Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 10-22-86 MINUTES /~ '~ 2 ~ ~TUSTIN PLANNING COI~MZSSION REGULAR MICL'TING OCTOBER 13, 1986 REPORTS NO. 1 10-22-86 CALL TO OROER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEOGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune Absent: Pontious CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of September 22, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Moved by Commissioner Baker, Well seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 4-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERMIT 86-30 Applicant: Location: Request: Tri State Engineering on behalf of Exxon Co. USA 14082 Redhill Avenue Presentation: Authorization to demolish an existing service station and reconstruct a mini market service station. LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Ron Baker, Tri State Engineering, made himself available for questions. Commissioner LeJeune questioned if detsel fuel would need a separate sign. Ron Baker responded it isn't usually advertised, just a small sign 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. Planni ng Commt ssi on Mi nutes October 13, 1986 page 'cwo Commissioner Puckett complimented Exxon for not asking for a liquor license. Commissioner Baker questioned the condition of the fuel ~anks 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 Chairmn Puckett closed the hearing at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner LeJeune expressed concern with the outdoor storage areas at gas stations 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 is a difficult enforcement problem. Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-30 by the adoption of Resolution 2366. Motion carried 4-0. 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 86-1 Applicant: Location: City of Tusttn East Tustin Specific Plan Area Issue: The City of Tusttn Development Agreement with The Irvine Company in relation to development of the East Tustin Specific Plan area. Presentation: ROBERT W. BALEN, Planning Consultant 4. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Applicant: Location: City of Tustin East Tustin Specific Plan Area Issue: 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 Brandman & Assoc., explained that the Supplemental EIR 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 Florian, The Irvtne 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 hearing on Development Agreement 86-1 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 Tustin 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. Janine Harmon, Foothills Community Association, acknowledged Klm Luce and Cora Lee Newman of T~ Irvine Co,any 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 Chairmen Puckett closed the hearing at 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Wetl commented that she received a phone call from Pat Seman, NTMAC, extending the MA~'s concurrence with staff's recommendation on the Development Agreement and EIR. Chairman Puckett complimented staff and The Irvine Company for the excellent job on the Supplemental EIR and the Development Agreement. Commissioner 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 Weil requested correction be made to the Development Agreement page 19 paragraph 3 to add "mixed use" after and/or .... and to Resolution 2367 1. 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 Well 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. OI.D BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS Report on Council Actions of October 6, 1986. Presentati on: ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant 6. DOW/MYFORD INDUSTRIAL PLANS Rob Balen presented plans for a proposed industrial project located at Dow and Myford Road for the Co~,m,lssion'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 LeJeune was concerned wi th 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 2?th meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Well 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 Commission Minutes October [3, [986 page five Commissioner LeOeune 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 Wetl would like to add more specifics in the minutes of the Planning Commission and also reflect any corrections made from a previous meeting. Commissioner Baker asked if any restrictions or formal commitments were made by the Council concerning the 6th Street area. Rob Balen responded negatively. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wetl moved, Baker second to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 4-0. