of clarity and consistency within
the document, the report should continue using this naming convention
throughout the EIR, and specifically in Fig. 16, 17, 18 and on page 46
paragraph 4, page 73 paragraph 1.
Page ix - missing paragraph: "Due to the absence of natural topo -"?
Fig. 2 - Project Location: The Orange Sphere of Influence line is not
drawn correctly.
Page 46 & 55 - The proposed facility is not built with the intent to
serve freeway by-pass traffic. In fact, we do not believe such a
diversion will occur to any great extent due to longer travel distance
and reduced travel time resultant of lower travel speeds and traffic
control delays on the arterials.
The proposed road, in our opinion, will provide direct connection to
employment centers in south county for both established and planned
co,~m,unities in the cities of Orange and Tustin, and thus reduce
unnecessary travels on currently congested arterial streetA such as
Chapman Ave., Santiago Canyon Rd., Newport Ave., as well as sections of
SR 55 and I-5.
Page 47 - Paragraphs 2 & 3 - Weir Canyon Park and Irvine Regional Park -
Future Road Alternative: The study area terminates at the realigned
Santiago Canyon Rd. as the northern boundary. Therefore the report, in
our opinibn, should not extrapolate information without proven base or
discuss whether "future study may determine that the Easterly Alternative
F-2
¸F-3
I F-4
F-5
F-6
F-7
is more compatible with the park plan" or if "the preferred North-South
Rd. alignment could physically acconm*Ddate the more easterly northern
extension should it be desired." The inclusion of these kinds of
statements is irrelevent to the document and can be misleading in
creating erroneous attitudes to the detriment of future planning for the
roadway.
We ask that the entire third paragraph on page 47 be deleted and
paragrap~ two on the same page be simplified to only state that the
preferred'alternative will not preclude a possible future easterly
extension of North-South Rd., and that the selection of future northerly
extension will be made as an independent decision subject to further
analysis.
Fig. 7 & 11 - Revise these two figures to show that the proposed Santiago
Canyon realigned'does not terminate at the Irvine Park, easterly of the
proposed North-South Road.
Very truly yours,
Frank V. Page
Director of Public Works
FVP/pt
cc: FVP- BWD-GDJ- BVS-JM- File
RESPONSE TO COFlqENTS
RECE'[VED FROIq
THE CITY OF ORANG~
RESPONSE TO COMMENT F-:].
The traffic analysis done for the project in the EIR includes the poten-
tial development of Upper Peter's Canyon and the evolving East Tustin General
Plan Study. The carrying capacity of the road has been analyzed and has been
sized to handle the proposed development referred to above and in the com-
ment. If there are increased pressures on the North-South Road as a result
of changes in regional traffic patterns or as a result of a decision not to
proceed with anticipated regional circulation programs included in the
County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways, right-of-way has been reserved for
two additional lanes north of Tustin Ranch Road. Should this option be
exercised in the future, additional environmental review will occur with each
subsequent project approval. Although a related project, the speculative
nature of these future alternatives and possible regional influences prohibit
reasonable analysis.
The subject EIR describes and discusses potential impacts using the best
currently available data. This analysis describes, in reasonably specific
terms, the impacts of the road on the surrounding arterial road network, and
the impacts of this network on the future roadway itself. As indicated in
the Post-2010 Analysis, page 70, estimated ADT volumes vary from 20,000 ADT
at the northerly end to 48,000 ADT north of Irvine Boulevard. Regional ADT,
1991, are shown without the North-South Road, Figure 14 of the EIR, and with
the addition of the North-South Road, Figure 15 of the EIR. These ADT fig-
ures are based, as described on page 66 of the EIR, on currently available
data with respect to land use and circulation. Table C lists comparative ADT
for 1991, providing roadway segment analysis for the surrounding arterial
system. The future, Post 2010 figures, assumes a completed ETC. The lggl
analysis is based on the current arterial network only. As statQd in this
analysis, changes in the anticipated arterial network, including possible
deletion of the ETC, may necessitate the use of the optional fifth and sixth
lanes being reserved in the 120-foot-wide right-of-way for the North-South
Road.
The comment and responses are noted and is hereby incorporated into the
Final EIR.
44
RESPONSE'TO COHHENT F-Z
This comment indicates the City of Orange's concerns about future plan-
ning and right-of-way needs to accommodate their objectives for the East
Orange General Plan Study, currently in process. The City states that it
will reevaluate the adequacy of the road during this study. The comment is
noted.
As determined in the Visual/Aesthetics 'analysis, the North-South Road
would not result in any adverse impacts to visual resources which could not
be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the Final EIR which provide the option of using native tree
and shrub plantings in areas which require reduction or blockage of visibil-
ity of the project {mitigation measure 19). The following mitigation measure
has also been included:
Mature trees, when not in the actual roadway alignment,
shall be retained where feasible. Removal of any trees
shall be authorized by the appropriate jurisdictional
authority only after specific review and approval of
conditions for removal.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT F-3
The comment is noted and hereby incorporated in the Final EIR. Figures
16, 17, and 18 have been corrected to identify realigned Santiago Canyon
Road/Chapman Avenue. Pages 46 and 74 also reflect this correction. These
corrections are indicated in the Errata Sheet.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT F-4
The appropriate revision has been made in the Final EIR and is indicated
in the Errata Sheet.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT F-5
Figure Z has been revised in the Final EIR based on the sphere of in-
fluence boundary shown in the City of Orange General Plan. This correction
is described in the Errata Sheet.
45
RESPONSE TO COI~4ENT F-6
Traffic studies indicate that some relief will be experienced along
Chapman, Santiago Canyon and Newport Avenue. Because the traffic patterns of
the Costa Mesa Freeway show connections to these arterials, it .is assumed
that the project will relieve some traffic on the freeways. As a point of
clarification, the project is not being designed as a freeway bypass, but
will, nonetheless, divert some traffic now using surrounding arterials, and
the regional freeway system.
RESPONSE TO COMHENT F-7
The discussion referenced in the comment identifies a potential future
plan and does not provide a definitive analysis of the alternative. As
stated ~n the DEIR and in earlier responses, further study would be required
to pursue the Easterly Alternative. However, the Easterly Alternative has
been determined to be a feasible alternative. The discussion is included to
demonstrate the options available in the North-South Road design for future
Park Plans.
RESPONSE TO COI~4ENT F-8
Please refer to Figure 10 of the EIR for a more accurate and up-to-date
detail showing the project alignment outside of the Irvine Park and realign-
ment of Santiago Canyon Road extending to the east. Due to the scale of
Figures 7 and 11, these Figures. are slightly in error, and are corrected in
the FEIR.
46
$. THE TRVTNE COIqPANY
47
April 27, 1987
THE IRVIN COMPAN EcEi rED
ElY' LSA
APR 2 9 1987
4
Mr. Bob Ledendecker
Director of Public Works
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Subject: North/South Road Draft Environmental Document
Dear Bob:
The Irvine Company has completed its review of the subject environmental
document and I am hereby submitting several comments compiled from that
review. The report is quite thorough and comprehensive and, I believe,
you will find that the majority of the following comments tend to be
clarifications rather than concerns:
Mitigation Measure 6 listed on pages "vi." and 22 references the
need to submit an erosion/siltation control plan to Tustin, Orange
and the County. However, since the exact methodology for plan
checking and inspection of the project has not yet been worked out,
it is possible this list of agencies could be condensed. Therefore,
we would recommend that the wording of this mitigation measure be
revised to indicate submittal of the-plan to "the appropriate
responsible agency(les) to allow for that flexibility."
Mitigation Measure 12 listed on pages "vii." and 34 mentions that
noise barriers placed in conjunction with the project should provide
compliance with State standards for existing residences and on any
historic district which might be established in the future. It is
our understanding that a project is only required to mitigatQ for
existing conditions relative to noise attenuation. Since no'
historic district now exists, it would be our understanding that no
noise mitigation would be required to be installed along any part of
the potential historic district excepting existing residences since
the operation of an agricultural work area is not an area of noise
sensitivity. This being the case, it would appear that the
reference to mitigation for any future historic district would not
be appropriate in the mitigation measure on this project.
Mitigation Measure 11 listed on pages "vii." and 34 references the
requirement of having a qualified paleontologist at pre-grade
meetings and on the project during initial grading. However the
discussion of paleontological resources on page 33 indicates no
G-1
G-2
550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 · (714) 720-2000
North/SoUth Road Draft Environmental Document Page 2.
o
expectation of such resources. Given that background, it would seem ~-
appropriate to limit the mitigation to retainihg a qualified / G-3
paleontologist for the pre-grade meetings and to have on call should
anything be discovered during the grading.
Mitigation Measure 18 listed on pages "x." and 105 recommends
inclusion of some type of barrier to block views of the road from
the area indicated by "Section 4" page 102. Such barriers are
normally required only for noise mitigation. In this case, since
the nearest existing homes are 1/4 mile away, acceptable noise
standards can be achieved without a barrier. I am unaware of any
other standards that would require implementation of such a barrier
and, therefore, question the inclusion of such a barrier as a
mitigation measure for this project.
Discussion of the project's Peters Canyon Channel crossing on
page 19 references installation of a major culvert° However, it
should be noted that the construction of a bridge instead of a
culvert will also be considered during final design.
The land use plan for the Upper Peters Canyon General Plan Amendment
Area shown in the enlargement on Figure 5b (page 39) is not
reflective of the plan finally adopted. A plan representing the
adopted plan for this area is attached. Though the plan is
consistent with the one included in the EIR relative to the
circulation system, several land use designations have changed.
The discussion on page 41 references a potential start of
construction in October of 1987. However, our current schedule
projects the possibility of starting construction as early as July
of 1987 as is referenced on page 7 of the EIR. The start date shown
on page 41 should be changed to July of 1987.
Thank you for the opportunity to input into the process of this critical
arterial roadway. Please call if you have any questions regarding our
comments.
Very truly yours,
M. E. Erieksbn/
Director, Tr~portation Entitlement
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
cc: Les Card (LSA)
Frank Page (City of Orange) ·
ME142/mj
RESPONSE TO COItqENTS
RECETVED FR(Xq
THE: ~RV:][NI~ COHPANY
RESPONSE TO COHMENT G-1
Mitigation Measure #6 has been revised and incorporated into the Final
EIR. Please refer to response to comment B-1 (Regional Water Quality Control
Board} for revision.
RESPONSE TO COIqH[NT
The historic district has been listed as eligible for inclusion in the
National Reqister upon recommendations by the County of Orange and the State.
Compliance with National Reqi~r regulations is required during the "Deter-
mination of Eligibility" period. Noise attenuation in compliance with State
standards is required along the potential historic district where sensitive
noise receptors occur. Noise barrier measures would, therefore, be necessary
adjacent to the historic district for existing residences and not for agri-
cultural work areas or open space. The mitigation measure has been revised
as follows and is hereby incorporated in the Final EIR:
Noise barrier measures such as the existing wall used to
separate Irvine Boulevard from the eligible property
shall be utilized to ensure compliance with State stan-
dards to minimize noise impacts on occupied residences in
the eligible area of the historic district.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT G-3
Although the North-South Road will not disturb any recorded paleon-
tologic resources, the project site is underlain by a rock formation assigned
to the moderate and low sensitivity zones in the Orange County Master En-
vironmental Assessment. Because a potential remains for subsurfa6e resour-
ces, the paleontologist should be allowed to determine during the pregrading
meetings the necessity for monitoring of grading operations. The mitigation
measure has been revised as follows and is hereby incorporated into the Final
EIR:
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to attend
any preg~ading meetings and to determine at that time the
necessity for the monitoring of initial grading opera-
tions involving sensitive bedrock formations. If fossils
51
are discovered, the paleontologist shall be allowed to
divert or redirect grading in the vicinity of the remains
in order to evaluate and salvage exposed fossils.
RESPONSE'TO COMMENT G-4
The mitigation measure cited is included to mitigate the adverse impact
to the group of residential units west of the alignment as determined in the
viewshed analysis of the EIR. Without a visual barrier or other mitigation,
the North-South Road will result in a significant adverse impact to visual
resources in this section of the alignment. This measure is independent from
any noise'mitigation requirement.
Mitigation measure 18 listed on pages "x" and 107 have been modified to
include options for landscape screening, where appropriate, to the approval
of the Director of Community Development. This change acknowledges the
potential use of native plant materials as appropriate screening, and is
hereby incorporated in the Final EIR. The mitigation measure has been re-
vised as follows:
Due to the absence of natural topographical features,
native tree and shrub plantings, barrier berms, walls
and/or combinations of these screening features shall be
provided along the road at cross sections 4 and 5 to
block or reduce visibility of the project from existing
residential areas. The barrier shall be at a height
sufficient to substantially block views as determined
during the final roadway design phase. The roadway
screening plan shall be subject to the review and ap-
proval of the Director of Community Development, City of
Tustin, and/or the appropriate jurisdiction.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT G-5
The preliminary engineering for the final design of the North-South Road
crossing of Peters Canyon Channel is for a bridge structure.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT G-6
The adopted Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan attached to The Irvine
Company letter dated April 27, 1987 is acknowledged as the most current plan.
