Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 FINAL EIR 85-2 10-22-86 PUBLIC HEARING 10-22-86 Inter- Corn TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIA~ A. HUSTON, CITY AANAGER COH~INITY DEVELOPNENT DEPARTHENT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL EIR TO FIILRL EIR 85-2 CONSIDERING ENVZRONMENTAL ~IPACTS OF A PROPOSED OEVELOPtlENT AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEyELOPNENT OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA. ENY IRONMENTAL STATUS: THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCOROANCE WITH SECTION 15163 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIOELINES. REC014MENOED ACTION: It is recommended that the Council, upon review of public testimony, and consideration of comments on responses thereto, certify Final Environmental supplemented by the adoption of Resolution No. 86-126. SIJIIIARY: the document, receipt of the Draft SEIR and the Impact Report 85-2 as On March 17, 1986, the Tustln City Council certified as complete the East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (EIR 85-2). EIR 85-2 addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a + 1,740 acre master planned community proposed in the City of Tustin. EIR 85---2 was prepared as a program EIR in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to Section 15188(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, all "subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared." In conformance with the provisions of CEQA, an addendum to EIR 85-2 covering the first assessment district in the East Tustin Specific Plan area was prepared in June 1986 and certified as complete by the Tustin City Council on July 21, 1986. The East Tustin Specific Plan, as adopted, requires that prior to development within the area a Development Agreement as defined by Section 65864 of the California Government Code must be approved. This agreement is to be between the City of Tustin and The Irvine Company. However, the proposed agreement currently being processed was not complete at the time EIR 85-2 was certified. As such, upon receipt of the proposed agreement, an initial study was prepared to evaluate environmental implications that may arise as a result of implementation of said agreement. The initial study (See Appendix A of SEIR) determined that under the Development Agreement new information is available related to development phasing that could result in identification of environmental impacts that were not addressed in EIR 85-2. City Council Report SEIR page two Accordingly, the subject Draft Supplemental Environmental I~act Report (SEIR) was prepared as supplement to EIR 85-2. The SEIR was drafted in accordance with all applicable sections of CEQA, was distributed to all responsible agencies for review and comment, and was also forwarded to all persons/agencies/organizations that commented on EIR 85-2. Subsequently, on October 13, 1986 a public hearing before the Planning Commission was held providing still another opportunity for public testimony and input. As reflected in the Minutes attached to this report, no one spoke in opposition or had any additional comments relating to the draft SEIR. The Commission in turn recommended to Council that the draft SEIR be certified as final. DI$CUS$IOM: Essentially, in response to an initial study, the SEIR analyzes three environmental areas which would or could be impacted as a result of implementation of the proposed Development Agreement. Specifically, these areas are: Transportation/Circulation; Water/Hydrology; and Public (Police/Fire) Services. Each of these areas have been dealt with in detail within the body of the SEIR and further elaboration here is not necessary. However, a full presentation by environmental consultants responsible for preparation of the document will be given at the Oct. 13, 1986 Council meeting. In reviewing the SEIR, the Council should keep in mind that environmental impacts or issues discussed must be relevant to the proposed development agreement. In other words, impacts of total buildout of the Specific Plan area, including construction of traffic circulation systems, were already considered in EIR 85-2 and are not topics to be re-addressed. Issues discussed in the SEIR are related to phasing of development rather than buildout. Instead issues of what anticipated impacts, if any, will result at specific key stages of actual development is analyzed. COMCLU$IO#S: As required by and pursuant to applicable sections of the California Environmental Quality Act, a draft environmental impact report reviewing a proposed development agreement has been prepared as a supplement to EIR 85-2. Interested parties and responsible agencies were given opportunity to review and comment on the draft document and all comments received were given consideration and responses. Additionally, a public hearing was conducted before the Planning Commission to consider the draft allowing for still further public input on the subject. The Commission then forwarded to Council a recommendatipn to certify as final EIR 85-2 as supplemented. Community Development Depan'ment City Council Report EIR page three Therefore, upon completion of this evening's scheduled hearing it is recommended that Council certify as final £IR 85-2 as supplemented by the adoption of Resolution No. 86-126. ~E~.~:Y S~n ~Do~r' ~lSa n ne r JD:do attach: Resolution No. 86-126 Responses to Comments (SEIR) Minutes of 10/13/86 Planning Commission meeting Community Development Deparlment 1 2 3 4 The 5 6 8 9 lO 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 86-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2 AS SUPPLEMENTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: That in Resolution 86-28 the City Council previously certified as complete the East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (EIR 85-2) which addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a + 1,740-acre master planned community (the East Tustin Specific Plan). That the proposed development agreement between the City and the developer, the Irvine Company, would provide a policy mechanism for implementing several portions of the East Tustin Specific Plan. That an initial study prepared by the City staff for the development agreement determined that new information is available related to phasing of development under the East Tustin Specific Plan and this information, which was not known at the time EIR 85-2 was certified as complete, could result in the indentification of additional environmental impacts not addressed in EIR 85-2. That a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared for the city of Tustin by Michael Brandman Associates. That distribution of the SEIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the SEIR. That the public review period for the SEIR ended on September 26, 1986. That incorporated within the SEIR are comments of the public, Planning Commission, staff and other agencies, and responses thereto. That the SEIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of the city of Tustin. That the SEIR includin9 comments and responses has been reviewed by staff, and represents their 