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING C0t91I$$ION REGULAR REETING OCTOBER 13, 1986 "A-"~ CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION ROLL CALL: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, PUBLIC 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERMIT 86-30 Applicant: Location: Request: (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.) Minutes of September 22, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Tri State Engineering on behalf of Exxon Co. USA 14082 Redhill Avenue Authorization to demolish an existing service station and reconstruct a mini market service station. Presentation: LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 86-1 Applicant: Location: City of Tustin East Tustin Specific Plan Area Issue: The City of Tustin intends to enter into a Development Agreement with The Irvine Company in relation to development of the East Tustin Specific Plan area. Presentation: ROBERT W. BALEN, Planning Consultant Planning Commt ssi on Agenda October 13, 1986 page two Applicant: Location: Issue: Presentation: OLD BIJSI#ESS None. NEW BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCERNS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City of Tustin East Tustin Specific Plan Area Consideration of a Supplemental Environmental impacts that would result from the proposed Agreement will be considered JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner 5. Report on Council Actions of October 6, 1986. Presentation: ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURIOIENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Impact Report; Development MINUTES OF A JOINT AOJOURNED REGULAR F~EETING OF ll~E CITY COUNCIL AND THE PIJ~NNING COt~4ISSION OF THE CITY OF TllSTIN, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 29, lg86 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to' order by Mayor Pro Tem Hoesterey p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way. at 5:00 II. ROLL CALL Councilpersons Present: Councilpersons Absent: Planning Commissioners Present: Planning Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Ronald B. Hoesterey, Mayor Pro Tem Richard B. Edgar John Kelly Ursula E. Kennedy Donald J. Saltarelli, Mayor Charles E. Puckett, Chairman Kathy Well, Chairperson Pro Tem Alden L. Baker Donald Le Jeune Leslie Anne Pontious None William A. Huston, City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Rob Balen, Planning Consultant Jeff Davis, Acting Senior Planner Janet Hester, Administrative Secretary III. GENERAL DISCUSSION "Parents Who Care" made a presentation regarding the sale of liquor in the community. The City Council and Planning Commission responded that they would take subject proposal into consideration. IV. DINNER RECESS - ADJOURNMENT At 6:00 p.m., the meeting was recessed for dinner at The Barn Restau- rant, 14982 Red Hill Avenue, Tustin. Councilman Kelly left at 6:30 p.m. At 8:15 p.m., the meeting was adjourned by unanimous informal consent to the next regular meeting on Monday, October 6, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. MAYOR CITY CLERK MINUTES SllJD¥ SESSXON: TUSTI# PLANNING COI~ISSIO# REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 5:00 p.m. Auto tour of current construction and dinner. Present: Puckett, Wetl, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious Staff: Rob Balen, Jeff Davis, Mary Ann Chamberlain, Laura Pickup, Patrizia Materassi No agenda items were discussed. The only matters discussed were the status of construction sites toured. The meeting moved to Tony's Sea Landing for dinner and then reconvened at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGZA#CE/Z#VOCATION ROLL CALL: PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: Present: Puckett, Well, Baker, Le Jeune, Pontious, 1. Minutes of September 8, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Well moved, LeJeune second to approve the Consent Calendar with changes to the minutes under the public hearing section for the 6th Street development proposal. Motion carried 4-0, Puckett abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. USE PERMIT 86-27 Applicant: Old World Wines, Inc. Location: 148 W. Main Street Request: Authorization for an on-site and off-site beer and wine license. Presentation: LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner Commission discussion ensued concerning the use of the storage area, hours of operation, signage and wine tasting. Laura Pickup explained there would be no wine tasting; the store would be open 7 days per week from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and informed the Commission signage should be considered at another time. Planning Commission Minutes September 22, 1986 page two Chairman Puckett opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Steve Dobbins, World Wines', made himself available for questions from the Commission and explained the storage area would be used for fixtures, etc. for future stores and would not include beer and wine. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Puckett closed the hearing at 7:42 p.m. Chairman Puckett questioned page 2, 4th paragraph of the staff report: "should be" changed to "is". Staff pointed out that this is contained in the resolution. Commissioner Well questioned staff as to notificationn of Parents Who Care. Staff responded that they receive an agenda prior to the hearing. Commissioner Well moved, LeJeune second to approve Use Permit 86-27 by the adoption of Resolution 2363. Motion carried 5-0. 