The Land Use Plan map will be made available by referencing The Irvine Com-
pany letter presented here in the Response to Comments in the Final EIR.
Although some land use designation areas have been modified, the overall plan
has not been modifi, ed significantly enough to alter the relevant planning
program analysis of the EIR.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT G-7
The appropriate revision has been incorporated into the Final E[R and is
indicated in the Errata Sheet (Appendix B).
53
COF~ENTS RECEIVED AT
TUSTIN PLANNING COt~ISSION
PUBLIC HEARING OUNE 8. 1987
Comments Received - Public Comment Opportunity City of Tustin Planning
Commission Public Hearing - June 8, 1987.
Commentor: Virgin Chester, representing the Sea and Sage Society of
Orange County.
~omment:
Ms. Chester commented that the EIR had been properly prepared
and commended the Lead Agency for including discussions on the
most easterly alternative of the proposed connection from
Chapman Avenue to State Route 91. She noted that their inter-
ests are to preserve and protect the resources in and around
the Irvine Park, and that the most easterly alternative is
supported for that reason.
Commentor: Ailene Capp, 10031Deerhaven, Cowen Heights.
Comment:
Ms. Capp indicated that the DEIR shows six homes with a poten-
tial to see the project. She wanted to known which six houses
were in position to view the project.
Commentor: Planning Commission Weil.
Comment:
Ms. Well wanted classification on the right-of-way being
proposed from Tustin Ranch Road to the northerly terminus of
the project.
Ms. Well wanted clarification on waterline relocation and how
it was to be accomplished. :
54
RESPONSE TO CO~ENTS
PLANNING COI~ISSION HEARING
JUNE 8. 1987
RESPONSE*TO COI~IENT H-1
Comment noted.
RI~SPONSE TO COMI4ENI' H-~
Individual houses that will view sections of the road are shown to be
the far~est easterly houses on the east side of Overhill D~ive, as shown in
Section 6 on Figure 23 of the EIR.
RESPONSE TO COt414ENT H-3
The right-of-way being reserved from Tustin Ranch Road to the northerly
end of the project is 120 feet, designed to accommodate six lanes.
The water utility lines being relocated will have to be cut and re-
routed under the roadway. There are no anticipated adverse impacts as indi-
cated in Engineering studies.
55
Isa
56
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
e
e
Both Cities agree that the Eastern Corridor should be constructed below grade
wherever possible. The alignment of the Eastern Corridor north of I-5 shall be east
of the Irvine Agricultural Headquarters and three-fourths mile from existing Culver
Road and east of Milord Road approximately one-fourth mile as delineated on
Exhibit I. The design of the interchange at I-5 shall be based on the following:
(a)
(b)
the least environmentally damaging (noise, visual impact, etc.);
cost of construction and right-of-way acquisition (land, structures, and
severance damages)l and
efficient traffic circulation.
(c)
Myford Road shall be the city-to-city boundary north of I-5.
Both cities agree that any support of the Foothill Transportation Corridor will
continue to be associated with existing Tustin and Irvine policies that state a viable
solution to the "Bottleneck" problem must be identified and adopted prior to
implementation of the Foothill Transportation Corridor.
Both Cities further agree that the present alignment of the Foothill Corridor should
be replaced by an arterial highway should an acceptable solution to the Bottleneck
problem not be identified and implemented. This position is taken in recognition of
the fact that there are other viable routes for the. Foothill Transportation Corridor
that will not exacerbate the existing and projected Bottleneck problem.
City of Irvine shall decide the location of arterial highways south of I-5 within its
City limits, providing, however, the alignment of Myford Road through MCAS
Tustin shall be subject to the agreement between the Cities concerning
construction of the road.
The City of Tustin will dismiss its lawsuit concerning Ordinance 86-3 and
Resolution 86-9 relative to the rezoning of the Irvine Business Complex and will not
file a lawsuit concerning the approval of Westpark ('Village 14) zoning regulations.
The City of Irvine will not file a lawsuit concerning the East Tustin Specific Plan.
CITY OF TUSTIN
Mayor
ATTEST:
City of Tusti~
City Clerk
010-486/82
· kvir~
.\
INTERCHANGE DESIGN TO BE . . .
ENVIRONMENTAtt-Y SENSITIVE ,, .
AND ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH CITIES ..:
· /; ~ .... .. · .
· .... ~ '..~ ..,- .
APPENDIX B
60
Corrections have been made and incorporated into the Final EIR based on
comments received on the Draft EIR. The following information is a guide to
the location of the correction in the Final EIR and a brief description of
the correction.
Page iv -
Page ix -
Page 6 -
Page 38 -
Syntax revisions have been made to Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 for
purposes of clarification.
The typographical error has been corrected to include the complete
test of the mitigation measure.
Figure 2 has been revised to show the correct boundaries for the
City of Orange Sphere of Influence.
A community park designation has been added to the second paragraph
which lists the surrounding land uses within the East Tustin Speci-
fic Plan.
Page 42 -
Page 42 -
The construction date indicated in the first sentence of the first
full paragraph has been changed from October, 1987 to July, 1987 to
be consistent with the schedule indicated in the project descrip-
tion on page 7.
A sentence has been inserted to the first paragraph which clarifies
the timing of project implementation in compliance statutory guide-
lines of the Williamson Act.
Page 55 -
Page 58 -
Figure 12 has been revised to include additional ADT volumes for
link on Newport Avenue south of Chapman Avenue. :
Paragraph 1, sentence 2 has been revised to read: "LOS A indicates
free flowing traffic volumes less than or equal to sixty percent
(60%) of the available capacity of the roadway, while LOS E repre-
sents traffic flow conditions nearing capacity of the roadway, with
continuous unemptied queues forming at intersection approaches."
61
Page 59 - Table A has been.revised to reflect the correct existing ADT Vol-
umes for links on Santiago Canyon Road east of Chapman, on Chapman
Avenue west of Newport and Crawford Canyon Road and on Newport
Avenue south of Chapman.
Pages 7Z, 73 and 75 - Figures 16, 17 and 18, respectively, have been revised
to consistently show the City of Orange approved naming convention
of realigned Santiago Canyon Road/Chapman Avenue and existing
Santiago Canyon Road/Chapman Avenue. Page 47, Paragraph 4, Sen-
tence land Page 74, Paragraph I also reflect this comment.
Page 73 - Figure 17 has been revised to identify the project site and to
reflect City of Orange future arterial alignment plans for Chapman
Avenue/Santiago Canyon Road.
Page 89 - Text has been inserted to include a discussion of cumulative im-
pacts in the noise analysis.
Page 116- The third sentence of the first paragraph has been reworded to
emphasize that the categorical statement is based on analysis of
information obtained from all appropriate agencies contacted.
62
APPENDIX C
.63
Ag' Headquarters
Buildings 3. 4. and 5 are the "outbuildings'
v~lthin ,the City of Tustln.
Scale In Feet
0 200 400
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
RESOLUTION NO. 2415
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLAHNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN FINDIHG THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR 87-1) PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
NORTH/SOUTH ROAD PROJECT IS RECOGNIZED AS ADEQUATE AND
COMPLETE MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO MITIGATIOH OF
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT 87-1
WHEREAS, as part of the implementation of the City of Tusttn's
General Plan and the East Tusttn Specific Plan, the North/South Road
project (hereinafter "project") has been proposed; and
WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of
Tusttn, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act of lg70 (hereinafter "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 approve 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
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter "EIR") has been
prepared and circulated, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission .has read and considered all
environmental documentation comprising the EIR including, but not limited
to, the East Tustin Specific Plan Final EIR, has found that the EIR
considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project, is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements
of CEQA, and the State guidelines for implementation; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (herinafter CEQA)
and the State CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve
or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which
identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public
agency makes written findings for each of the signiffcant effects,
accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all significant
impacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives identified in the
EIR, has found that all potentially significant impacts of the project have
been avoided or lessened to a level of non-significance; and
28
1
2
3
4
'5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2415
Page two
NOg, THEREFORE, be tt resolved that the Planntng Co..-~-,lsston of the
Ctty of Tusttn does hereby find that E]:R 87-1 tn .1ts enttrety wtth all
responses to comments ts adequate and complete and recommends to the Ctty
Counctl the following:
1. Adoption of the CEQA ftndtngs and Statement of Facts attached
hereto as Exhtbtt A and incorporated heretn by ~hts reference.
2. Certification of Ftnal. Environmental Impact Report 87-1.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Planntng Commission of the Ctty of
Tus~tn, California, at a regularly adjourned meettng on the 22nd day of
June, 1987.
Penn1 Foley
Recording Secretary
Charles E. Puckett
Chatrman
ITIT A
3LUTION NO. 2415
PAGE 1 OF 10
CEOA FINDINGS AND STATE)lENT OF FACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (Guidelines) provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes
one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each find-
ing. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or sub-
stantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsi-
bility 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.
(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by
substantial evidence in the record." {CEQA Section 15091).
The City of Tustin proposes to approve the North-South Road consistent
with the East Tustin Specific Plan. Because the project has the potential to
bring about impacts on the environment, the City caused an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared. This EIR has found certain significant
effects which may occur as a result of the project.
The EIR also includes mitigation for each effect, which substantially
lessens the effect on the environment. Further, after the EIR has been
determined to be complete and to have been prepared in accordance with CEQA,
the Planning Commission does, hereby, set forth the following findings:
ITIT A
0LUTION NO. 2415
PAGE 2 OF 10
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICA~IT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS OF THE PROO£CT - EFFECTS FOUND TO BE
MITIGATABLE TO A LEVEL OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
Imoacts. Development of the project as proposed will result in poten-
tial adverse impacts resulting from destabilization of slopes, exposure of
cut slopes, placement of fill, exposure of pipelines and large areas of
grading. The project will require cut and fill activities, including approx-
imately 720,000 cubic yards of export material. In addition, potential
hazards have been identified due to potential land slides, and ground shaking
in the event of a seismic event.
FindinQs. Slope stabilization, slope and cut performance criter.ia,
foundation criteria and road/construction engineering measures have been
included as project mitigation to lessen the effects to a level of non-signi-
ficance. The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the
project as mitigation of the identified impacts:
1. Stabilization or buttressing of cut slopes will be applied primar-
ily along easterly facing cut slopes, where adversely oriented
bedding planes of the Vaqueros-Sespe Formation will likely be
exposed. Westerly facing cut slopes and younger alluvial cut
slopes will be buttressed as necessary. The best approximation of
necessary buttressing will be determined prior to fieldwork and/or
issuance of a grading permit.
2. Slope inclination will not exceed a 2:1 {horizontal to vertical)
ratio, except in special cases where geotechnical data validates
the ability to deviate from a 2:1 slope.
3. Removal of colluvium, alluvium, topsoil, landslide debris and
artificial fill to suitable foundation earth materialg will be
required prior to placement of fill in areas where these deposits
Occur.
4. Recommendations made by the geotechnical consultants (Pacific Soils
Engineering, Inc.} during the final design phase regarding pipeline
constraints shall be adhered to.
'ITIT A
OLUTION NO. 2415
~PAGE 3 OF 10
The road will be designed in accordance with seismic de'sign provi-
sions as published by the California Department of Transportation
to promote safety in the event of an earthquake.
Imoacts. Implementation of the proposed project will result in short-
term impacts to surface water quality during grading and construction. Long-
term changes in the composition of run-off discharged in the area of the
project will occur. Effects can be expected in the northern sector of the
project in the Peters Canyon Wash watershed, the San Diego Creek and, ulti-
mately, the Upper Newport Bay.
rindinas.. Alterations in construction methods, the addition of erosion
control measures and project'design changes have been required in the follow-
ing mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to a level of non-significance:
6. Erosion control measures will be developed and incorporated into
final grading plans by the project proponent to minimize potential
increases in erosion and sediment transport during construction.
An erosion/siltation control plan shall then be submitted by the
project proponent for approval by Tustin, Orange and the County of
Orange for their respective jurisdictions prior to initiation of
construction activities.
7. Appropriate pollution control measures, such as a street sweeping
program and periodic storm drain clearing, will be conducted by the
appropriate agencies to reduce long-term water quality impacts.
8. Long-term erosion and sedimentation control will be provided as
part of the project with the inclusion of down-drains and terrace
· drains in appropriate areas Of cut and fill within the road design.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Imoacts. Construction of the project will result in the removal of
less than one acre of riparian woodland and riparian thicket. The road will
disrupt four major plant communities one of which, the riparian zone, has
significant value. The remaining habitats that are effected are common in
Orange County and are considered insignificant. The total acreage of signi-
ficant riparian area that will be'disrupted by the projectlis less than one
acre.
~TIT A
JLUTION NO. 2415
PAGE 4 OF 10
F__to~U_~_~. Due to the amount of acreage being disrupted, the project
proponent is required to notify and consult, with the California Department of
Fish and Game prior to construction. Mitigation measures specific to the
project's impacts on the riparian habitat may or may not be required. Should
a 1601 permit be required, project effects would 'be mitigated through this
process. The following required mitigation reduces the level of impact to a
level of non-significance.
9. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the California Department of
Fish and Game shall be notified and consulted on the possible
necessity of a 1601 permit.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Imoacts. The project may disrupt a known archaeological resource and
potential paleontological resources. The road also has the potential to have
direct and secondary impacts on the Irvine Ranch Agricultural Headquarters, a
potentially eligible historic district.
Findinqs. Qualified archaeologists and paleontologists are required to
monitor grading of the project and test for historic resources, averting
possible negative impacts. Noise barriers and project design are-considered
to protect the integrity of the Agricultural Headquarters. The following
mitigation is included to reduce these impacts to a level of non-signifi-
cance.
10. A limited test-level investigation shall be conducted by a quali-
fied archaeologist to determine precisely the surface and subsur-
face boundaries of CA-Ora-556 along the proposed route. Such
testing would include a series of I x I meter excavation units
placed in the area where grading for the roadway is anticipated.
This investigation would provide the necessary information in order
to determine the signi.ficance of the site. :
11. Noise barrier measures such as the wall used to separate Irvine
Boulevard from the eligible property shall be utilized to ensure
compliance with State standards to minimize noise impacts on oc-
cupied residences within the eligible area and on any historic
district which might be established in the future.
12. The materials, colors, design and landscaping of any fence or wall
separating the North/South Road from the Irvine Agricultural Head-
quarters complex shall be selected and approved by the City of
~ITIT A
,OLUTION NOi 2415
PAGE 5 OF 10
13.
Tustin with careful consideration to preserving the rural character
of the property eligible for future designation as an historic
district.
A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to attend any pregrade
meetings and monitor initial grading operations involving sensitive
bedrock formations. If fossils are discovered, the paleontologist
shall be allowed to divert or redirect grading in the vicinity of
the remains in order to evaluate and salvage exposed fossils.
LAND USE
.Impacts. Implementation of the project would result in the introduc-
tion of an arterial road through existing on-site agriculture and open space
land uses. This roadway is included in the County's Master Plan of Arterial
Highways and is shown on adopted plans for the Cities of Orange and Tustin.
Within the City of Tustin, the impacts of the roadway and associated land
uses are discussed in the East Tustin Specific Plan Final EIR. This FEIR and
the discussions relating to land use havebeen incorporated into the North-
South Road EIR by reference. The proposed land use is considered compatible
with future land uses.
The transition of agricultural uses to urban uses has also been studied
in the previous EIR for the East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation is re-
quired in that FEIR which allow for continued operation of agricultural acti-
vities which serve to reduce impacts to incremental impacts and postpone
impacts with the loss of agriculture in the general area. In addition, the
City of'orange has similarly adopted the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan
which deals with some of these same land use issues.
Findinas. Based on the preceding analysis of existing and proposed
land use and circulation plans, the projpct is not expected to result in any
land use impacts not considered by previous EIRs. :
RELEVAJ(T PLANNING PROGRAMS
)mDacts. The project is included in all relevant planning programs
within the City of Tustin and the City of Orange. The project is also in-
cluded in the County of Orange Master Plan of arterial highways. Possible
effects on the northerly connection of the road are noted. In addition, two
areas of controversy are noted and are summarized as follows:
%TIT A
JLUTION NO. 2415
PAGE 6 OF 10
The future northerly extension (to SR-gl) of the proposed North-
South Road could impact several planned regional parks. Although
the future extension is not within the scope of this document,
concerns have been raised as to whether this project presets the
future extension. However, as described in this EIR, at the time a
northerly extension is proposed, an easterly alternative could be
considered which could connect to the North-South Road as shown for
the Easterly Alternative {Figure 7, page 47) and minimize or elimi-
nate impacts on the parks in question.
The need for consideration of an ultimate six lane section between
Tustin Ranch Road and Santiago Canyon Road has been suggested by
the City of Orange. This concern is prompted by uncertainties
related to the ongoing decisions regarding the size and location of
the future Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC). Dependent upon
the outcome of the ETC studies, a six lane facility could be re-
quired. However, future projects such as the ETC will have to
address the impacts of their implementation on the North-South
Road. The subject project does not preclude the ability to imple-
ment a six lane road if and when that decision and the resulting
amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways is completed.
Findinqs. The following mitigation will reduce or negate potential
significant impacts on relevant programs.
14.
Final engineering design of the project shall not preclude the
potential to later construct, in addition to the preferred align-
ment, the Easterly Alternative which could become the northerly
extension to SR-gl.
15.
The appropriate approval agencies shall refer, at the time of a
proposed northerly extension, to edge treatment, viewshed protec-
tion and oak management mitigation measures as outline~ on pages
61-63 of the Weir Canyon Park-Road Study (County of Orange, 1984).
In addition, realignment of the northerly extension to a more
easterly alternative shall also be considered as a potential miti-
gation measure by that future project.
In addition, the project is reserving right-of-way to accommodate six
lanes north of Tustin Ranch Road, should future traffic analysis show they
are needed. Therefore, there are no anticipated negative impacts on relevant
planning programs should the City of Orange and/or the County of Orange
decide that the six lane option is required.
~TIT A
3LUTION NO. 2415
~PAGE 7 OF 10
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
ImDacts. No adverse impacts have been identified relating to the
proposed project. On Jamboree Road, south of the actual project-being ad-
dressed in this EIR, the five lane section will be adequate until 1991, but
local intersection improvements will need to be implemented and will be
addressed through and as development of the East Tustin Specific. Plan area
Occurs.
Findinqs. Because no adverse impacts have been identified, and the
project is consistent with the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and
each city's General Plan, no mitigation is necessary.
NOISE
Imoacts. Construction of the project will result in short-te~ con-
struction related noise impacts. Future construction of residential, co~ner-
cial and recreational uses along the road's corridor include setbacks and
construction methods which mitigate long-term noise impacts.
Findinqs. With the addition of the following mitigation measure and
assuming compliance with federal, State and local interior noise standards
for new residential construction, the identified potential impacts are miti-
gated to a level of non-significance.
16.
Compliance with the Orange County, Tustin and Orange Noise Ordi-
nances will mitigate impacts associated with construction noise.
To comply with the ordinance, most construction activities will be
limited to daytime hours on Monday through Fridays when occurring
near residential areas.
AIR OUALITf
Imoacts. Nuisance-level dust emissions are expected to result from
grading activity associated with construction. Additional impacts associated
with vehicle trips using the road have been identified and compared to regio-
nal projections. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
and the California Air Resources Board {CARB) have jurisdictional respon-
sibility to monitor and regulate air quality within the region. The project
and anticipated vehicle trips have been factored into the SCAQMD program for
achieving healthful levels of air quality. Their program is designed to
accommodate a moderate amount of new development. This project is anticipa-
ted in the SCAQMD program, and is partially mitigated through this program's
10
~TIT A
jLUTION NO. 2415
PAGE 8 OF 10
standards for new and stationary and mobile source controls and energy con-
servation measures.
Findinqs. With inclusion of the following mitigation measure, region-
al, local and construction related impacts are incremental in nature and
insignificant or reduced to a level of non-significance:
17. Dust suppression measures, such as regular watering and early
paving of the road, shall be implemented by the project proponent
to reduce emissions during construction and grading.
AES1)IET)CS/VISUAL RESOURCES
Impacts. Because the area is mostly undeveloped private land, few
visual points are available that would be negatively affected by the project.
However, limited areas of existing residential areas will be adversely af-
fected. Analysis of line of sight views from these areas indicate limited
opportunity for impacts.
Findinqs. Because of intervening hills, ridgelines and other topo-
graphic features, there is a very limited aesthetic/visual impact associated
with road construction. The following mitigation measure is required to
reduce these impacts to a level of non-significance:
18. Hard edges left by cut-and-fill operations shall be softened where
visual impact can be a concern, during the plan-check stage of the
p~oj.ect by Tustin, Orange and the County of Orange for their re-
spective jurisdictions.
19. Due to the absence of natural topographical features, barrier
berms, walls and/or a berm/wall combination shall be provided along
the road at cross sections 4 and $ to block or reduce visibility of
the project from existing residential areas. The barrie? shall be
at a height sufficient to block views, as determined during the
final roadway design phase.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND IFFILITIES
Imoacts. The majority of the project is in the City of Tustin. The'
remainder is in the City of Orange and small portions lie within the County's
jurisdiction. All service demands generated by the project are integrally
associated with the land uses proposed within the various specific develop-
ment plans contemplated for each area. Provision of services are being coot-
11
'TIT A
· ~LUTION NO. 2415
PAGE 9 and 10
dtnated and planned with each phase .of development within these jurisdic-
tions. No adverse impacts have been identified.
Flndinas. Because services will be provided on an as-needed basis for
each phase of development, no adverse impacts are identified. As a better-
ment to the project, the following mitigation measures have been added by the
Lead Agency:
20.
The City of Tusttn Police Department recommends that, during the
construction phase of the project, private security be provided for
the protection of equipment and materials during non-working hours.
This recommendation shall be implemented if deemed necessary by the
contractor.
21.
The following transit service features, supportive of public tran-
sit, shall be considered for the project during the plan review:
bus turnouts, consistent with the OCTD Design Guidelines for Bus
Facilities; paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian*
walkways between development and bus stops; and bus shelters.
· RESPONSE TO COt~IENTS
Imeacts. Although no additional impacts have been identified during
the comment period which have not been mitigated, responses to comments in-
clude corrections and clarifications of the Oraft E]R (DEIR), expanded miti-
gation measures, and additional mitigation required by the Lead Agency as
"betterments', to ~he project. The Response to Comments are combined with
the OEIR to become the Final EZR (FEXR) upon certification by the City Coun-
cil.
Ftndtnas. The Lead Agency has included in the Response to Comments/-
FEZR additional mitigation measures which further reduce the effects of the
project on the environment or serve to act as project 'betterments". The
following mitigation measures have been added to the DEIR: :
6(a).If dewatertng is necessary and discharge of wastewater is proposed,
an NPDES Permit (wastewater discharge requirements) shall be ob-
tained from the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to any
dewatering activity.
22. Mature trees, when not in the actual roadway alignment, shall be
retained where feasible. Removal of any trees shall be authorized
12
TIT A
L ~LUTION NO. 2415
PAGE 10 of 10
by the appropriate Jurisdictional authority only after specific
review and approval of conditions of removal.
In addition to the mitigation measure added above, the following miti-
gation measures were revised for purposes of clarification or for additional
project betterment as a response to comments:
Mitigation Measure #12. -revised to include the option of alternative
noise mitigation measures which may have an effect on the potentially his-
toric Agricultural Headquarters.
Mitigation Measure #11. -revised to further define protection of paleo-
ntological resources.
Mitigation Measure #]8. -revised to allow alternative native vegetation
screening options to reduce visual/aesthetic impacts.
With the addition of the above mitigation measure and the clarification
of above identified mitigation measures, the potential environmental effects
of the project are further reduced.. The resulting impacts of the project
'after mitigation therefore remain at a level of non-significance.
13
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 3
DATE:
SUBOECT:
LOCAT! ON:
REQUEST:
,1UNE 22, 1987
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY / NORTH/SOUTH ROAD PRO,1ECT
EXTENSION OF' OLD liYFORDROAD EXTEND!NG NORTHERLY TO CltAPHAN
AVENUE
THAT THE PLANNZNG COleqlS$iON FIND THAT THE PROPOSED NORTH-/SOUTH
ROAD !S !N CONFORMANCE Id!TH THE TUST!N AREA GENERAL PLAN
RECO~ENDED ACTION:
H.O. That the Commission determine the proposed North/South Road
Project is tn conformance with the Tusttn Area General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The proposed North/South Road'is an extension of Old Myford Road, a portion of
which will be renamed Jamboree Road. The proposed roadway will extend north of
I-5 to existing Chapman Avenue (realigned Santiago Canyon Road) and will
traverse the eastern boundary of the City of Tusttn, and extend into the City of
Orange and unincorporated County area. The roadway will be a six lane facility
from Irvtne Boulevard to Tustin Ranch Road and a four lane facility from Tustin
Ranch Road to Chapman Avenue.
Section 65402 of the California Government Code addresses restrictions on
acquisition and disposal of real property. This section is of relevance here in
that 65402 (a) reads in part that:
"If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property
shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street ....... or other
public purposes ....... if the adopted general plan or part thereo~ applies
thereto, until the location, purpose and extent of such
acquisition ...... have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning
agency as to Conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof."
Part of the proposed North/South, Road Project is within the Jurisdictional
limits of the City of Tustin and is covered by the Tusttn Area General Plan.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission Report
General Plan Consistency North/South'Road
June 22, lg87
Page two
DISCUSSION:
The limits of the project which are within 'the City limits extend from Irvine
Boulevard to the northerly City boundary traversing the easterly perimeter of
the City boundary. Immediately adjacent to the west side of the alignment in
the southern portion of the project is the East Tusitn Specific Plan Area.
The project road is intended to provide an additional north/south arterial to
better.serve the transportation needs of existing and future planned development
in the region and to relieve congestion on other parallel roadways, such as
Newport and Red Hill Avenues. This project represents the implementation of an
arterial roadway which has been an assumed feature in several approved planning
documents and projects. These documents include the East Tustin Specific Plan
and the Upper Peter"s Canyon Specific Plan. In addition, the arterial roadway
has been identified in the Master Plans of Arterial Highways, as described in
the Traffic and Circulation Section of EIR 87-! (EIR North/South Road Project).