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ~3 25 ~6 ~7 28 Resolution No. 86-126 page two independent evaluation and analysis. Jo That the SEIR was distributed to the Planning Commission and that they reviewed this document, received public testimony and considered comments and responses thereto in their review of the proposed development agreement. mt That EIR 85-2 as revised by the SEIR, including the comments, responses, and attachments have been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Specific Plan Project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in EIR 85-2 as revised by the SEIR, comments, responses, and attachments; and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefi[s of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding. In addition to the Statement of Findings and Facts and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit "A", the Statement of Overriding Considerations and mitigating measures listed in Exhibit "A" to Resolution 86-28 are hereby incorporated by reference. L. That the SEIR, plus comments, responses and attachments, constitute Final SEIR 85-2. II. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby certify that Final EIR 85-2 as revised by the SEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the daY of , 1986. Attest: DONALD J. SALTARELLI Mayor MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk CE(~A FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACT~ SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identified one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding" (Section 15091). The City of Tustin proposes to approve a Development Agreement for the East Tustin Specific Plan site. Because the proposed action constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, and new information of substantial importance is available which was not available at the time the program FEIR (EIR 85-2) for the study area was prepared, the City of Tustin has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for FEIR 85-2. The final SEIR has identified certain additional significant effects which may occur as a result of the phased implementation of the project proposal. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in FEIR 85-2 and in the final SEIR and desires to approve the project with the following findings and statement of overriding considerations in addition to the findings and statement of overriding considerations previously adopted for the Specific Plan and FEIR 85-2 and is hereby incorporated by reference. FINDING8 ~l~aspo~atio~C~tioa Si~mificant Effect - The Development Agreement provides for planned roadway improvements in the Specific Plan vicinity which would, when completed, provide for a circulation system to accommodate project traffic, as well as provide for areawide traffic solutions. Delays in improvement to either the Tustin Ranch Road~I-5 interchange or the Myford Road/I-5 interchange could, depending on the delay result in short-term impacts to up to four intersections as discussed in Section 3.1.2 of the SEIR. FINDING i - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - As a mitigation measure, both the City of Tustin and the developer, The Irvine Company, shall work closely with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration in an effort to avoid any delays in the eonstruetion of the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 interchange and the improvement of the My-ford Road/I-5 interchange. Such eoordination can serve to effectively integrate the phased development of the project site with the lead time requirements of the imprOVement/construction of the subject interchanges. FINDING 2 - Changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially lessen the signifieant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Faets in Support of Finding - Responsibility for the construction of the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 and the improvement of Myford Road/I-5 interehanges lies ultimately with the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The proposed development agreement provides for the funding of improvements to the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 interchange, however, Caltrans action is required for implementation. The Myford Road/I-5 interchange is scheduled for improvement by Caltrans and is currently anticipated to be constructed by 1990. Any delay in the Caltrans schedule is unforeseen at this time. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings - The No Project alternative would forego the early commitment to and timing of major interehange improvements. As sueh, this alternative would only increase the likelihood and severity of impacts associated with delays in transportation system improvements. The Increased Initial Infrastructure Alternative would require that the subject interchange imp. rovement occur prior to the development of either Phase I or Phase II of the project. Although this alternative appears logieal-having the interchange in place before development occur-it is not economically sound. Major infrastructure improvements are largely financed by funds received through assessment districts. Assessment districts, in turn, receive funds from bonds secured by fees levied against residential and commercial land uses. Therefore, prior to the development of Phases I or II, it is unlikely that sufficient funds could be obtained from the undeveloped land to construct major interchange improvements. Also, in possibility of interchange improvement delays, the consideration of increased initial infrastructure as a feasible alternative is further diminished. The Decreased Initial Infrastructure Alternative would modify the Development Agreement to specify that major infrastructure improvements would be constructed as the need for these improvements is identified, and Tustin would have no assurances from the developer regarding the phasing of such improvements. Similar to the No Project alternative, this alternative would only increase the likelihood and severity of potential impacts associated with interchange improvements not being coordinated with the phased development of the site. These alternatives were evaluated in the SEIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejeeted in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above, as well as for reasons noted in the SEIR. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is aeoeptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. H~lrolog~/~ater Qualitlr Significant Effect - Implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan will increase runoff due to the development of impervious surfaces. Application of the Development Agreement in the implementation of the Specific Plan would serve to mitigate potential impacts by providing for the phased development/improvement of flood control facilities (e.g., the E1 Modena Channel). The impact of the Development Agreement would, therefore, be positive and, as such, no additional findings are necessary. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of project design considerations and mitigation measures, identified in FEIR 85-2 and incorporated into the project. Poliee and Fire Proteetion Services Significant Effect -Implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan engenders the need for additional police and fire protection staff and facilities/equipment. Application of the Development ~greement in the implementation of the Specific Plan would serve to mitigate potential impacts through the developer's provision for and funding of new facilities. The impact of the Development Agreement would, therefore, be positive and, as such, no additional findings are necessary. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of project design considerations and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR 85-2 and incorporated into the project. ~rA?EMENT OF OYERRIDINO CONSIDERATION8 BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Section 15093 of the Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "(a) CEQ~ requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project oul~weigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but not at least substantially mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 150891(a)(2) or (a)(3). (e) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination." In accordance with the provisions of this statute, the City Council hereby finds that the following benefits, in addition to those identified at the time of approval of the Specific Plan, outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects and are overriding: 1. The Development Agreement serves an additional mechanism for the effective and efficient implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan. The Development Agreement provides a program for monitoring and controlling the impacts of the project on the city's fiscal resources and, thus, serves the interest of maintaining city's fiscal integrity. 3. The Development Agreement includes provisions for developer funding of additional fire protection facilities and expansion of civic center facilities. The Development Agreement is the vehicle for the implementation of infrastructure improvements which serve to mitigate development impacts. The Development Agreement provides for an improvement phasing plan which helps ensure the timely development of major infrastructure improvements. The Development Agreement provides for commitments and assurances for dedications, improvements and facilities at which such actions otherwise might not occur. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement (Supplement to EIR 85-2 State Clearinghouse [85052217) Contact: Prepared for: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 (714) 544-8890 Mr. Jeff Davis, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. 3140 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 (714) 641-8042 Contact: Mr. Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP, Principal October 10, 1986 LIST OF PERSONS/AGENCIES COMMENTING ON THE DF. IR Written comments received durin~ 30-day DEIR review period: A. State Office of Planning and Research B. State Depa.r. tment of Water Resources C. County of Orange Fire Department D. United States Marine Corps E. City of Irvine Written comments received after 30-day DEIR review period: F. North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council G. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency INTRODUCTION Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Lead Agency to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and prepare written responses. This report presents all comments received on the draft SEIR for the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement during the public review period, which began on August 27, 1986 and ended on September 26, 1986 and responses to these comments. This report also includes brief responses to late comments. The response to comments, together with the draft SEIR, technical appendix and other written documentation prepared during the environmental documentation process (e.g., Tustin staff reports and the Planning Commission and City Council minutes) constitute the final SEIR, as defined in State EIR Guidelines, Section 15132. This report is organized as follows: the first section provides a list of person/agencies commenting on the SEIR and the second seetion contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the responses, an index number (e.g., A-I, B-2) has been assigned to each comment and to its corresponding response. '- OF ('_AUFO~I~.!A-~O~-~F~C~ OF ~E ~R~ OFFICE OF P~NNINO AND RESEARCH ~O. ~ 9~1~ C0 UU UNIi"." DEVEL0?r,;ENI' Jeffrey S. Davis City of Tustin Department of Community Development 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 SubJect: September 26, 1986 East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement (SCH# 85052217) De~r Mr. Davis: The State Clearinghouse su~.,~tted the above n~med draft Environmen~a! Repor~ (EIB) to selected s~ate agencies for review. The review period closed and the comments of the l~F1d, ml agency(les) Is(a_,'~) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse ~bas ~hecked whlc~ agencies have co,~ented. Please review t~he No=ice df Completion ensure that your co~t package is complete. If the package is not in order, please not~y the State Clearinghouse immediately. Your eight digit Sta~e Clearinghouse number should be used so thaC we m~y reply pr~nptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive co~ments on a project which are within the area of the agency's expertise or '~ch relate ~o activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 151~, Sta~s. 198~.) These c~ents are forwarded for your use in preparing your fLnal EIR. you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact ~he co~:~enting agency at your earliest con~_nience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/q~5-0613 if you h~%ve any questlous ~egardlng the environmental review process. Sincerely, Chief Deputy DireCtor Cffice of Planning and Research cc: Resources AEency A1 ~nclosures s=- 8S052217 I ':' :. ~ .~M: East. Tu~t;n Specific Plan 0evelopment A~ree~nt SEIR (Supole~ntal, co EIR ~5-Z) -;'; ~ ~ C~cy of T~tln ~. ~: deffrey S. 0avis Orange ~ ~: ~2680 ~. ~: 71b/.~-8~0 ext. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS State Office of Planning and Reseat-eh A-1 Comment so noted. "&~e ~ California The Resources Agency ernoranclum To : 1. C,3rdon F. Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary for Resources 2. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attention: Jeffrey S. Davis From : Depa~ment ~ Wat~ Resources Los Angeles, CA 90055 Subject: DELR for East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement :o EIR #85-2, SCH 85052217 Recommendations of the staff of the Department o~Water Resources on the subject document are attached. ~he recommendations are related to water conservation and flood damage prevention. Consideration should also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses requiring high quality water. For further information, you' may wish :o con:act John Pariewski at (213) 620-3951. Thank you for ghe opportunity to reviaw and comment on this reoort. Sincerely, Carlos Madrid, Chief Planning Branch Southern District Attachments B2 Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Water Conservation and Water Reclamation lo reduce water demand, the water conservation measures described here should be implemented. Required The following State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures in structures: o Health and Safety Code Section 17921.3 requires low-flush toilets and urinals in virtually all buildings as follows: "After January 1, 1983, all new buildings constructed in this state shall use water closets and associated flushometer valves, if any, which are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National Standards Institute Standard Al12.19.2, and urinals and associated flushometer valves, if any, that use less than an average of 1-1/2 gallons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer valves are exempt from the reqJirements of this section." Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1604(f) (Appliance Efficiency Standards) establishes efficiency standards that give the maximum flow rate of all new showerheads, lavatory faucets, and sink faucets, as specified in the standard approved by the American National Standards Institute on November 16, 1979, and known as ANSI Al!2.18.1M-1979. .... e 20, California Adminlstrstl-;e Code Sectlcn l~©6(b> ~A~iiancs Efficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do ocmu='; .. ..... regulations. No ne%~ appliance may be sold or offered for sale in California that is not certified by its manufacturer to be in compliance with the provisions of'the regulations establishing applicable efficiency standards. Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-5307(b), (California Energy Conservation Standards for New Buildings) prohibits the installation' of fixtures unless the manufacturer hDs certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code, Sections 2-5352(i) and (j) address pipe insulation requirements, which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply to.steam and steam-condensate return piping and regirculating hot water piping in attics, garages, crawl spaces, or unheated spaces other than be%ween floors or in interior walls, insulation of ~ater-heating systems is also required. Health and Safety Code ~ection 4047 prohibits installation of residential ~vater softening or conditioning appliances unless certain conditions are sa=isfied, included is the requirement that, in most instances, the installation of the appliance must be accompanied by water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned water. Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public facilities constructed after January 1, 1985, be equipped with self-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water. Recommendations to be implemented where applicable Interior: Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing valve. Drinking fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing valves. 3. Hotel rooms: restrooms.* bath/shower. Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used. Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be served upon request only.* Ultra-low-flush toilets: 1 1/2 gallon per flush toilets be installed in all new construction. Exterior:* i. Landscape with low wa~er-using plants wi~erever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such aR playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. 3. Group plants of similar water use to reduce overirrigation of low-water-using plants. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using landscaping and sources of additional assistance. Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied on tcp of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. Preserve'and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established plants a~e often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetaticn. ~ihe De~_r~me~.~ o= Water Resources or local wa~er distric= may aid in developing these materials or providing other information. 7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface waker runoff and aid in ground water recharge. 9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized. 10. Investigate the feasibility of utilizing reclaimed waste water, stored rainwater, or grey water for irrigation. 11. Encourage cluster development, which can reduce the amount of land being converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge. 12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation of natural drainage systems in new developments. aids ground water recharge. This 13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. Department of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damaqe Prevention In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the following guidelines: !. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground water should be mitigated. 2. All building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. In those areas ~not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the lO0-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the Environmental Impact Report. 4. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be available during a 100-year flood. The slope and foundation designs for all Structures should be based on detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside developments. Revegetation of disturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as soon as possible (utilizing native or low-water-using plant material). 7. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as required. Grad!nc should 'ce limitad to ~r~ ~?.onths to minimize associated with sediment transport during ccnstruction. State Department of Water Resources B-1 The water conservation measures delineated within the State Department of Water Resources attachment will be considered at more detailed levels of planning as appropriate. Many of the recommended water eonservation measures are already included in Section 3.13.6 of FEIR 85-2. The remaining recommendations will be incorporated into the project as feasible and appropriate. B-2 The East Tustin Specific Plan development includes plans for the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation (see Section 3.13.6 of FEIR 85-2). UNTY OF RECEIVED COMMUNiTy DEtTLOPMENT ~E ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 180 SOUTH WATER STR E ET P.O. BOX 86. ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666-0086 (714) 538-3551 LARRY J. HOLMS CYPRE~ IRVINE PLACENTIA SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO September 4, 1986 Jeffrey S. Davis Acting Senior Planner City of Tustin Department of Community Development 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT: DRAFT SUPPLEMENT E.I.R. 85-2 SCH 85052217 The Orange County Fire Department has reviewed the Draft Supplement E.I.R. for East Tustin and we have the following corrections: Pg 2-4-Item 5 - 3rd Line should~read "A new, fully equipped, engine pumper," Pg 3-14 Section 3.3.1 3d line: Should read Battalion 3 {not E). Same page and section last line: Should read Three paid personnel (not five) Pg 3-15 Project Impacts 2nd paragraph 3d linJ should read "This station would operate initially with I single engine pumper and would require a total of 9 firefighters." The Fire Department has no additional comments or corrections. If I can be of further assistance please call me at 538-3551. Sincerely, Gene Hutain Fire Protection Planner GH:jm C1 1 C2 SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES County of Orange Fire Department C-1 Item 5 of Section 2.3.2 of the 8EIR is intended to summarize the exact wording of the Development Agreement (Appendix B of the SEIR). The need to change the wording of the Development Agreement is an issue specific to the agreement itself and not to the environmental impacts thereof. Comments so noted. The following changes are hereby incorporated into the project SEIR.' 1. The first paragraph of Section 3.3.1 of the SEIR is revised to note that fire safety services are provided by Battalion 3 not Batallion E. 2. The second paragraph of the same section is revised to note that Station 8 operates with three paid personnel, not five. e The second paragraph of the project impacts discussion in Section 3.3.1 is revised to not~ that the new fire station would operate initially with one single engine pumper and would require a total of nine firefighters. UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS Mr. Jeffrey S. Davis Department of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial:Way Tustin, California 92680 RECEIVED ~OMMUNri'y DEVELOPMENT 11103.27 AQ/O018a Il 3 SEP 1986 Dear Hr. Davis: The Draft Supplemental EIR for the East Tustin Specific Plan Development agreement has been reviewed as requested by your lettez dated August 27, 1986 and ve have no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review. If further information is required, please contact Ann Dotson at 651-3702. D1 Sincerely, (..CoLOnel, ~.S.~,~/;larine Corps Czym~unit~lans and Liaison Officer By direction of the Commander September 26,:1986 Mr. Jeffrey Davis Senior Planner City of Tustin Department of Community Development 300 Centennial way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. Davis: COM~4ENT ON DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Supplemental EIR for the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. Our staff has reviewed the document and has the following comment: The traffic study's area of analysis should include Irvine Boulevard east of the project area. Table 6 of the traffic report provides a summary of the East Tustin traffic components affecting several arterials within the city of Irvine. However, Irvine Boulevard was not included in this table. I look forward to your response to our comment. Please contact Jayni Barker of our Environmental Services staff at 660-3832 if you have any questions. JB:bb John Murphy, Manager of Development Services Greg Aldrich, Transportation Services Jayni Barker, Assistant Planner E1 bbSJDAVIS Ci~ of lrvine E-1 Comment so noted. The attached table which includes Irvine Boulevard hereby supercedes Table 6 of the traffic analysis (Appendix C) of the SEIR. Table 6 EAST TUSTIN SHOR~ ~ ADT TRAFFIC COHPONENTS TOTAL 1990 -EAST TUSTIN PHASE 1- -EAST TUSTIN PHASE II- IT. AP Volume Percent Volume Percent My ford n/o 1-5 57200 18~00 32 3~800 61 1-5 Underpass 51200 13200 26 24900 49 M£chelle-Walnut 42400 6800 16 12900 30 Walnut-Moulton 58100 7500 13 14200 24 Moulton-Barranca 47700 3700 8 7000 L5 HarVard Walnut-Houlton 3600 300 8 600 17 Moulton-Warner 13000 900 7 1800 14 Warner-Barranca 12700 1000 8 1900 1~ Culver n/o I-5 28600 1100 4 2100 7 I-50vercrossing 25400 300 1 600 2 I-5 - Walnut 24700 300 1 600 2 Walnut-ICl) 28700 300 1 600 2 1CD-Warner 48900 2100 4 4000 8 Warner-Barranca 47300 1800 4 3400 7 IrVine Boulevard w/o Tustin Ranch 32500 5900 18 11200 34 Tustin Ranch-Myford 27500 6000 22 llhO0 41 Hyford-Culver 30100 3900 13 7300 24 e/o Culver 26400 3400 13 6400 24 I-5/Myford Interchange Myford NB on-ramp 19000 3700 31 6900 58 Myford NB off-ramp 9300 2300 25 4300 46 Hyford SB off-ramp 18400 3000 16 5700 31 Myford SB on-ramp 8000 1900 24 3600 45 Myford-Culver 18~00 4600 2 8700 5 Walnut w/o Tustin Ranch 25000 2000 8 3800 1~ Tustin Ranch-Michelle 34~00 2000 6 3900 11 Mfchelle-Myford 28300 1700 6 3100 lA Myford-Harvard 10500 1500 14 2800 27 Harvard-Culver 9500 800 8 1400 15 e/o Culver 23800 600 3 1200 5 Irvine Center Drive w/oMyford 42700 400 1 700 2 ~yford-Harvard 63400 ~400 7 8400 13 Harvard-Culver 57900 3800 7 7200 12 w/o My£ord 27500 700 3 1300 5 Myford-HarVard 32200 0 0 0 0 Harvard-Culver 35900 500 1 900 3 e/o Culver 26600 400 2 700 3 East Tustin traffic shares show all trips ~ahich have either end Of t_he trip in East Tustin, even though in many cases, particularly on the arterials, the other end of the trip is in the City of Irvine. East Tustin Phase II is cumulative of both Phase I and Phase II development. NORTH TUSTIN MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL PO~T OFFICE BOX 149~ TU~TIN. CALIFORNIA 92~1 (714) 832-5456 · (714) 832-~162 27 September 1986 Mr. Jeffrey S. Davis, Acting Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin California 92680 SUBJECT: East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement Dear Mr. Davis: We have delayed our response because of new information which has come to during the last few weeks and after the approval of Environmental Impact Report 85-2. This will be briefly described below along with other questions and comments. · The Southern California Edison Company has informed the North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council that it plans to place a 90-95 Megawatt substation in one of our residential areas. The reason for such a facility, as stated by utility representatives, is that electric power is being withdrawn from our community because of new development, and a critical facility involved is the Bryan Ave. substation (which will now serve the East Tustin Specific Plan area). This electric power withdrawal also includes a large portion of Tustin city proper. These impacts have not been addressed in EIR 85-2 and should be discussed in this supplemental document in conformance with Section 15163 of the CEQA guidelines. At the maximum, what would be the total increase of apartment dweIling units (not buildings) in the ETSP if 25% of the medium and medium-high residential areas were so developed, and what would be the increase in square footage in commercial development if this agreement were acti- vated? How many more vehicle trips per day would be added to the road system, and how would this change the projected internally generated traffic numbers? If this agreement were activated to the maximum, would the specificity of the ETSP be removed? None of the North Tustin streets, as depicted in the ETSP and this document, exist as shown in the (county) Master Plan of Arterial High- ways (except for Holt Ave.). The impacts of widening, phasing of impro- ments, property condemnations, and increased traffic load - particularly if this agreement is activated to the maximum - should be addressed. F1 F2 F3 NTMAC: ETSP Agreement, 9/27/86. Page 2. · We are in concurrence with the comments made by Mr. F. W. Olson, Manager of Environmental and Special Projects Division, Orange County Environmental Management Agency. May we refer you to his letter of 6 August 1986 regarding this document. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. Sincerely, Patricia P. Seman, Chair North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council (838-3574) cc: M. Andersen, J. Bennett, Supvsr. Nestande, F. W. Olson, Supvsr. Stanton North Tustin Municipal Advisor~ Council F-1 As discussed in FEIR 85-2, repeated in the SEIR, and confirmed in a correspondence from Southern California Edison Company (correspondence attached), implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan will result in a long- term cumulative increase in the demand for public services and utilities but will not in itself result in a need for new systems (e.g., substations) or substantial alteration to power utilities. The distribution of power within the Southern California Edison service area is accomplished through an areawide interconnected grid system. In urban areas, it is not transmitted to specific developments/communities via dedicated lines and/or facilities. Often times, new facilities, are constueted not because of new development but because there has been a gradual areawide increase in demand from existing development (i.e., homes adding air conditioning, swimming pools, etc.). New facilities are also sometimes added to reduce the loads on existing facilities especially during peak use hours. F-2 It is assumed that the first portion of the comment pertains to Section 2.1 of the Development Agreement. Said section allows, with a conditional use permit, the construction of apartment projects in the medium-high and medium-density areas of the project site up to 25 percent of the total allowable number of dwelling units in the Specific Plan and Tract Number 12345. The total number of units for the two projects is 9,000 of which 25 percent is 2,250. This would be the maximum number of apartment units allowed - densities and unit allowances are calculated by individual units, not on a per building basis. The Development Agreement does not in itself provide for any increase in development over that which is allowed in the Specific Plan. As also noted in the Development Agreement, any adjustments to the uses permitted in the Specific Plan would be reviewed in light of: (1) the ultimate uses and densities contained in the Specific Plan; (2) the environmental impacts identified in FEIR 85-2 and addenda and supplements thereto~ and (3) the phasing plan delineated on the Development Plan. In essence, the Development Agreement simply facilitates the implementation of the specific plan. Southern California Ed/son Company 531 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92666 September 23. 1986 'RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOP~,~EklT Mr. Jeffrey S. Davis City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. Davis: Subject: East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement Southern California Edison has reviewed the East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement. We offer the following co,,.~',ents: Page 4 Public Services/Utilities - Cumulative Development will result in a long term increase in the demand for public services and utilities. Page 5, ~16 Utilities Environmental Initial Study Form Proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alteration to power utilities. Page 20-27 Development Agreement The formation of a Mello-Roos district or other similar assessment or special tax' districts are mentioned as possibilities to finance a Fire Protection Facility and city improvements. A Mello-Roos District (Co.,.,unity Facilities District-CFD) is a concern for Edison when our facilities and rights-of-way are included in the CFD. Should the city decide to form a CFD, assuming Edison has facilities and rights-of-way in the district, we will request a meeting with the appropriate city agencies for exclusion of all or part of our facilities and rights-of-way. Mr. Jeffrey S. Davis September 23, 1986 Page 2 If there are any further questions or co ...... ents, please contact me at 973-5548. Sincerely, P. I. Buttress PIB:ms F-$ FEIR 85-2 addresses the relationship between the local roadway system and that which is anticipated within the MPAH. As noted above, the Development Agreement in itself does not provide for any increase in development over that whioh is allowed by the Specific Plan nor any roadway configurations other than those noted in the Specific Plan. F-4 Conourrenee so noted. ;TY OF AN(;iE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING September 29, 1986 FILE MU RRAY STORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATI ON: 12CiViC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 404~ SANTA ANA, CA 92702~t048 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 40~ SANTA AN~ CA S2702~t04~ TELEPHONE: ( 714) 834-4643 NCL 4120 Jeffrey S. Davis Co~nity Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 SUBJECT: East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement Draft Supplemental EIR Dear Mr. Davis= The Orange County Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the above referenced document which addresses the environmental impacts associated with the proposed 1,740 acre master planned community, located north of the Santa Ana Freeway and west of Myford Road. We have the following co~ents: Transporation Corridors/Hi~hwaTs The Draft Supplemental EIR and Development Agreement do not address the relationship of the project to the Eastern and Foothill Transportation Corridor. The agreement should require the landowner to dedicate, grade and construct grade separated crossing of the Eastern Transporation Corridor from Upper Peters Canyon Reservoir to the I-5 Freeway pursuant to County policy. Dedication should be to the Joint Powers Agency or its designee. In addition, the landowner should be required by the agreement to pay transporation corridor fees. Regarding arterial highways, the landowner should be required to construct Myford Road from Santiago Canyon Road to the I-5 Freeway prior to or concurrent with any development northeasterly of Irvine Boulevard. The minimum intial number of lanes should be based upon traffic demand estimated for the project and the Upper Peters Canyon Specific Plan. Park Dedication G1 G2 The agreement section dealing with the dedication of regional park lands is 1 ambiguous and should be clarified. The City requirements for involvement in park I planning, access and development should be specified. The County has already decided to establish the subject park and has included it in the County General G3 Plan. Dedication of the park prior to or concurrent with development approvals is required by the County Kecreation and Resources Elemen~ of the General Plan and should also be the policy of the City to resolve the park issues as early as possible. These issues can and should be resolved as a part of the proposed development agreement. Bikeways The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) depicts a Class I off-road bikeway along Peter's Canyon Wash. The establishment of this bikeway will provide a significant regional link in the County's bikeway network. Tw~ new regional