3. USE PERMIT 86-28 and 86-29 Applicant: Location: Request: Barry Watkins 17245 £. Seventeenth Street Authorization to sell general liquor for on-site consumption in conjunction with two {2) restaurant uses. Presentation: LAURA CAY PICKUP, Assistant Planner Commissioner Wetl questioned staff as to notification of Parents Who Care. responded affirmatively. Staff Commission discussion ensued concerning hours of operation of the proposed uses. Laura Pickup stated that hours would be determined by the Community Development Director as pointed out in condition II.B. in the Resolution and condition 1 on page two of the staff report which governs hours of operation. Chairman Puckett opened the hearing at 7:48 p.m. Steve Carlson, Watkins Properties, concurred with staff reco~F,~endations; explained these will be lunch and dinner type operations, not bar/late night oriented. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chairman Puckett closed the hearing at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Well moved, Pontious second to approve Use Permit 86-28 by the adoption of Resolution 2364. Moti'"'on carried 5-0. Chairman Puckett then opened the public hearing on Use Permit 86-29 at 7:56 p.m. Seeing no one wishing to speak, he closed the hearing at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Well moved, Baker second to approve Use Permit 86-29 by the adoption of ~esolution 2365. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes September 2Z, 1986 page three OlD BUSINESS None. NE14 BUSINESS None. STAFF CONCER#S 4. ~eport on Council Actions of September 15, 1986. Presentati on: ROB BALEN, Planning Consultant Workshop on Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East Tustin Specific Plan Development A~reement. Presentation: JEFFREY S. DAVIS, Acting Senior Planner Jeff Davis made a brief presentation on the background of the proposed Development Agreement and Supplemental EIR. Mr. Davis announced that there would be a public hearing on these matters October 13th before the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the City Council October 20th. Mr. Tom Smith, Principal, MBA consultants, introduced Mr. Gary Jacobs, Project Manager in charge of preparation of Supplemental EIR and Mr. Tony Skidmore, Project Manager in charge of the original EIR for the East Tusttn Specific Plan. Mr. Smith explained why a Supplemental EIR is necessary. Mr. Smith indicated that the' Development Agreement, and, therefore the SEIR, focus on impacts and proposed mitigation relating to project implementation phasing and required infrastructure improvement phasing. Mr. Smith pointed out that the SEIR primarily assesses impacts associated with traffic and circulation, public services and infrastructure needed to support the project and hydrology/drainage impacts. Chairman Puckett requested questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Well stated that the SEIR was a very thorough and well done document. Ms. Well had particular questions regarding the city's liability and liability insurance provisions in the Development Agreement and flood control provisions covered in the SEIR. Mr. Smith responded that there are controls required in the project implementation phase as governed by the City and County Flood Control District. City Attorney Lois Jeffrey replied that the City had limited exposure to liability and that the proposed bodily injury liability coverage was more than adequate. Commissioner Puckett questioned whether there was a problem with off-ramp spacing along the freeway. Mr. Terry Austin, Austin-Foust Traffic Engineers, responded that the SEIR analyzed the off-ramp and on-ramp spacing and.found that there were no problems. Planning Commission Minutes~ September 22, 1986 page four Mr. Balen requested the traffic consultant to explain the level of analysis done for the SEIR and its relationship to the Development Agreement. Mr. Austin responded that traffic impacts related to infrastructure improvements, project phasing and delay of some key mitigation improvements were assessed and that further mitigation was suggested in some cases. In addition, Mr. Austin commented that traffic analysis indicates that at ultimate build-out the traffic impacts of the East Tustin Specifc Plan are fully mitigated. Mr. Balen further 'explained the role of a Development Agreement and the level of impact assessment that is included in the. SEIR. Mr. Puckett indicated that there were no further questions. COMMISSIO# CONCERNS Commissioner Well requested Rob Balen check into the Minutes preparation to ensure the Commission's justification for their vote on the motions be reflected. AD,,IOURI~ENT Chairman Puckett adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to September 29, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. for a . joint meeting with the City Counci 1. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning DATE: SUBOECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENV IRONgENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: Commission OCTOBER 13, 1986 USE PER~IT NO. 86-30 TRI-STATE ENGINEERING P.O. BOX 4214 FULLERTON, CA 92634 14082 REDHILL AVENUE AT NISSON ROAD C-1 RETAIL CO~IERCIAL CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT CLASS 2 TO DI~IOLISH AN EXISTING 1938 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE STATION AND RECONSTRUCT A 1104 SQUARE FOOT giNI HARKET AND' ~ STATION. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: Approve Use Permit No. 86-30 by the adoption of Resolution No. 23'66. SUGARY: The applicant has filed Use Permit No. 86-30 to request authorization to demolish an existing 1938 square foot gasoline sales and auto service station and reconstruct an 1104 square foot convenience store and gasoline sales station. The existing gasoline service station was issued a Conditional Use Permit in January 1975 in order to allow a 52 foot high freeway identification sign and establish the service station as a conforming use in the C-1 zone. The present request meets all the requirements of adopted Service Station Guidelines, zoning and sign codes. The applicant, as required by Section 9232-K of the Municipal Code, is required to obtain a Use Permit. This application, as submitted, is considered appropriate for the proposed location therefore, staff recommends approval for this project. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: All newly constructed gasoline or service stations must follow the Service Station Guidelines for site planning and design. These guidelines have been attached for reference. In reviewing this application, staff has identified areas of concern. These issues include building design and site plan lay out, sign placement and size and land use intensity. Each issue is discussed below: Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Exxon station page two Building and Site Design: This project includes the construction of a 1104 square foot retail convenience market and two gasoline pump islands. The C-1 zone parking requirements (one parking space for every 200 square feet of retail area) are more restrictive than the Service Stafion Guidelines. Therefore, six (6) on-site parking spaces must be provided. The overall lay out is shown in the attached Exhibit to the Service Station Guidelines. This preferred site lay out orientates building openings and gasoline pumps to the rear of the property. Exxon has followed all service station guidelines in regards to site lay out, parking and landscaping. As noted on the plans as required by the Tustin £ngineering Department, an irrevocable offer of dedication of 10 feet along Redhill Avenue shall be provided. The'applicant has agreed to this and has set the building back 20 feet to ensure maintenance of required set backs after the street is widened. The building itself has been designed to incorporate the new Exxon image and color scheme. All building facades will be white in color. All signs will be red and white. The overall effect is of minimal color distraction and will propose a 'clean' appearance. Attached are drawings of the building elevations for further clarification. Sign Program: As previously mentioned, a Use Permit was granted for a 52 foot high freeway identification sign. The applicant is requesting that all of the signs on the site be revised. All wall mounted signs are in conformance with the Sige Code. Each sign will be flush mounted and incorporate the corporate colors of red with white trim. This location currently has two free standing signs. One is the freeway pole sign, the other is a six foot high monument sign. As requested, the applicant wishes to reface the monument sign and maintain its current size. The freeway sign will be revised by removing the existing 200 square foot sign can and replacing it with a 140 square foot sign can. A~l signs are in conformance with the Tustin Sign Code. Therefore, a use permit or variance for signs is not needed for this application. Land Use: The project site is currently operated as a self service station only. All lube bays have been closed off and the service portion of the business has been discontinued since 1975. Community Development Department Planning Commission Report Exxon statton page three This request, if authorized, would include a retail market for the sale of auto related items, food and beverage products and retail gasoline sales. The applicant is not requesting authorization for beer, wine or liquor sales at this time. No expected major increase in land use intensity is expected due to the nature of this request. Most customers are expected to purchase f6od or beverage items while purchasing gasoline. As previously mentioned, the existing site is a self service gasoline retail store, therefore no major increase in customer traffic is anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: All design guidelines and City Code requirements have been met or exceeded in this request. The overall land use effect, building design, site lay out and sign program are considered acceptable for the site as reviewed by planning staff. Although the building design and color is somewhat different for Exxon, this new building will look similar to that of the Union 76 Station in Enderle Center on Seventeenth Street. The format and site lay out of the Service Station Guidelines promote construction of projects such as this new station for Exxon. Therefore, staff recommends approval for Use Permit No. 86-30 with the conditions contained in Exhibit A. Assistant Planner LP:do attach: Service Station Guidelines Site Plan Elevations Sign Plan Resolution No. 2366 Community Development Department SERVIC~. STATION DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINw~$ Policy The City Council of the City of Tustin recognizes the vehicle service station as an essential service to the public. The location and design of service stations shall be such as to provide an aesthetic