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed road
project is in conformance with the Tusttn Area General Plan because it will
implement a component shown on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways which is
included in the Circulation Element and the East Tusttn Specific Plan.
Associate Planner Director of Community' opment
MAC:per
Corn munity DeveloPment Departmen~
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 4
DATE:: 4UNE:. 2Z, 1987
SUlMECT:
LARGE FAKfLY DAY CARE HOI4ES ZONING ORDINANCE N4ENDI4ENT 87-02
ElffiIRONME~I'AL
STATUS:
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR TO CONFORM illTH THE
CALIFORNIA EN¥IRONHENTAL qUALZTY ACT
REC01~IENDATION:
It ts recommended that the Planntng Commission recommend to the Ctty Counctl
approval of Zontng Ordinance Amendment No. 87-02 by the adoptton of Resolution
No. 2408.
BACKGROUND:
On June 8, 1987 the Planntng Commission directed staff to advertise a publlc
heartng on (Zontng 0rdtnance Amendment 87-02) proposed code amendments for Large
Famtl~ Day Care Homes.
Attached to thts report ts a copy of the staff ~eport to the Planntng Commission
dated June 8, 1987 whtch Includes all justification for the proposed
Amendments. Changes to draft Resolution No. 2408 as requested by the Commission
at thetr meettng on June 8th have been completed.
Har-y Ann C~famberlat n '
Assoclate'Planner
MAC:per
Attachments:
June 8, 1987 Planntng Commission Report
Resolution No. 2408
Negative. Declaration
Corn munity Development Department
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
2'7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2408
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF
SECTION 9223a6 OF THE TUSTIN MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOMES.
The Planning Commission'of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve.
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
a) That the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 1597.46 mandates that a
permit be granted for large family day care
homes if they comply with local standards and
requirements.
b)
That to ensure that the integrity of the
Single-Family Residential zone is maintained,
the City may establish applicable standards
for spacing and concentration, traffic
control, parking and noise control.
c)
That a Negative Declaration has been prepared
conforming with the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
that Section g223a$ be amended as follows:
"6. Large family day care homes", caring for seven (7) to
twelve (12) children, are subject to the following regulations:
a)
Prior to commencement of operation of any
large family day care home, the applicant for
a permit shall complete and submit an
application to the Community Development
Department. Information provided on the
permit shall include: Name of operator;
address of the home; and a list of property:
owners within 100 feet of the proposed day
care home.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
. 20
21
23
25
26
2'7
28
Resolution No. 2408
Page Two
b)
C)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
Large famtly day care homes shall be operated
in a manner not exceeding the notse level in
the Tustln Noise 0rdlnance, nor shall such
day care homes be allowed to operate in a
manner that would constitute a nuisance to
neighboring properties. A day care home
shall by design, locatlon and layout avoid
any potential .noise which may constitute a
nutsance to neighboring properties.
A permit shall not be granted for a large day
care home that would be established within
300 feet of the exterior property boundaries
of any existing ltcensed large family day
care home.
All property owners wtthtn a 100 foot radius
of the exterior property boundaries of a
proposed large'family day care home, as shown
on the last equalized County assessment ro11,
shall be notified of the intent to establish
such a home.
No hearing on the application for a permtt
shall be held by the Planntng Commission
unless a hearing is requested by the
applicant or a property owner within a 100
foot radius of the exterior boundary of the
proposed home. If no heartng ts requested,
the permit shall be granted if the large
famtly day care home compltes wtth the
provisions of this code.
Any day care home must comply wtth all
regulations adopted and enforced by the State
Fire Marshal and Orange County Fire
Department.
The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by
a nrl ntmum six-foot high fence.
The Planntng Comtsston shall not grant a
permtt for a large famtly day care home for
any location that has on the property a
swt~mlng pool as defined by Section 102 of
the Uniform Swimming Pool Code, as adopted.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
'17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
~25
Resolution No. 2408
Page Three
i)
J)
k)
1)
Any day care ho~e must comply with the
provisions of the State Untform Butldtng Code
and City of Tustin Butldlng requirements
which apply to single family residences.
Any large day care ho~e must provtde one (1)
off-street parking space for each e~ployee
who is not a resident of the premises, and
provide adequate drop-off and/or pick-up
facilities on-site or ineedtately adjacent to
the site as necessary to avoid interference
with traffic and to promote the safety of
children.
An applicant for a large day care home shall
be ltcensed or deemed to be exempt from
licensure by the State of California as a
large family day care home.
Nothtng contained In the provisions of thts
amendment shall preclude the revocation for
cause of any permtt granted for a large
famtly day care home following proceedings
conducted bY the Planntng Co~mtsston to
determine tf said use ts operated tn a ~anner
detrimental to the health, safety or welfare
of the community or surrounding properties.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettng of the Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198
Charles E. Puckett,
Chatr~an
PENNI FOLEY,
Recording Secretary
27
28
NE-GATIVE DECLARAT,ON
CITY OF TUST1N ' .
300 CENTENNIAl- WAY, TUSTIN, CA.. 92680
Project Tttle: Zoning Ordinance Am'endments .Ftle ~1o. ZOA 87-02
for Large Famil'.¥ .Day Care Homes
Project Loca.t!on: ~lty of Tustin
Project 0escrtptlon: ·Amending the zoning co'de ~o inclu'de traf~fic
safety measures and noticing requirements
Project Proponent: City of Tustin
Contact Person: Mary Ann ChamberlainTeleph°ne: (71q) 5qq-~0 252
The Community 0evelopment Department has conducted an tntttal study for the
above project tn accordance wtth the Ct~ of Tusttn's pro~dures ~gardtng
t~le~n~tt~ of the ~11fornta Envt~onmn~l Qua11~ Act, and.~ ~ basts of
that s~dy ~reby ~nd:. .'
That there. Is no substantial evtdence that the pro~lect may have a
significant effect on the environment.
That potential st'gntftcant affects were Identified, but revisions have
been tncluded in the project plans and agreed ~o by the applt.cant that
would avotd or mtttgate the affects to a potnt where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Satd revisions are attached' to and
hereby made a pa~ of thts Ilegattve Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental zm~act Report ts not required.
'The tntttal study whtch prOvtdes the basts for thts determination Is on
ftle at the Commntty 0evelopmant 0epartment, Ctty of Tusttn. The publlc
t$ 1nvtted to coment on the appropriateness of thts ~egattve 0eclaratton
durtng the revtew pertod, whtch begtn$ wtth the publlc nottce of a
Negatlve 0eclaratton and extends for seven calendar days.. Upon revtew by
the Communtty.0evelopment [~trector, thts revtew pertod may be extended tf
deemed necessary.
RECOI~IENDAT]ON
It ts recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to advertise a
public hearing as soon as possible and upon the completion of any necessary
environmental review for Zoning Ordinance Amendement No. 87-01.
BACKGROUND
Effective ~anuary 1, 1984 legislation went into effect regulating the placement
and operation of large family day care homes. This legislation virtually
pre-empted local control of this use, however, tt does allow local ordinances to
prescribe certatn standards. On May 21, ~g84 the Ctty Counctl adopted Ordinance
9~! (see copy attached) which allows large family day care homes.~n the single
family residential districts. This ordinance established reasonable standards
for large family day care homes.
Attached to this memo ts correspondence received from the Ctty Attorney which
suggests that our present code be amended to better meet the provisions of State
Law. In response to their memorandum and other issues ratsed by the City
Council tn thetr revtew of recent large family day care home applications,
proposed Zoning Code Amendments have been prepared.
AllALYS]S
The Tusttn Ctty Code states:
"Large Famtly Day Care Home" means a family dwelllng untt, non-institutional
tn character,'properly licensed by the County of Orange, which provides day
care only, for a maximum of twelve (~2) chtldren ages etghteen (18) years or
younger, including the licensee's own children under the age of twelve (~2).
The Health and Safety Code Section ~$97.46 mandates that permtts be granted
the large family day care home complies with local ordinances which prescribe
standards or restrictions concerning spacing, concentration, traffic control,
parking and noise control.
The City's current code includes regulations, reg?dt~g n~ts~_!to some extent)
l and spaclng but does not include any criteria Tot trattlc and parking.
Community Developmen~ Department
Planning Commission Report
Large Family Day Care Home
June 8, [987
Page Two
Proposed code amendments would provide staff with the ability to better evaluate
the location of a proposed large family day care home. These amendments would
also provide additional' protection and mitigation to the neighbors in the
vicinity of day care homes ensuring that approval, of large family day care
homes will not create a traffic problem for the neighborhood. Appropriately,
Staff recommends that amendments be made to Section 9223 of the Zoning Code as
follows:
Modify Section 9223a6e of the Tustin Code to read:
No hearing on the application for a permit shall be held by the
Planning Commission unless a hearing is requested by the
applicant or a property owner within 100 feet of the proposed
home. The permit shall be granted if the large family day care
home complies with the provisions of this code.
Modify Section 9223a6d to read:
All property owners within a 100 foot radius of the exterior
boundaries of a proposed large family day care home as shown on
the last equalized County assessment roll shall be nqtt~ted of.
the intent to establish such a home.
3. Modify Section g223a6b to read:
Large family day care homes shall be operated in a manner not
exceeding .the noise levels in the Tusttn Noise Ordinances, nor
shall such day care homes be allowed to operate in a manner that
would constitute a nuisance to neighboring properties. A day
care home shall also by design, location and layout avoid any
potential noise which may constitute a nuisance to neighboring
properties. :
4. Add the following additional standards to Section 92~3a6:
a)
Any day care home must comply with the provisions of the State
Uniform Building Code and City of ITusttn building requirements
which apply to single family residences.
Community DevelOpment Department
Planntng Commission Report
Large Family Day Care Home
3une 8, ~g87
Page T~ree
b)
c)
Any larg~.day care home must provtde one (1)'off-street parktng
space for' each employee who is not a resfdent of the premfses,
and provtde drop-off/pick-up factlttte~ on-stte or Immediately
adjacent to the stte as necessary to avotd interference wtth
trafftc and to promote the safety of children.
An applicant for a large day care home shall be licensed or
deemed to be exempt from ltcensure by the State of CaltfornJa as
a large.family day care home.
Attached for the Commfsston's review ts a draft resolution wtth the above
recommended amendments. Should the Commission agree wtth the proposed approach,
staff would be prepared to schedule the matter for a public heartng.
!~ary~.nn Cl~moer~a~n,
Associate Planner
MAC:CAS:ts
Attachments: Ordinance No.
Resolution No. 2408
~Ch~tsttne A. Sh~ng~ton,
Otrector of Community Development
Community Development DeparTment
1
2
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
1'/
18
19
~.0
~.1
2~
~4
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 911
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF
THE TUSTIN CITY CODE ALLOWING LARGE FAMILY DAY
CARE HOMES IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS (ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 84-1)
The City Council
follows:
of the City of Tusttn does' hereby ORDAIN as
Section 9221a of the Tusttn Ctty Code ts hereby amended
by adding the following:
6. Large Family Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the standards contained tn
the R-1 District regulations (Section g223a.6.)
II.
Section 9222a of the Tusttn City Code is hereby amended
by adding the foilowlng:
4. Large Famtly Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve children subject to the standards contained in
the R-1 'District Regulations (Section 9223a.6.).
III.
Section 9223a of the Tusttn City Code is hereby amended
by addtng the following:
6. Large Famtly Day Care Homes, caring for seven to
twelve chtldren subject to the following regulations:
a. Prior to commencement of operation of any Large
Famtly Day Care Home, the applicant for a permtt
shall complete and submit an application to the
Community Development Department. Information
provided on the permit shall tnclude: name of
operator; address of the home; and a list of
property owners within 100 feet of the proposed
day care home.
b. Large family day care homes shall be operated in
a manner not exceeding the notse levels in the
Tusttn Hotse Ordinance, nor shall such day care
homes be allowed to operate in a manner that would
constitute a nuisance to neighboring proper?es.
c. A permit shall not be granted for a large day care
home that would be established within 300 feet of
any existing licensed large family day care home.
d. All property owners within 100 feet of a proposed
large family day care home shall be notified of
the intent to establish such a home.
e. If any written protest against permit issuance is
received from any property owner within 100 feet
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
Ordinance ~1o. 91.
Page 2
IV.
VI.
of the proposed home. a heartng shall be conducted
by the Planntng Commtssfon. Based on .testl. mony
presented durtng the heartng pertaining to not se.
trafftc, parktng, concentration or spacfng of such
homes, the Planntng Commission shall approve or
deny ~he request for a large faintly day care home.
f. Any day care home muSt comply wtth all regulations
adopted and enforced by the State Ftre l~arshal and
Orange County Ftre Depar13,ent.
g. The rear yard of the home must be enclosed by a
mtntmum stx-foot (6') htgh fence.
h. The Planning Commission shall not grant a pen, tt
for a Large Faintly Day Care ~lome for any locatton
that has on the property a swtmmtng pool as
deftned by Sectton 102 of the tlntform Swtmmtng
Pool Code, as adopted.
t. llothtng contetned tn the provisions of thts
amendment shall preclude the revocation for cause
of any permtt granted for a large faintly day care
home following proceedings conducted by the
Planntng 'CommtssJon to determine tf satd use ts
operated tn a manner detrtment~l to the health,
safety or welfare of the community or surrounding
property.