parks ha~e been proposed along the anticipated alignment of the bikeway, and other communlcty parks are expected to be adjacent or nearby. The "park to park" orientation for the bikeway following the scenic riparian corridor is anticipated to be very popular among recreational, training, and commuting cyclists. As a Class I bikeway of exceptional potential, certain features in t~e design of the bikeway are proposed to be utilized. To reduce interaction with vehicles, the trail should be grade separated from adjacent roadway with undercrossings or overcrossings at intersections. Establishing the trail at a different elevation from any roadway' reduces this interaction by the lessening of noise and trash typical at street level. In addition, a minimum setback of twenty-five feet from the pavement edge and an alignment selection that follows the landform contours will enhance the "park to park" concept and encourage all levels of ridership. The Draft EIR should include discussion of the existing and planned bikeways in the project vicinity including cross sections, access points and ramp connections.i These facilities are mitigation measures to reduce traffic congestion, vehicular noise and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. Such measures would be in compliance with the Air Quality Management Plan 1982 Revision, adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 1983. Project Plannin~ Our Project Planning division recommends that the last sentence of No. 1 in the Hydrology/Water quality section of the list of Mitigation Measures (pg. 1-9) be altered to read as follows: "Drainage improvements proposed at the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) shall not exceed the capacity of existing I-5 culverts, except as the proposed improvements are coordinated with the proposed I-5 widening, and in all cases shall be subject to review and approval by CalTrans." This same language was previously reco,~ended in a letter to the City of Tustin dated Augest 6, 1986. However, the language was not included in the'most recent Draft Supplemental EIR. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Draft Supplemental EIR. We continue to look forward to working with you on this project. We would appreciate receiving four copies of the Final EIR when it becomes available If you have any questions, please contact Chris Miller at 834-4639. Very truly yours, Michael M. Ruane, Chief EMA/ESP, Capital Projects G4 County of Orange Environmental Management Ageney Cci FEIR 85-2 addresses the relationship between the East Tustin Specific Plan project and the Eastern and FoothiLl Transportation Corridors. G-2 The comments are substantive recommendations regarding the Development Agreement and do not address or relate to the draft SEIR. G-3 Again, the comments are directed toward the terms of the Development Agreement and not to the potential environmental impaets thereof. FEIR 85-2 addresses potential impacts associated with the projeet's provision for Peters Canyon Regional Park. It should be noted, however, that the purpose of the subject section of the Development Agreement is to facilitate the future plm ting and development of the park by establishing a cooperative effort between the developer and the city. G-4 This comment is addressed in FEIR 85-2 (see Response P-49 of Responses to Comments for FEIR 85-2). Cc5 In that the design specifications for drainage improvements at the Santa Ana Freeway are within the purview of Caltrans and the subject mitigation measure already notes that such improvements shall be subject to the review and approval of Caltrans, the recommended modification of the mitigation measure adds nothing substantive to the measure. ERRATA b~IEET Based on a detailed review of the draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR), the corrections listed below are hereby incorporated into the SEIR. These corrections are in addition to the responses to comments. The traffic analysis prepared by Austin-Foust Associates is included in the SEIR as Appendix C, and not Appendix B as noted in Section 3.1 of the draft SEIR. Exhibit 6 in the SEIR and Figure 5 in Appendix C incorrectly indicate Racquet Hill Drive connecting to Jamboree Road (Tustin Ranch Road). The attached exhibit correctly shows that there is no such connection, existing or planned. The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 3-2 of the SEIR is amended to read: "The Santa Aha Freeway provides major regional access to the study area with a full movement interchange (substandard design) at Myford Road and a full interchange at Red Hill Avenue." The wording in the SEIR indicates the Myford interchange as being a partial interchange. The second paragraph on page 3-2 of the SEIR is revised to note that Bryan Avenue has been improved as a two-lane roadway, not three-lane as indicated in the draft SEIR. 19 20 ,21 '-23 SOURCE: AUSTIN-FOUST A880CIATE$, INC. Intersection Locatbns East Tustin Development Agreement City of Tustin MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COf~lilSSION REGULAR ~EETING OCTOBER 13, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., Ct~:y Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALL£GIANC£/IIOIOCATION ROLL CALL: Present: Puckett, We11, Baker, Le Jeune Absent: Ponttous PUBLZC CONC£RNS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of September 22, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Moved by Commissioner Baker, Weil seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERHIT 86-30 Applicant: Trt State Engineering on behalf of Exxon Co. USA Location: 14082 Redhill Avenue Request: Authorization to demolish an existing service s~ation and reconstruct a mini market service station. Presentation: LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner Chatr~n Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Ron Baker, Tri State Engineering, made himself available for questions. Commissioner LeJeune questioned tf dei sel fuel would need a separate sign. Ron Baker responded It Isn't usually advertised, just a small stgn on the island depicting availability. Commissioner Well commented this is one of the most uncontroversial use permits to come before the Commission, congratulated the applicant on a good project proposal and saw no problems with approval. P1 anni n9 Commi ssi on Mi nutes October 13, 1986 page two Commissioner Puckett compltmanted Exxon for not asking for altquor license. Commissioner Baker questioned the condition of the fuel tanks in the ground. Ron Baker responded they used to use steel tanks with 10 to 20 year life spans. This location will have new fiberglass tanks with a built in alarm system for leaks. Seeing no one further wishing to speak Chairman Puckett closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m. Commtssloner LeJeune expressed concern wlth the outdoor storage areas at gas stattons and If they will be restricted in the future. Rob Balen explained that according to our service station guidelines they are already restricted, but it ts a difficult enforcement problem. Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-30 by the adoption of Resolutlon 2366. Morton carrled 4-0. 