amenity, free from hazards and urban blight, in addition to being a service to the public. A Use Permit shall therefore be required for any Service Station, Self-Serve Station, Drive-thru Convenience outlet, or related facilities and operations, to assure compatability with t_he surrounding area. Definition 1. Service Station s~all mean an attended occupancy whi¢~ primarily provides for the sale of motor fuels, btfc also supplies the servicinq and operations incidential to motor vehicles rated at. one and one-half (1%) tons or less. These incidental services include the retail sale of petroleum products and automotive accessories; automobile washing (by hand); waxing and polishing of automobiles; the sale and repair of tires (excluding recapping); battery service: cleaning and flushing of radiators (excluding steam cleaning and repair); and the installation of accessory components. Also, the following operations are permitted if conducted within a building: lubrication of motor vehicles tons or less); brake service limited to ~er~ic/-ng and replacement of brake cylinders and brake shoes; wheel balancing; and the testing, adjustment, and replacement of carburetors, coils, condensers, dis- tributor caps, fan belts, filters, geneerators, points, rotors, spark, plugs, voltage regulators, water hoses and wiring. The performance of minor emergency repairs is allows for vehicles of one and one-half (1%) tons or less. 2. Self-Serve Station shall mean an occupancy which primarily provides for the self-dispensing of motor fuels, and may also include automatic d. Drive-thru Convenience Outlet -3 spaces plus i space for each 200 sq. ft. of building area on the site. 3. Accessory buildings for the storage of accessory goods to be sold at retail on %he site, such as tires, tubes, waxes, lubricants, etc-, shall be architecturally harmonious with the design of the main structure and shall require specific Use Permit approval. 4. Trash storage areas shall be an enclosed masonry structure, minimum six (6) foot by eight (8) foot. 5. Lights for illuminating the site or advertise the facility shall be located in such a manner so as to contain all direct rays upon subject property. Fixtures and intensity shall require the approval of the Community Development Director. 6.' Signinq shall be in accordance with the City of Tustin Sign code (Ord. No. 684). 7. Maximum Allowable Height - %hirty-five (35) feet. 8. Minimum Buildin~ Site - ten thousand (10,000) square feet. 9. Maximum Lot Coverage.- (Buildings and Structures) Fifty (50) Percent. 10. M4n{mum Lot Width at Property Line: Corner Lot: One hundred (100) feet Interior Lot: One hundred (100) feet 11. Yards and Setbacks: Front Side Rear Frontage on Major Hiqhway (120' ROW) 75' 75' 75' (Measured from centerline) Frontage on Primary Highway (100' ROW) 65' 65' 65' (Measured from centerline) Frontage on Secondary Highway (80' ROW) 55' 55' 55' (Measured from centerline) All other sites and yards not abutting a Primary or Secondary Highway: Front Yard: Fifteen (15) feet, unless otherwise ~ndicated on Zoning Map Side Yard: Unless otherwise indicated on Zoning Map: 12' DR I VE APRON SETBt LI NE STREET TREES PER CITY MASTER PLAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY ce_ _f_ -- i[ --i 1 3 4 The 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~3 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 2366 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ?USTIN, APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF A MINI MARKET AND GAS STATION AT 14082 REDHILL AVENUE Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve follows: as The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That a proper application, (Use Permit No. 86-30) has been filed on behalf of Exxon USA to request authorization to construct a mini market and gas station at 14082 Redhill Avenue. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application. Ce 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. This project is located in the C-1 Retail Commercial Zone. 2. The use applied for is in conformance with the C-1 zone requirements of the Tustin Municipal Code. 3. That service stations are'permitted subject to Conditional Use Permit. 4. That the proposed project is in conformance with adopted Service Station Guidelines. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use applied 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 Tustin, 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 ButldingOffictal, Fire Code as administered by the Orange County Fire Marshal and street improvement requirements as administered by the City Engineer. F. This project is categorically exempt (Class 2) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. G. Final development plans shall require the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 ~3 25 ~6 27 ~8 Resolution No. 2366 page two II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 86-30 to authorize construction of a mini market and gas station at 14082 Redhill Avenue subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary do up86-30 attach: Exhibit A EXHIBIT "A" RESOLUTION NO. 2366 The final site plan shall be standardized and reflect all appropriate City standard drawing numbers. The developer shall construct all