Sectton 9224b of the Tusttn Ctty Code ts hereby amended
by &ddtng the following:
12. Large Faintly Day Care Homes, cartng for s~ven to
~welve chtldren subject to the s~andards contetned tn
the !~-1 Otstrtct regulations ($ectton g223a.6..).
·Sectton g228a of the Tusttn Ctty Code fs hereby amended
by addtng the following:
6. Large Faintly Day Care tlomes, cartng for seven to
~3~elve chtldren subject to the s~andards contained In
the R-1 Dtstrtct regulations ($ectton
$ectton 9244d of the Tusttn Ct'cy Code ts hereby amended
by addtng the following:
5. Large Faintly Day Care Homes, cartng for seven to
twelve chtldren shall be allowed as permitted uses
those areas designated for single-family residential
land uses, subject to the standards contained In the
R-1 Dtstrtct regulations ($ectton 9223a.6.).
1
2
$
5
6
?
$
9
10
11
12
Ordinance go. g.-
Page 3
VII. Section 9297 Definitions of the Tusttn City Code is
hereby amended bY adding the following:
"Large Family Day Care Home" means ,a famtly ~elltng
untt, non-Institutional tn character, properly 11censed
by the County of Orange, which provides day care only,
for a maxtmum of l~elve (12) children ages 18 years or
younger, Including the licensee's o~n chtldren under the
age of 12.
VIII. A Negative Declaration for Zontng Ordinance Amendment
go. 84-1 ts hereby approved tn conformance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Qualtty
Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn City
Council held on the 21st day of May , 1984.
1311 ATTEST:
16 ', CIT~' CLERK
17
18
19
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) §
CITY OF TUSTIN )
ACTING MAYOR
I MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the
20 City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the
21 members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above
and foregoing Ordinance No. 91! was duly and regularly introduced and read
at an adjourned regular meet~ of the City Council held on:the 7th day of
22 May, 1984, and was given its second reading and duly passed and aod~-~ed at a
2,~ regular meeting held on th~ 21st dmy of May, 1984, by the following vote:
24 AYES : COUNCILPERSONS:
NOES : COUNCILPERSONS:
~ ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS:
26
27
28
Edgar, Hoesterey, Saltarelli
None
Greinke, Kennedy
.L~MARY
of Tustin, California
City E. WYNN, City C~erk
SU~RY PUBLISHED IN TUSTIN NEWS:
May 31, 1984
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 5 '
DATE:
. SUBdECT:
APPLICANT:
OMIER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENYIROII~ENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
JUNE 22, 1987
USE PER~IT NO. 87-12
BONNIE ENGLEBERG OF SABA'S PL~RKET
13841 TUSTIN EAST DRIVE
TUSTIll, CALIFORNIA 92680
VISTA LAGUNA
901 M. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE J~340
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92703
14161 NEMPORT AVENUE, SUTTES C & D
C-1: RETAIL COIIIERCIAL
CATAGORICALLY EXEHPT, CLASS 1
AUTHORIZATION FOR AM OFF-SITE BEER AND MTNE LICENSE
CONJUNCTION MITH A 890 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE RRRKET USE.
IN
RECOII~ENDED ACTION:
recommended that the Planntn9 Commission approve Use Permit 87-12 by the
adoptton of Resolution No. 2410.
SUI~IARY:
The applicant has applied for authorization to sell beer and wine in conjunction
with a specialty convenience market. The applicant is proposing to o)en a 890
square foot market specializing in Greek foods. This application is subject to
the distance requirements established by Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 87-1.
Staff has reviewed the subject application for conformance to these requirements
and recommends approva] for this request.
~NALYSIS:
~'he subject business ts located tn a small retail center on Newport Avenue,
south of the I-5 freeway. The project location and its distance from other
outlets and sensitive uses are as follows:
Corn munity Development Department
Planntng Commtssfon Report
Use Permtt No. 87-12
June 22, 1987
Page Two
Dtstance Requirement
100 feet from restdental
300 feet from other outlets
600 feet from schools,
churches, or hospitals
Proposed Dtstance
135 feet (measured door to doo~)
320 feet (measured door to door)
Htntmum ~900 feet
Thts stte meets the dtstance requJrements and staff recommends that the
alcoholic beverage sales establishment guidelines be Incorporated ~nto the
conditions of approval for thts application. These conditions are contafned tn
the attached resolution and'Include 1rems such as:
No more than 10~ of the floor area shall be devoted to sales, storage
or dtsplay of alcoholic beverages;
The hours of operation are 11mtted to 8:00 am to 8:00 pm;
All persons selllng alcoholic beverages shall be at least etghteen
years of age or older and shall be supervised by someone 2! years of
age or older. The supervisor shall be present tn the same area as the
potnt of sale.
CONCLUSIONS:
The project complles with the. dtstance requirements established by Zonfng
0rdtnance Amendment No. 87-! and staff has Incorporated the alcoholic
beverage sales establishment guidelines tnto the proposed re~olutton. Based
upon the conformance wtth the dfstance requirements and the fncorporatton of the -
alcohollc beverage sales guidelines staff recommends approval for thts request.
LCP:CAS:ts
~ttachments:
Sfte Plan
Floor Plan
Resolution No. 24!0
~trhrJ[e [to~e0~' CSoh~11 ~nglf ~vel opment
Community Development DeparTment
1
2 -
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2410
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, AUTHORIZING OFF-SITE BEER AND
WINE SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A 890 SQUARE
FOOT CONVENIENCE MARKET USE AT 14161 NEWPORT
AVENUE, UNIT C AND O.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 87-12) has been filed
on behalf of Saba's Market requesting authorization for off-site
beer and wine sales at 14161 Newport Avenue, Suite C and 0.
Bm
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application.
JC.
That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for will not, under the circumstances of this case,
be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use, evidenced by the following
findings:
1. The project is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan.
2. The project is located in ~he C-i: Retail Commercial
district.
3. The use applied for is an allowed use in the C-1: Retail
Co~ercial district.
e
The project is located in an area where all distance
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment 87-1 have
been met.
De
That the establishment, maintenance, and operatlo~ of the use
applted for will not be injurious *or detrimental to the property
and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property,
nor to the general welfare of the City of Tusttn, and should be
granted.
Proposed development shall be in accordance with the development
policies adopted by the City Council, Uniform Building Codes as
administered by the Building Official, Fire Code as administered
by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement
requirements as administered by the City Engineer.
F. The project is catagortcally exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. (Class 1)
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. 2410
page two
II.
The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permtt No.
87-12 to authorize off-site beer and wine sales in conjunction with a
890 square foot convenience market at 14161 Newport Avenue, Suite C
and D subject to the following conditions:
Authorization for off-site sales of beer and wine is
contingent upon the use at the subject site remaining as a
convenience market. Should this use change or be
discontinued, authorization for this use permit is null and
void.
e
All persons selling alcoholic beverages shall be eighteen
years of age or older and shall be supervised by someone
twenty-one years of age or older at all times. Supervisor
shall be present in same area as point of sale.
e
Hours of operation are limited to the hours of 8:00 am to
8:00 pm.
e
Two (2) "No Loitering" signs shall be posted at the
entrance of the business.
Se
No pool tables or coin operated games are allowed at this
location.
No alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on any proper'ty
adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the
applicant.
Refrigerated single-serving beverage containers shall be
located in an enclosed refrigeration unit no less than ten
(10) feet from the point of sale.
ge
Expansion of the subject convenience market beyond 890
square feet will require approval of the Planning
Commission.
Signs posted to advertise items shall be limited to cover
no more than 25~ of the window area.
10.
Floor area devoted to sale, display and storage of
alcoholic beverage items shall be no more than 10~ of the
total gross floor area.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2410
page three
11.
The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to
Conditions Imposed form which states that the applicant
agrees to all conditions imposed,, the conditions shall be
included on the State issued Alcoholic Beverage license,
and failure to comply with any of the foregoing conditions
shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the
license.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198
Charles E. Puckett,
Chairman
Penni Foley,
Recording Secretary
ITEM NO, ~ ,
Planning Commission
DATE: JUNE 22, 1987
SI~ECT: ZONE CHANGE 87-1, 87-2 AND GENERAL PLAN
AHENOIqENT 87-1
APPLICANT:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
LOCATION:
CITY OF TUSTIN
300CENTENNIAL HAY
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
92680
ZONE CHANGE 87-1: CATAGORICALLY EXENPT CLASS 5
GENERAL PLAN AHENO#ENT 87-1 AMD ZONE CHANGE 87-2: A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION HAS BEEN FILED IN CONFORRAMCE ¥ITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PROPERTIES LOCATED OM THE NEST SIDE OF NENPORT AVENUE BETNEEN THE
I-S FREE#AY AMD IlXTCHELL AVENUE AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEIJPORT
AVENUE BETNEEN RAIN & SAN JUAN STREETS
RECOIIIENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the Planning-Commission direct staff to advertise a
public hearing for Zone Changes 87-1, 87-2 and Generel Plan Amendment 87-1.
BACKGROUND:
On Aprtl 20, 1987 the City Counctl passed an Urgency Ordinance (No. 983) which
approved a moratorium on processing, tssuance of butldtng permtts or approvals
of any kind for development projects in the areas along Newport Avenue as
Illustrated on Map 1 and 2 to Attachment 1. The subject meratortum was tn
effect for 45 days (per section 65858 of the California Government Code) and was
subsequently extended for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days on June 1, 1987.
The moratorium was enacted for the purposes of conducting a* zoning study on the
properties tn the moratorium areas. A review of the events which started this
process and the development constraints on the properties tnvolved is tncluded
in Attachment 1 tO this report providing further information and clarification
of the issues Involved.
~taff have completed the zoning study of the properties tncluded tn the
qoratortum area and have drafted appropriate amendments to the General Plan and
~oning Ordinance for the Commission's review and comments.
A summary of the recommended approaches is as follows:
East Stde of Ne~port Avenue Between llatn Street and San Juan .(Zone Change
Community Development Department
Planning- Comm~ ss~on Report
Zone Change 87-! and 87-2 and
General Plan Amendment 87-1
,June 22, 1987
Page 1~o
All etght (8) parcels ire currently tn the South Central Redevelopment Area and
are zoned for co~,,~erctal use (See Hap No. 1 tn the attached staff report). Each
lot has a commercial land use designation tn the General Plan. As proposed, the
zone change would tnvolve rezontng of all etght (8) parcels from CG and CG-PUD
to Planned Community Commercial (PC-C). The zone change would not alter the
types of uses allowed by the current zontng on the property, ho~ever staff
recommends that the Co~mtsston consider guidelines for development of Planned
Communtty Commercial properties (See ~tem number 3 tn this report).
Use of the Planned Community Commercial dtstrtct as opposed to CG and CG-PUD
wtll allo~ certatn development flextbtltttes such as parktng, set back and
hetght requirements whtch are tat]ored to meet the needs of each development
area. Thls would be done through approval of a development p]an whtch ts
required* prtor to tnttlatton of any pro~iect tn the Planned Community Commercial
District. Thts development plan ts approved by the Planntng Commission through
a. Use Permtt.
tleststde of orr 'Avenue Between the I-5 F_~_~.a and #ltche11 Avenue
Thts area tncludes eleven (11) parcels located In the Sou.th- Central
Redevelopment Area (See ~lap Number 2 ~n the attached staff report). Of these,
stx (6) are zoned C-1: Retall Commercial and the remetntng five (5) parcels are
zoned R-3: Hultt-famtly ResJdehttal. The proposed project would rezone all
eleven (11) parcels to Planned Co. mmuntty Co~rctal. Thts would allow uses
currently authorized on the stx (6) C-1 zoned parcels, ho~ever, the ftve (5) R-3
zoned lots would be rezoned to commercial.
As wtth the area previously discussed, Incremental development of parcels tn
thts area would render other propertles undevelopable for commercial use. Thts
ts due to the current lot configurations whtch create Irregular lots wtth
mlntmum visibility and access. ~Hth the Planned Community Commercial zontng
designation, .the use of development plans can help to reduce these pr. oblems as
opposed to ustng a standard C-1 or CG zone whtch would allo~ tflcremental
development.
Multi-family structures on the extsttng R-3 zoned lots would be considered
existing, non-conforming uses. Under current provisions of the Ctty's Zontng
Code, extsttng uses and structures would .be permitted to rematn unttl
construction of more than $0:; of the assessed value Is necessary or tf the use
on the property ts vacated for a period of over stx (6) months. Should etther
of these events occur, the property would have to be converted to a commercial
use tn conformance wtth the Planned Community district. The remaining stx (6)
C-1 lots are currently used for commercial purposes.