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 86-1 Applicant: Location: Issue: City of Tustin East Tustln Specific Plan Area The City of Tustln Development Agreement with The Irvine Company in relation to development of the East Tusttn Specific Plan area. Presentatt on: ROBERT W. BALEN, Planning Consultant 4. SUPPLE~IENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Applicant: Location: Issue: City of Tustin East Tustin Specific Plan Area Consideration of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; impacts that would result from the proposed Development Agreement will be considered Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Robert Balen recommended the Chairman combine the public hearings for both the Development Agreement 86-1 and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Balen informed that the Development Agreement implements the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures required in the EIR 85-2 and the Supplemental EIR. The Development Agreement is consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan and the General Plan of the City. Jeff Davis gave the staff presentation on the Supplemental EIR and explained that the EIR addresses issues related to transportation, circulation, water and hydrology, public services, and other civic needs. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1986 page three Tom Smith, Michael Brandmen & Assoc., explained that the Supplemental [IR had a 30 day public review period which concluded September 26th; seven agencies responded (6 governmental and 1 advisory council); there were no environmental questions raised at the Sept. 22nd Planning Commission workshop. The content of the comments on the environmental document basically clarifies and corrects the draft. The SEIR will be forwarded to the City Council for certification on their next agenda. Montca Flortan, The Irvine Company, concurred with staff's analysis that the Development Agreement embodies and further clarifies the objectives and commitments made during the Specific Plan process. She further urged Commission recommendation of approval to the City Council. Chairman Puckett opened the public heartng on Development Agreement 86-[ and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report at 7:54 p.m. Michael Caruso, 1841 Bent Twig, was concerned with park planning and that adequate team sports facilities be provided, specifically baseball. Jeff Davis responded that East Tusttn has several areas designated for parks. In addition there are plans and negotiations for a regional park which includes multi purpose facilities. Chairman Puckett advised Mr. Caruso to make an appointment with Rob Balen to make all of his concerns known to the staff. Janlne Harmon, Foothills Community Association, acknowledged Klm Luce and Cora Lee Newman of The Irvine Company for their assistance to FCA during the East Tustin approval process and the City staff in responding to concerns of the community. Seeing no one further wishing to speak Chairman Puckett closed the hearing at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Well commented that she received a phone call from Pat Semen, NTMAC, extending the MAC'S concurrence with staff's recommendation on the Development Agreement and EIR. Chairman Puckett complimented staff and The Irvtne Company for the excellent job on the Supplemental EIR and the Development Agreement. Con~nisstoner Baker commented that everybody involved has worked to negotiate to make this a workable project and expressed his excitement that it has come together with little or no discussion. Commissioner Well requested correction be made to the Development Agreement page 19 paragraph 3 to add "mixed use" after and/or .... and to Resolution 2367 I. to add an "S" before EIR. Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to recommend to the City Council adoption of an ordinance approving the Development Agreement between the City of Tustin and The Irvine Company for the East Tustin Specific Plan. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 1986 page four Commissioner Wetl moved, LeJeune second to recommend to the City Council, through the adoption of Resolution 2367, that SEIR be forwarded to the City Council for certification. Motion carried 4-0. OLD BUSI#ESS None. NEW BUSZNESS None. STAFF' CONC£RNS 5. Report on Council Actions of October 6, 1986. Presentation: ROB BAL£N, Planning Consultant 6. DOW/MYFORD INDUSTRIAL PLANS Rob Balen presented plans for a proposed industrial project located at Dow and Myford Road for the Commission's preliminary review. He requested initial feedback for the developer who is on an escrow deadline to understand if there would be any major problems with the site plans or elevations. Mr. Balen noted that the item would be on the agenda at the next meeting for a formal site plan review. Commissioner Baker was concerned with the sidewalk width requirement; 5' or 8'. Commissioner LeOeune was concerned with the space between buildings and if the parking is to code. Commissioner Wetl was concerned with adequacy of landscaping and requested landscape plans be clarified. Mr. Balen responded that these items would be taken care of prior to the October 27th meeting. COM#ISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Weil questioned if staff had done any research concerning a specific plan for the Old Town area. Mr. Balen responded'there are other alternatives for addressing disinvestment in properties. A Specific Plan for Old Town may be appropriate at a future date, but, the neighborhood sentiment is such that staff is not in a position to initiate any planning or zoning solutions in the Old Town area. Other remedies can be investigated including use of Redevelopment funds for housing projects or housing rehabilitation to address property conditions and disinvestment in housing in the area. It was noted that some properties in the area do not comply with zoning and/or building codes and should be fixed up. Mr. Balen added that it was staff's intent to preserve the Old Town and protect the quaint character of the area and that this could be done through special preservation provisions in a Specific Plan. Mr. Balen further pointed out this was not being recommended at this time. Planning Comnflsston Mtnutes October [3, [986 page five Commissioner LeJeune expressed concern with the water company's equipment being visible from the street. He suggested screening. Rob Balen will bring it to the attention of the Director of Public Works. Commissioner LeJeune further questioned how the freeway widening would affect the 6th Street area. Rob Balen explained that properties south of 6th St. and east of "B" Street are potentially affected by the freeway widening. Commissioner Well would like to add more specifics in the minutes of the Planning commission and also reflect any corrections mede from a previous meeting. Commissioner Baker asked if any ~estrictions or formal commitments were mede by the Council concerning the 6th Street area. Rob Balen responded negatively. AD~OURI~IEiJT Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. C'HARL£S E. PUCK£1-F, Chai~n DONNA ORR, Recording Secret, any