Corn reunify DeveloPment. Department
Planntng Commission Report
Zone Change 87-1 and 87-2 and
General Plan Amendment 87-1
June 22, 1987
Page three
The five (5) C-! zoned lots are currently designated C: Commercial on the
General Plan Land Use'Map. However the extsttng R-3 zoned lots are designated
MF: Multi-family. A General Plan Amendment would be required to re-designate
all properties tn the study area to the Planned Community Commercial (PCC) land
use designation prior to any zone change on the subJec~ properties.
3. Plan;~ C.~-~-4ty r~.~ ~;al ~Glo~.t Gu~deli.nes =_._nd_ Rev~ev Criteria:
The project areas both contatn stmtlar visibility and access problems. In order
to assure comprehensive development of all parcels to thetr fullest potential,
staff ~ecommends that the Planning Commission consider adoptton of development
guidelines for properties in these areas as well as all other Planned Community
Commercial lots. The proposed guidelines incorporate the following objectives
for development plans in the Planned Community Commercial district:
Consolidation of lots shall be incorporated wherever feasible;
Development of stngle'parcels at the expense of ltmtttng future potential
development of other parcels in the same district and which are adjacent
to the area being considered, shall be discouraged;
The intent of the development plan shall be to allow maximum 'visibility
and accessibility of all parcels in the same district which are adjacent
to the property being considered; and
Development Plans proposed for Planned Community Commercial properties
should incorporate uses in which contribute to the general fund wherever
possible.
CONCLUSION:
Staff considers the issues of limited access and visibility of parcels in the
study areas .(refer to Attachment 1) to be a paramount constder,)tion in
addressing this project. Staff can facilitate comprehensive developmeht of the
properties considered with the recommended Zone Changes, General Plan Amendment
and adoption of development guidelines while meeting the intentions of the South.
Central Redevelopment Plan.
Corn munity DeveloPment Department
Planntng Commission Report
Zone Change 87-1 and 87-2 and.
General Plan Amendment 87-!
June 22, 1987
Page' four
Guidelines to be uied in reviewing projects In the Planned Community Commercial
0tsttct are tncorpora'ted tnto the attached draft Re~olutton No. 2411. Oral:.
resolutions for Zone Change 87-! , 87-2, and General Plan Amendment 87-! are.
also attached for revtew.
/~:a~/~ n~/A.' Shrngleton,
3f Community Oevelopment
LOP:CAS:ts:per
Attachments: Hay 2~, ~987 Staff Report
Resolution No. 24~!
Resolution No. 24~Z
Resolution No. 2413
Resolution No. 24~4
Corn munity Development Department
ATTACBI~NT NO. I
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COBIIUNZTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
£XTENSION OF MORATORZUM ORDZNANCE -
NEIIPORTAVENUE.
REC011~NDED ACTION:
H.0. That Urgency Ordinance No. 986 have first reading
by title only.
M.0. That Urgency Ordinance No. 986 be introduced.
M.0. That Urgency Ordinance No. 986 have second reading
by title only.
M.O. That Urgency Ordinance No. 986 be passed and adopted.
BACEGROUND:
The Tustin City Council adopted an interim ordinance (No. 983) on April 20,
1987. This ordinance placed a moratorium on the processing, issuance of permits
or approvals of any kind for development projects of properties located on the
east side of Newport Avenue between Main Street and San Juan and on the west
side of Newport Avenue between the 1-5 freeway and Mitchell Avenue. Attached is
a copy of the April 20, 1987 Staff report which discusses the background and
zoning issues related to the initiation of the moratorium.
The subject moratorium was established for the purpose of permitting completion
of Zone changes and a General Plan amendment which will re-zone the.study areas
to PC-Planned Community Commercial. This is expected to encourage comprehensive
development of the properties in the study areas and avoid incremental
development of properties which have a detrimental effect on the area.
The moratorium previously adopted is effective for 45 days from the date of
adoption and may be extended by the City Council for ten {10) months and fifteen
(15) days. A subsequent extension of one year may also be granted with the
approval of the City Council.
Section 65858 requires that a report be prepared and made available to the
public ten (10) days prior to the public hearing for the consideration of
extending any moratorium adopted by an interim ordinance. This report contains
the zoning related issues and a proposed course of action for initiation of a
zone change and General Plan amendment for the stbdy area.
Extension of Moratorium Ordinance -
Newport Avenue
page two
HORK PROGRAM:
As discussed in the attached staff report of April 20, 1987, each of the study
areas have considerable development potential . However, some lots have minimum
visibility and access to Newport Avenue. Should any of the lots which dtrectly
face Newport Avenue be developed individually, the possibility of development of
the rear lots in each area is highly unlikely.
The proposed zone change to PC-plan~ed Community Commercial would reautre some
form of lot consolidation and a development plan. This development plan would
address visibility and access issues in addition to site, architectural, and
landscaping requirements and would be approved by the issuance of a Use Permit.
t this time, Staff has completed the following steps towards the preparation of
~ntng ordinance amendments.
1. Base maps prepared.
2. Survey of land use and zoning.
3. ~reparatton of maps showing zoning/land use and condition of property.
4. Initial analysis of proposed zone change and General Plan amendments.
The base maps and analysis results Will help staff to prepare the final zoning
documents for presentation to the City Council and Planning Commission.
The following is a proposed processing schedule for the current work program:
DA'r~ ACTIVI'r~
June 1, 1987
Public Hearing held by City Council to consider
extension of the moratorium on the Newport Avenue
study areas. ~
June 1, - June 22, 1987
Staff to complete analysis of study area.
Preparation of zone changes and General Plan
amendment.
June 22, 1987
July 13, 1987
Preliminary workshop with Planning Commission and
residents to review Staff report and recommended
approach.
Public Hearing held by Planning Commission for
adoption of zone changes and General Plan
amendment.
July 20, 1987
Public Hearing held by City Council/Redevelopment
~gency. for cons[derQt[~q o~_ zopp ghanges and
eneram Plan amenamen: tP~rs: ~eaa~ng~.
Moratorium Ordinance No. g83:
Zoning Study
Page three ·
DA'IT ACTIVITY
August 3, 1987
September. 2, 1987,
Second reading of zone changes and General Plan
amendment.
Zone changes and Seneral Plan amendment in
effect/moratorium terminated.
This tenattve schedule allows for approximately 3 months of processing time.
Minor alterations of this schedule may occur if the scope of the project
changes. Although the moratorium is not expected to be in effect for ten (10)
months and fifteen (15) days, the tenative schedule may change if unforeseen
-difficulties arise, the scope of the project is changed or the current work load
n the Court, unity Development Department changes significantly. However, the
,ontng changes and General Plan amendment can be expected to be in effect in
less than the allowed ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. Upon adoption of
the zone changes and General Plan amendment, the moratorium would automatically
expire.
·Otrector Community Development Department
Attachments:
STAFF REPORT
ORDINANCE NO. 986
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
~ ~'~i, '.~'~. ~ ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION
DATE: APRIL m, 1987
TO' WILLI~ A. m;OI,
FROM: C~NXW ~VELO~E~
S U BJ ECT:
PROPOSED MORATORIUMS ON THE F.~RLY SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE
BET~IEEW SAN JUAN AND MAIN STREET AND ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF
NEWPORT AVENUE BETWEEN I-5 FREEWAY AND ldITCHELL AVENUE
RECQIIIE#DAT[ON:
M.O. That Urgency Ordinance No. 983 have first reading by title only.
M.O. ThatUrgency Ordinance No. 983 be introduced.
'',0. That Urgency Ordinance No. 983 have second reading by title only.
,~.0. That Urgency Ordinance No. 983 be passed and adopted.
BACKGROUWD AND ANALYSIS:
The Community Development Department has recently been approached by several
parties about development of property at the southeast corner of Newport Avenue
and Main Street and property along the west side of Newport Avenue between
Mitchell Avenue and the 1-5 freeway. These are properties that staff feel have
development potential. However, it is our position that limited access and
traffic issues along Newport Avenue necessitate that the properties in each
study area be developed as comprehensive, cohesive projects. These study areas
and the issues involved are discussed separately below.
EAST SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE BEl~EEN MAIN STREET AND SAN JUAN
Each of the corner sites has considerable development potential. Each of
the sites within this study area are zoned CG-Commercial General or
CG-PUD-Commercial General-Planned Unit Development. The three lots on the
north would provide a development site of 1.48 acres if combined. The
southerly site comprises eight lots which total 1.11 acres if combined.
See Map ! for clarification.
Current zoning would allow incremental development of each of the eight
lots within the study area. Although some sites have optimum visibility
and accessibility, the most easterly lots are not visible or accessible
from Newport Avenue. Should incremental development occur, all access and
street visibility of the easterly lots will be limited to Andrews Street or
San Juan, thereby creating a situation that makes it highly unlikely that
these sites would be developed as commercial propoerty despite their
current zoning.
City Council. Report
April 20, 1987
San Juan and Main Street Morltortum
Page two
Recognizing the Important l=catton of the subject properties across from
Tusttn Plaza and as. entry to the Ctvtc Center and Old Town, the City should
~ake whatever steps necessary to ensure consolidated development of the
subject properties. In order to encourage coh~stve development of the
area, initiation of a zone change on all eight sites is recommended. This
zone change could rezone all eight sttes to PC-Commercial which requtres a
development plan and Use Permit prtor to construction.
Stmtlar uses already authorized tn the CG zone would be allowed in the PC
zone. However, flexibility tn mixed uses, parktng and setback requirements
and stte destgn would be available,
WESTSIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE BETWEEN THE I-5 FREEWAY AND MITCHELL AVENUE
T~ts area Is comprised of eleven lots In an area approximately 3.98 acres
in size. Six lots within the study area, which have access directly onto
Newport Avenue, are zoned C-! Retail Commercial. The remaining five lots
are zoned R-3-Multtple Family Residential. See Map 2 for details.
Some lots (Alta Dena Dat r~, vacant Texaco site and the Headache Treatment
Center) which face Newport Avenue have optimum visibility and
accessibility. However, the three lots on the north east corner h~ve very
limited access due to their irregular 'configuration. The.remaining
properties are accessed from either "C" Street or "B" Street and currently
contain non-conforming multiple family housin~ units. These units were
annexed into Tustin from the County of Orange and do not meet current
parking, open space, architectural- and density requirements of the R-3
zoning district.
Incremental development of all or a portion of the properties will have an
affect upon the development of the properties as a whole. As in the case
of the previously discussed study area, incremental development ~ould occur
under the current zoning. However, incremental developent of certain lots,
such as the vacant Texaco site would greatly reduce the possibilities for
development of the three lots to the north.
In order to encourage' comprehensive development of the area, staff is
currently studying the feasibility of a zone change on all eleven parcels.
This zone change could involve rezoning all eleven sites to Planned
Community which requires a development plan and Use Permit prior to
construction.
¢tty Council Report
Apr11 20, 1987
San Juan and Matn Street Horltorlum
Page three
CONCLUSZONS:
Department staff are centinually contacted by interested parties who wish 'to
develop all or a part of the study areas. In order ~o encourage comprehensive
development of the study areas, staff would recommend that the Council adopt an
tntertm urgency ordinance that would impose a morttorlum on the processing,
approval or issuance of any building permits or discretionary actions within the
study areas until a zone change can be enacted.
CAS :LCP :pef
Attachments:
Map 1
Map 2
Urgency Ordinance No. 983
Andre~s :St.
S~ Jmn
East side of Newport Avenue
between San Juan and Main St.
CC,
Co,m,,ercial General
(no Use Permit Required)
CG-PUD
Co,mtterci,¢t General- Planned
Unit Development (Use
Permit Required)
MAP Z
R-3
C-1
R-3
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
C-1
Mitchell Ave
%Vest side of Newport Avenue
between Mitchell and I-5 FWY.
C-1 Retail Commercial Zone
R-3 Multiple Family Residen-
tial Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
~3
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20 '
21
23
25
26
27
ORDINANCE NO. 983
AN URGENCY'ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING,
ISSUANCE OF PERMITS OR APPROVALS OF ANY KIND FOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF .PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE BETWEEN SAN JUAN
AND MAIN STREET AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE
BETWEEN TtlE I-5 FREEWAY AND MITCHELL AVENUE
The City Council of the City of Tustln, California, does ordain as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
The Community Development Department is currently in the process
of studying the feasibility of 'a Zone Change to require a
development plan and Conditional Use Permit for development of
properties on the easterly side of Newport Avenue between San
Juan and Main Street as shown on Exhibits A and B attached
hereto.
B®
Certain 'lots within the area have limited accessibility which
precludes quality development compatible with a major arterial
roadway.
Ce
Incremental development of the parcels and absence of a
comprehensive development plan is injurious to the public
health, safety and welfare.
The Community Development Department is conducting and will
continue to conduct a study of the need for an ordinance to
redesignate the zoning designation on the properties as shown on
Exhibits A and B attached hereto.
II.
The City Council hereby declares a moratorium on the
processing, issuance of permits or approvals of any kind for
development projects shown on Exhibits A and B pending completion of
the study and report of the Planning Commission and Community
Development Department and action thereon by the City Council.. The
moratorium declared hereby shall extend for a period of 45 days from
the date of adoption of this ordinance, unless duly extended or
terminated.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
14
15
16
17
18
10
21
'22I
23
2~
'27
281
Ordinance No. 983
Page two
III.
This ordinance is adopted to protect the' public health, safety and
welfare and is adopted as an urgency measure by a four-fifth (4/5)
vote pursuant to the' provisions of .Section 65858 of the California
Government Code and shall take effect immediately. The urgency is
based on the fact that the City Council hereby finds that the
construction of projects on the subject property prior to completion
of the study would have an adverse effect on other development and
uses and upon the proper planning of the City of Tustin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin held on the day of , 1987.
Richard B. Edgar, Mayor
Mary E. ~Wynn, City
Attachments: Exhibit A
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT "A"
(Ordinance No. 983)
~'~ .---- ---- --;~:r
.:::::~:::::::::::::
======================
========================= ......
~:_~! ................... £
=================================
.:: ................................
.................
::::::::::::::::::::::::::~
::::::::: ............
.................. ~_'_' ..... ::::::::::::::i
_____.~ -__--~
,~t/DI~ F'tI$ S T~-'F
....... 111111111~ 1::1:1
· ' :t:::::
I
:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ....
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
,. ........ ~ ;111111 :11111.,
1111111114' ~111:4 !1:1:11
........ 11:11~
:'&Il:Il:: 1111111 1:11111
~:~::: ::~-'-':: ::xg::I
r
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
oo
EXMIBIT "B"'
(Ordinance No. 983)
::111:11:::::~ 1:1::1:
>:ORTH
NOT TO SCALE
1
2
3
4
5
'6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
9.1
22
9_3
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 986
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING,
ISSUANCE 'OF PERMITS OR APPROVALS OF ANY KIND FOR
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS OF PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE BETWEEN SAN JUAN
AND MAIN STREET AND ON ll4E WEST SIDE OF NEWPORT AVENUE
BETWEEN THE I-5 FREEWAY AND MITCHELL AVENUE AS
PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 983.
The City Council of the City of Tusttn, 'California, does ordain as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
Ae
The Community Development Department ~s currently in the process
of studying the feasibility of a zone change to require a
development plan and Conditional Use Permit for development of
properties on the easterly side of Newport Avenue between San
Juan and Main Street a6d on the westerly side of Newport Avenue
between the 1-5 freeway and Mitchell Avenue as shown on Exhibits
A and B attached hereto.
Be
Certain lots within the area have limited accessibility which
precludes quality development compatible with a major arterial
roadway.
Incremental development of the parcels and absence of a
comprehensive development plan is injurious' to the pubiic
health, safety and welfare.
De
The Community Development Department is conducting and will
continue to conduct a study of the need for an Ordinance to
redesignate the zoning designation on the properties as shown on
Exhibits A and B attached hereto.
II.
The City Council hereby extends the declared moratorium on the
processing, issuance of permits or approvals of any kind for
development projects shown on Exhibits A and B pending completion of
the study and report of the Planning Commission and Community
Development Department and action thereon by the City Council. The
moratorium declared hereby shall extend for a period of up to ten
(10) months and fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption of this
Ordinance, unless duly extended or terminated.
1
2
3
5
'6
7
9
1_0
ll
12
15
16
18
19
2O
21
23
2~~
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 986
Page t~o
III.
This Ordinance is adopted to protect the public health, safety and
welfare and is .adopted as an urgency measure by a four-fifth (4/5)
vote pursuant to the provisions of Section 65858 of the California
Government Code and shall take effect immediately. The urgency is
based on the fact that the City Council hereby finds that the
construction of projects on the subject property prior to completion
of the study would have an adverse effect on other development and
uses and upon the proper planning of the City of Tustin and to the
public's general health, safety and welfare.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tusttn held on the day of ,'1987.
Richard B. Edgar, Mayor
Mary E. Wynn~ City
Attachments: Exhibit A
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT
(Ordinance No. 985)
........... '
............ iii~iiiiiii~il .., .
:::::::::::::::::::::
I
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
(Ordinance No. 986)
x~V~NUE
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
'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
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2411
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR
OEVELOPMENT PLANS ON PROPERTIES LOCATEO IN THE
PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL OISTRICT
The Planntng Commission of the Ctty of Tustln does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planntng Commission ftnds and determines as follows:
Re
In order to protect the publlc health, safety and welfare, the
Planntng Commission should constder the following guidelines
when approving development plans for properties located tn the
Planned Community Commercial Otstrtct:
Consolidation of lots shall be encouraged wherever feasible
to ensure that contiguous properties with the same zoning
designation are considered in a comprehensive rather than in
an incremental manner.
Review of development plans for parcels in the' Planned
Community Commercial district' shall consider impacts on
adjacent properties, and properties in the vicinity, in that
the Planned Community Co,mercia1 district intends to promote
the following goals and objectives:
The best use of property wtthtn the Planned Community
Commercial dtstrtct is development approaching maxtmum
development potential;
b. To promote a consistent quality of development
throughout the Planned Con~nuntty Commercial district;
To provtde compatible land uses whtch do not Interfere
or create health, safety or moral problems for an
adjacent use;'
To ensure efficient parcel sizes and ~onftgurattons
for development plans approved in the Planned
Community Commorctal district;
To require development plans
combination of standards and
stimulate quality development;
which incorporate a
incentives which will
f. To promote lot consolidation in order to minimize
traffic congestion through use of combined access
points for development projects;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2411
page two
C®
ge
To provtde development plans that promote max¶mum
visibility and accesMbtltty of all parcels tn the
same district. [mpacts to properties adjacent to and
In the vicinity of property being considered should be
revtewed In that incremental development of properties
tn the Planned Community Commercial district may
render contiguous properties undevelopable for
commercial use.
h®
Ensure that projects proposed for Planned Community
Commercial properties Incorporate, wherever possible,
uses whtch generate general fund revenue to the City
in conformance wtthtn the land use element of the
General Plan which is to promote an economically
balanced community.
That the establishment of these guidelines is necessary to
protect the property and improvements tn the neighborhoods
surrounding or located in the Planned Community Commercial
Districts and the general welfare of the Ctty of Tusttn.
These guidelines are in accordance wtth the South Central and
Town Center Redevelopment Plans.
Should a development plan for a project within the Planned
Commercial district fat1 to meet any of the aforementioned
guidelines, this shall provtde a basis for Planntng Commission
dental of the Use Permit required f~r approval of the
development plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198
Charles E. Puckett,
Chatrman
Penn1 Foley,
Recording Secretary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2412
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF
PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF NEWPORT
AVENUE BETWEEN MAIN STREET AND SAN JUAN FROM
(CC) COMMERCIAL GENERAL AND CG-PUD COMMERCIAL
GENERAL-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO (PC-C)
PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
I.' The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Re
City Counctl requested initiation of a City of Tustin Zone
Change from CG and CG-PUO to PC-Commercial for all properties in
the project area as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
That a public hearing duly called, noticed and held on said
app11 carton.
C. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons:
1. The commercial land use designation is in conformance with
the Tusttn Area General Plan.
The intent of the PC-C zone is to allow diversification of
development while maintaining conttnunity in architecture
and compatibility of land use. Also the intent of the zone
is to provide consolidation of parcels in an effort to
discourage incremental development and to encourage
reduction of vehicular access points onto Newport Avenue.
3. Individual project continuntty and compatibility within the
PC-C district will be insured by requiring Conditional Use
Permits prior to development.
:
4. Certain lots within the area have limited accessibility
which precludes quality development compatible with a major
arterial roadway.
Incremental development of the parcels and absence of a
comprehensive development plan is injurious to the public
health, safety and welfare based upon findings in Sections
I.e. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this resolution.
1
2
4
6
?
$
9
· 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Draft Resolution No. 2412
page two
II.
The Planntng Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
approval of Zone Change No. 87-1 from (C$) Commercial General and
(CG-PUO) Commercial Seneral-Planned Unit Development to Planned
Community Commercial (PC-C) for the properties in the project area
shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198
Charles E. Puckett,
Chairman
Penni Foley,
Recording Secretary
EXHIBIT 'A'
(RESOLUTIONNQ. 2412)
.RE-ZONING NO. 87-1, ALL PARCELS FROM
CG AND CC-PUD TO PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-C)
':1
NORTI!
SCALE: 1"=200 '
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 2413 :
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT'OF
THE GENERAL PLAN FOR PROPERTIES GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF 'B' STREET SOUTH
OF THE I-5 FREEWAY FROM (M-F) MULTI-FAMILY
AND (C) COMMERCIAL TO (PCC) PLANNED COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Section 65356.1 of the Government Code of the State of
California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public
interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General
Plan.
II.
That in accordance with Section 65356 of the Government Code of
the State of California, a public hearing was duly called,
noticed and held on the application of the City of Tusttn to
reclassify the land use of properties shown on Exhibit A
attached hereto an incorporated herein by reference.
That a Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and
is hereby recommended fo~ adoption.
That a change in classification would be in the public interest
and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the
surrounding property owners in that this amendment will permit
implementation of a zone designation that will promote
comprehensive and compatible development in the area by
requiring an approved development plan prior to issuance of new
construction permits.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that
General Plan Amendment 87-1 be adopted, amending the Land Use Element
for the area as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto from iMF)
Multi-Family and (C) Commercial to (PCC) Planned Community
Commercial.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the day of , 198
Charles E. Puckett,
Chairman
Penni Foley,
Recording Secretary
EXHIBIT 'A'
(RESOLUTION NO. 24!3)
RE-DESIGNATION OF GENERAL PLAN MAP LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM MULTI-FAMILY (MF) AND COMMERCIAL (C)
TO PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-C)
AREA AFFECTED BY LAND USE
DESIGNATION CHANGE.
NOR'~I
SCALE ~ 1/16"-i0'
1
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DRAFT RESOLUTION N0..2414
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING REZONING OF
PROPERTIES GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF NEWPORT
AVENUE BETWEEN THE I-5 FREEWAY ANO MITCHELL
AVENUE FROM MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3)
AND RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1) TO PLANNED
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (PC-C)
The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Ae
The City Council requested initiation of a zone change from
Retail Commercial (C-l) and Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to
Planned Community Commercial (PC-C) for all properties located
in the project area shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application.
C. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons:
A General Plan Amendment (No. 87-1) has been processed
concurrently with this zone change to redestgnate properties
shown on Exhibit "A" from M~ltt-Famtly (MF) and Commercial
(C) to Planned Community Commercial (PCC) on the General
Plan Land Use Map. As required by State Law, General Plan
and Zone designation must be consistent with each other.
The Zone change approved by this resolution maintains
general plan to zoning conststancy.
e
The intent of the PC-C zone is to allow diversification of
development while maintaining conttnunity in architecture
and compatibility of land use. Also the intent of the zone
is to provide consolidation of parcels in 'an effort to
discourage incremental development and to encourage
reduction of vehicular access points onto Newport Avenue.
e
Individual project conttnunity and compatibility within the
PC-C district will be insured by requiring Conditional Use
Permits prior to development.
1
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. 2414
Page two
II.
Certain lots within the area have limited accessibility
which precludes quality development compatible with a major
arterial roadway.
Incremental development of the parcels and absence of a
comprehensive development .plan is injurious to the public
health, safety and welfare based upon findings in I:C. 1, 2,
3 and 4 of this resolution.
A Negative Declaration has been filed in conformance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council
approval of Zone Change No. 87-2 from Multiple Family Residential
(R-3). and Retail Co,,,,ercial (C-1) to Planned Community Commercial
(PC-C) for the property in the projected area shown on Exhibit A
attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn Planning Commission.
held on the day of . lg8
Charles E. Puckett,
Chairman
Penni Foley,
Recording Secretary
EXHIBIT 'A'
(RESOLUTION NO. 2414)
RE-ZONE NO. 87-2 FROM C-1 AND R-3 TO PLANNED
COMMUNITY C~RCIAL (PC-C)
NORTH
8~AI.E: 1/16"y10'
Planning. Commission
DAT[: ,1UNE 22, 1987
S~,1£C1': REPORT ON COUNCZL ACTTONS - ,]uae 15, 1987
Oral presentation.
per
Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - June 15, 1987
Corn munity Development Department
ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR I~ETING
OF THE TOSTIN CITY COUNCIL
JUNE 15, 1987
7:00 P.M.
7 :.02 I.
ALL PRESENT II.
III.
TO BE PRESENTED AT
A LATER DATE
PRESENTED TO i, gmY 2.
CHANDLER AND OTHER PARENTS
PRESENTED TO TON AND 3.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PROCLAMATIONS
1. BLENDLE SCOTT - RETIRED MAINTENANCE WORKER - 14 YEARS' SERVICE
llJSTIN HIGH SCHOOL GRAD NIGHT PARTY
FOOTHILL HIGH SCHOOL GRAD NIGHT PARTY
LINDA RJFDEHBERG AND OTHER PARENTS
RECESSED AT 7:20 P.#. TO A CLOSED SESSION RE6ARDING M~NDING LITIGATION
RECONVENEB AT 7:41
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
CONTINUED TO &ULY 6, 1.
1987, AT 7:00 P.M.
STAFF WITH 'nE COMSULTANT
TO REVISE THE REPORT AND
~ INCLUDE S01~ OF THE
x...dE IN TERMS OF
.~I00LD PAY FOR TH£ STREET
LIGHTS
JIM PLASEiT V.
SAID THE COLUI~US
TUSTIN LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING DISTRICT
The Irvine Company has requested postponement of annexation to
subject district of parcels north of Irvine Boulevard until after
July 1, 1988. Deletion of 16 parcels necessitates revision of the
Engineer's Report, which will be completed for the July 6 meeting.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1) Open the public hearing and accept testimony of property owners
and citizens wishing to speak;
2) Continue the hearing to July 6, 1987, at 7:00 p.m.; and
3) Direct staff, with BSI Consultants, to revise the Engineer's
Report based on withdrawal from annexation to the district of
The Irvine Company lands north of 1trine Boulevard.
PUBLIC INPUT
(At this time members of the public may address the City Council regard-
TUSTIN PARK CAN BECOIE ing any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council
A REAL NUISANCE TO THE provided that NO action may be taken on off-agenda items unless autho-
PEDDLE WHO LIVE IN THE rized by law.)
MEIGHBORIJO00. HE ASIU~D THAT THE CITY TAKE S0gE ACTION OF POSSIBLY BLOCKING THE PARKING LOTS
AFTER CLOSING HOURS OF THE BASEBALL FIELD AND GIVE THE R~$IDENTS RELIEF FROM' CARS DRAG RACING
THROUGH THE PARKING LOTS AT ALL HOURS OF THE EVENING, PARTICULARLY ON k~EK-ENDS. STAFF TO LOOK
INTO THIS.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
~Ap-P. ROVED WITH ONE 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 26, 1987, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ECTION ON MAY 26TH NEETING THAT JAY JUNE l, 1987, REGULAR MEETING
~ RSON SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION JUNE 4, 1987, SPECIAL MEETING
AI-r~0VED, STAFF TO 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $752,403.01
CREC~ ON DAVIO'S BILL RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $158,046.84
BEING LISTEI) UI~R ARNEXATIORS
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
Page 1 6-15-87
D TO 6-22 3.
NE]) I~GULA~ HEETING
APPROVED STAFF 4.
RECO~ROATION
APPROVED STAFF
RECO~NDATION
APPROVED STAFF 6.
RECO~ROATION
APPROVED STAFF
RECOI~ROATION
e
I ~]) Rr~OLI~ION 8.
Nb. 87-66
ADOP1TD R[.~X.UIIOII 9.
NO. 87~7
APPROVED STAFF 10o
RECON~[ROATION
APPROVED STAFF 11.
RECOI~I~ATION
RESOLUTION NO. 87-64 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP 12763 (Sectors 10 & 11, East
· Tustln Specific Plan)
Adopt Resolution No. 87-64 as recon~nended by the Conmn~nity
Development Department.
CITY OF TUSTIN INVESTMENT POLICY
Receive and file the Statement of Investment Policy as drafted
by the Director of Finance attached to the inter-com dated
June 9, 1987.
PURCHASE OF NEW CHIPPER TRUCK FOR TREE DIVISION
Authorize the purchase of a chipper truck for the Tree Division
in the amount of $32,799.96 from Jim Click Ford as recommended
by the Public Works Department/Field Services. Division.
PURCHASE OF A ONE-TON TRUCK FOR WATER DEPARTMENT
Authorize the purchase of a one-ton truck with utility bed for
the Water Department from Sunset Ford in the amount of
$16,672.94 as recommended by the Public Works Department/Field
Services Division.
PURCHA.SE OF DODGE DAKOTA PICKUP TRUCK FOR PARKS DIVISION
Authorize purchase of a Dodge Dakota Pickup Truck for the Parks
Department in the amount of $11,289 from Dodge Central as recom-
mended by the Public Works Department/Field Services Division.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-66 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLA2(S ARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER
MAIN REPLACEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS (SECOND
ST., THIRD ST., WASS ST., ELIT. RBETH WAY, AND IRVINE.BLVD.)
Adopt Resolut.ion No. 87-66 as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
RESOLUTION NO.' 87-67 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 85-1 IMPROVEMENTS ON TUSTIN
RANCH ROAD AND MYFORD ROAD AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
Adopt Resolution No. 87-67 as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division.
EXTENSION OF CONTRACT Will4 MISSION UNIFORM
Approve a one-year contract extension with Mtsslon Uniform to
expire April 29, 1990, for maintenance and water crew uniforms
as reconmmnded by the Public Works Department/Field Services
Division.
CITY OF llJSTIN LIGHTING DISTRICT
Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contracts with the
Southern California Edison Company as follows: Street Lighting
Service Utility-Owned System Schedule No. LB-l; and Street
Lighting Service Customer-Owned System Schedule No.'s LB-2, LS-3
and Optional Schedule No. LB-4 as recommended by. the Public
Works Department/Engineering Division.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
Page 2 6-15-87
APPROVED STAFF
RECOMIEROATZON
VII.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 87-69 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATION FOR EXTE-
RIOR PAINTING AT THE CITY OF TUSTIN MAINTENANCE YARD
Adopt Resolution No. 87-69 as recommended by the Public Works
Department/Field Services Division.
13. AUTHORI7J~TION TO CONTINUE OPERATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1987-88
Approve Minute Order to authorize the City Manager to continue
fiscal operations for 1987-88 at an appropriation level not to
exceed that of 1986-87 until such time as the budget process can
be completed as recommended by the Finance Department.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None.
VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None.
IX. OLD BUSINESS
CONTINUED TO 6-22 1.
ADdOURNED REGULAR PEETING
ANNEXATION NO. 139 - EVENINGSIDE/RAINBOW ANNEXATION
The City Attorney's Office will report on certification of the value
of wrt~tten protests.
CONTINUED TO 6-22 2.
AD,]OURNI:'n REGULAR ~ETINU
X. NEW
ANNEXATION HO. 140 - LA COLINA/BROWNING ANNEXATION
The City Attorney's Office will report on certification of the value
of written protests.
BUSINESS
~P~V~ STAFF
RE~IM~ROMION
1. AWARD OF CONTRACT - MANUFACTURE & DELIVERY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
PIPE FOR TUSTIN RJkNCH PROJECT, ASSESSMENT DISTRICT'NO. 85-1
Bid opening for subject project was held On June 2, 1987. The low
bid is 7.8% over the engineer's estimate of $652,761.00.
APPROVED STAFF
RECOI~[ROATION
AND ADOPTED
RESOLUTION RO. 87-60
Recommendation: Award the contract to Hydro Conduit Corporation,
Corona, in the amount of $703,435.25 for subject project as recom-
mended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division.
AWARD OF CONTRACT - RECONSTRUCTION OF MAIN STREET FROM "C" STREET TO
PACIFIC STREET {OCUTT PROJECT PHASES I AND 1I)
Bid opening*for subject project was held on June ~, 1987. The low
bids is 28% below the engineer's estimate of $374,g70.00.
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1)
2)
Award the contract to Sully Miller Contracting Company, Orange,
in the amount of $268,368.24 for subject project; and
Adopt the following:
RESOLUTION NO. 87-68 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COM-
MISSION TO ALLOCATE ORANGE COUNTY UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION TRUST
(OCUTT) FUNDS FOR MAIN STREET BETWEEN "C" STREET AND PACIFIC
STREET
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA
Page 3 6-16-87
,* 'ED ~SOLUTION
I~ J7-65
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM - FOOTHILL AND EASTERN TRANSPORTATION' CORRIDOR
AGENCY - RESOLUTION NO. 87-65
Mayor Edgar-requested Council supPort the Transportation Corridor
AgencY legtslattve program.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-65 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, APPROVING 1987 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM OF THE FOOTHILL AND
EASTERN TRANSPORTATION JOINT POWERS AGENCY
Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council.
XI. REPORTS
RATIFIED 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AGENDA - JUNE 8, 1987
All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed
by the City Council or member of the public.
Rec~,,,~ndation= Ratify the Planning Commission Action Agenda of
June 8, 1987.
RECEIVED ~ FILED 2. INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF MAY 31, 1987
Recmmendatton: Recetve and file.
REQUESTED XlI. OTHER BUSINESS
~OSEi) <a=SSION REGAROING PENOING LITIGATION
NELLY REPORTED THAT RESIDENTS MIO LIVE IN THE TREEMAVEN CONDOMINIUMS BEHIND C0C0'S ON 17TH
STREET COMPLAINED THAT NTER THE SLURRY SEAL COAT, THEY LOST THEIR IMRKED CROSSWALK THAT GOES
FROM Ilk?O'S TO CONffrlIUTIO8 SAVINGS ON 17111 STREET, All) THEY APE CONCERNED ABOUT GEl'rING THAT
BAC[.
KENNEDY REPORTED THAT THE COUNCIL IS COFg4ITTED TO RFJ4OVlNG GIUU:ITrI. THE CITY IgUIAGER SAID
THAT ~ IgWE RI (]ffrSIOE (~)NT1U~'TOR TAKIMG CARE OF 'ITU~T.
STAFF TO COOPJ)INATE A WORKSHOP wrrH 'hie PLAMIIIM6 COMMISSION TO DISCUSS COUNCIL'S DIRECTION ON
CERTAIN I~TTERS.
F.~ CLARIFIED 0ESIGNKTIONS REGAROING LA COLINK DRIVE. COUNCIL MOVED THAT STAFF INITIATE
IJIATEVER gE CNI LEGALLY DO TO ASK THE COUNTY TO OIANGE THE DESIGNATION OF LA COLINK FROM
NEWPORT TO BROWNING FROM ITS ARTERIAL PLAN SO THAT IT C/UI BE CI4ANGED RU)M :,FOUR LANES TO THO
LANES.
J'rAFF TO AEIDIZE N~OIIITEIIT OF JIM HRYES TO THE AZRPORT COMMITTEE FOR THE NEXT I~ETING ON
JUNE 221ll.
EDO~ REPORTED THAT HIS NEIGHBORS /IRE SAYING THEIR TREES HAVE NOT BEEN TRII~g~-D.
lr~' XIII. ADJOURNMENT
Recessed to a Closed Session regarding possible litigation according to
Government Code Section $4g$6.g, and thence to an Adjourned Regular
Meeting on Monday, June 22, 1987, at 6:30 p.m., and thence to the next
regular meeting on Monday, July 6, 1987, at 7:00 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA Page 4 6-I5-87
8:33 1.
ALL PRESENT 2.
APPROVED 3.
APPROV~
ACTION A6ENDA OF A REGULAR t~ET[IIG OF
'IllE TUST[N REDEVELOPI~NT ~tlENCY
JUNE 15, 1987
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 1, 1987, REGULAR MEETING
Recommendation: Approve.
APPROVAL OF DEMANDS - MAY, 1987
Recommendation: Approve Demands in the amount of $554,918.73 for the
month of May, 1987, as recon~nended by the Finance Department.
ADOPTED- 5. POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIONS CENTER - RESOLUTION NO. RDA 87-4
RESOLUTXOll NO. ROA 87-4
The project was approved during Fiscal Year 1985-86 and subsequently
carried over to 1986-87. This is a housekeeping item to allow
expenditure of Agency funds during current fiscal year.
APPROVED STAFF
RECOI~ENOATIOll
AND ADOPTED.
RESOLUTION RD.
ROA 87-5
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 87-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE POLICE COMMUNICATION CENTER AND
DETERMINING ll'U&T THE PROJECT IS A BENEFIT TO THE TOWN CENTER PROJECT
AREA AND THERE ARE NOT OTHER REASONABLE MEANS OF FINANCING THE PROJECT
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. RDA 87-4 as recommended by the
Finance Department.
MC CALLA PROPERTY STATUS REPORT
Clearance of the Columbus Tusttn Parksite at 14652 Prospect Avenue,
formerly occupied by James and Ida McCalla, to eliminate any hazards.
Recommendation: That the Agency:
1) Authorize staff to waive formal bid requirements due to emergency
nature of the work, specifically health hazards and potential lia-
bility; and
2) Appropriate necessary Redevelopment Agency funds for the site demo-
lition and clearing {approximately $10,000 to $15,000).
3)
Adopt Resolution No. RDA 87-5 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THAT PUBLIC
INTEREST AND NECESSITY DEMANDS IMMEDIATE EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY
TO SAFEGUARD LIFE AND HEALTH (14652 PROSPECT AVE.)
7. OTHER BUSINESS
8. ADJOURNMENT
To the next Regular Meeting on July 6, 1987, at 7:00 p.m.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA
Page 1 6-15-87
DATE:
Inter- Corn
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PLANNING COI~ISSION ,
COHHUNITY DEYELOPHENT DEPARTHENT
PLANNING COI~ISSION RE-ORGANIZATION
RECOII~ENDATION:
Receive and file.
$1JIg4ARY:
As a matter, of standard procedure, the Planning Commission re-organizes once a
year by appointing a new Chairperson and Chairperson Pro-rem. This usually
occurs at the first Planning Commission.meeting of the new fiscal year.
This report is a reminder to the Commission that the agenda for the next
Commission meeting will include time for re-organization and appointment of the
new Chatrpersqn and Chairperson Pro-rem.
L~UFa Cay
Assocta'te Planner
LCP:pef
r sttne Shtngleton~~
Director of Community Development