missing or damaged street improvements to said development per the City of Tustin "Minimum Design Standards of Public Works" and "Street Improvement Standards". This work shall consist of, but is not limited to, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, drive apron, and street pavement.. Current records indicate that the existing development may not be connected to a sanitary sewer. In the event it is not, the new building shall be connected. Records indicate that orange County Sanitation District No. 7 sewer connection fees have not been paid. These fees will require payment at the time a building permit is issued. Fee amounts are based upon $180.00 per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area or $250.00, whichever is greater, and any front footage charges if connected to a County sanitation trunk sewer. An irrevocable offer of dedication of street right of way 10 feet in width along Redhill Avenue will be required, as well as an enlarged corner cut-off area to accommodate the curb return. The subject parcel will require annexation to the City of Tustin 1972 Street Lighting and Landscape District. A separate street improvement plan will be required showing all existing and proposed public improvements which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. Replacement or construction of damaged or missing curb/gutter, drive apron or sidewalk b. Closure of driveways and replacement with curb/gutter and sidewalk c. Sanitary sewer lateral if required d. Street trees e. Street lights All new construction must be referenced to the applicable City standard drawing numbers. The Engineering Division requires that a letter from the developer, stating that they agree to annex to the Tustin Lighting/Landscape District effective August 1, 1987. a. The developer will be required to install the street light conduit and pay Edison Co. the street light installation cost. b. The developer will be required to pay the city the advanced energy charges from the date of Edison installation to August 1, 1987. Community Development Depar!mer~t Exhibit "A" page two 8. Underground tanks and product lines shall meet the requirements of Orange County Health and State Codes. 9. This project shall comply with the Uniform Fire Code Div. IX Section 79.901 1982 edition. 10. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Tustin's Sign Ordinance No. 684. 11. No alcoholic beverages are authorized for sale at this location unless a Use Permit is granted for such sales. 12. All on-site lighting shall be directed inward to avoid light expansion beyond the property line. 13. The monument sign shall be relocated at the time Redhill Avenue is widened, the cost of which shall be beared by Exxon USA or its assignees or successors. 14. A landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 1E. All products and storage shall be contained within the building. Community Development Department Report to the planning commission DATE: I tern No. 3 pROPOSED DFEYELOPIqE'NT AGREEJqE'#T BL:*TI~IE. EN THE: CITY OF THSTI# SD THE IR¥I#E CORPA#Y RELATI#G TO DEVELOIR4E#T OF THE ERST TUSTXN ' SPECXFIC PLAN PROdECT ~RF.~. RECOI~E#OATIO#: adoption of' an ordinance approving a To recommend to the City Council of Tustin and The Irvine Company for the Development Agreement between the City East Tustin Specific Plan area. BACKGROUND: . -. -~ City Council made a _ the East Tusti? .Spe~.F'~t ~"~evel~pment Agreement_be Upon approval of_ start of oevem~,,~-~ ..... ~ n~oiectS and supporting ,o,,irement' that prior, t~ -~*-in- of oeve~op,,=-~ -- ~ ~"-place ensuring tlme)Y P""~ u n extension of the comprehensive nt A reement is ? of the Specific infrastructure- The Devel~m~ic P~an. As an ,m~l~men~in~_~°lto and specific planning process of ~ ~ ~ment provi~es_~i~e~nt~ timing alluded to r Plan, the Develo?e ..... ~..~e renuirements anu ,,,,~-~ ff and the City Council have determined that a commitments .to i ntras~ru~u- ~ the Specific Plan.. S~a .... o~riate planning procedure necessary to meet '" tls the ap~- v Developmen~ Ag?eme~ ~t Tustin planning process. the objectives of t,~ A DeYelop~nt Agree~nt (s an agreement betwee~ a city and developer whereby the I proceed with development city is ensured that t~e developer wil.' sured that che city will compl~ with the developer iS en e East Tustln upon manner and whereb~ ...... ~o~ment Agreement for th initial project entitlements, lne uew, p of the property, the density or Specific Plan specifies the permitted uses intensity of those uses, the timing and nature of the infrastructure (e.g. roads, flood control, utilities, traffic mitigation), for each phase of development, and the financing methods that are available to fund the infrastructure. The Development Agreement is enforceable by either party according to State law. ANALYSIS: years, with a -- '- The Development The term of the Development Agreement is for a period of fifteen allowable if agreed to by,,b~th parties. Irvine Company to five year extension phasing schedule, Exhibit D , tying the with the Agreement includes a providing circulation, drainage and flood control facilities consistent City's General Plan land use and facilities plans. This infrastructure would be IU~L.U~Jed;o IU~UUCiOI;^~CI ^llunuu uJo~ ~ aq pLno~ a~n~ona~sea~u~ s[q~ 'SU~Ld se~L~Oe~ pue esn PUeL UeLd Leaeue9 s,K~3 aq~ q~ ~ue~s~suo~ sa~L~Oe~ Loa~uoo pooL~ pue a6eu~eap 'uo~eLno~Lo 5u~pL^oad o~ ~u~dmo3 aU[A~! aq~ §U~% '.Q. ~[q~qx3 'eLnpaqos 5u~seqd e sepnLou[ ~uatueed~ ~uamdoLe^eQ eq£ 'se[~aed q~oq ~q o~ pee~5~ ~ a£qe~oLL~ uo~sue~xe aee~ e q~L~ 'saee~ uea~ ~o podded e ao~ s~ ~uatueea§V ~uemdola^aQ eq~ ~o mae~ :SISAIVMV · ~e[ e)e)S o~ 5u)pJo3oe X~ded Jeq)[e Zq eLqeaoao~ua s~ ~uemeea§V )uemdoteAaQ aq£ 'ajntonJ)seJ~u[ aq~ pun~ ol aLqeL~eAe ede ~eq) spoq~a~ 5u~3ueut~ aq~ pue ')uamdoLeAep · ~'a) ednt3natsed~u[ eq) ~o aJn~eu pue 5utm~ aq~ 'SaSh esoq~ ~o X)[sue)ut ~o Xt)suep aq) 'X)JadoJd aq~ ~o SaSh pe~)~mJad aql se[~[oeds UeLd u~sn£ 1se3 eq~ do~ 3uameeJSV 3uatudOkaAeO aq£ 's3uemeL3~lue ~3e~oad Le~u~ q~L~ KLdmoo [L~ ~ eq~ ~eq~ peansue s~ dedoLaAep eq~ ~qedaq~ pue aauuetu uodn paea~e ue u~ luamdoLe^ep q~[~ peaooad L£~ aado[eAep eq~ ~eq~ pednsue s~ eq~ ~qeaeq~ aadoLe^ep pue ~o ~ uee~eq ~uameedSe ue s~ ~uauaea6¥ ~uemdoLa^eQ ¥ · eaae uetd 3~3ads u~3snl 3se3 aq3 ~o~ ~uedao3 eu~^aI aql pu~ u~3sn£ ~o ~[3 eq3 uaa~eq ~uaaeedS¥ 3uemdoLaAeO e §u~Aoadde e3ueu~pao ue ~o uo[3dope L~ouno3 ~[3 aq3 o3 puauao3aa ol :~OILYG#3NN033~ 'V3~f 1~3~0~d N~fld OIJI33dS . NIJ~RL LSV3 3ILL JO L#3NdO13A3G 01 9#IIV131t A#¥dW03 3NIABI 3H1 GNV N~ISILL 30 LL~3 3ILL N33~!q8 l#3N33~f L#3NdOq3A3G 03SOdO~d :J~3[~811S 986! '~! ~3801~0 :31¥0 UO!SSIbUUAOD u!uu ld Planntng Commission Report Developmen: Agreement page two constructed concurrent with or prior to development within each sector of the plan area. Park dedications, park improvements, golf course construction and certain development standards relating to hillside grading, residential development and mixed use development are also covered. In addition, a development phasing scheme is agreed to specifying the type of land use allowed in each phase to balance revenue generating uses to create an overall surplus of revenues. The fiscal phasing plan will balance retail, residential, hotel and mixed uses to provide the City with an adequate level of revenue to support City services to the area. Other provisions of the Development Agreement are that fire protection facilities and other public facilities needed to support the area will be provided. Formation of assessment and special tax districts is acknowledged as a valid mechanism to finance major public improvements. Section 2.9 on page 33 of the Development Agreement discusses these financing mechanisms. The Development Agreement is consls'tent wi th and meets the intent of the Specific Plan and the City Council's desire to have a phasing and implementation agreement. As an implemmenting tool of the Specific Plan, the Development Agreement covers all of the major public immprovements required as part of the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report. The Supplemental EIR done for the Development Agreement covers impacts associated with the phasing and immplementation of these improvements. A separate report covers the SEIR and is attached. RECOI~ENOED ACTION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission find that the Development Agreement is consistent wi th the City's General Plan and the East Tustin Specific Plan and forward the Development Agreement to the City Council for adoption. -ROBERT W. BALEN, Planning Consultant RB:do Community Development Department Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 13, 1986 SUPPLDIENTAL E#VIRONHENTAL INPACT REPORT (SUPPLENENT TO EIR 85-2) CO#SXDERING ENVZRONNENTAL INPACTS OF A PROPOSED · DEVELOP#E#T AGREEMENT RELATING TO DEVELOPt~ENT OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA. Elrf IROI~EI~AL STATUS: THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIROI~ENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) HAS BEEN PREPARED I# ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15153 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. RECOI~ENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the Commission, upon review of the document, receipt of public testimony, and consideration of comments on the Draft SEIR and the responses thereto, recommend to Ctty Counctl certification of the subject Draft SEIR. This recommendation will be forwarded by the adoption of Resolution No. 2367. SUN4ARY: On March 17, 1986, the Tustin 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 Sectign 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 Tustln 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. Community Dev¢lopmen~ Deparxmen~ '~ Planning Commission Report SEIR page two Accordingly, the subject Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 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. The SEIR is now presented for Commission consideration. Procedurely, the Commission must review the document, receive public testimony, consider comments on the document (and the responses 'thereto) and forward a recommendation to the City Council concerning certification of the draft. DISCUSSION: 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 Commission meeting. In reviewing the SEIR it is paramount that the Commission keep in mi nd that environmental t~acts 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'£IR 85-2 and are not topics to be re-addressed. Issues discussed in the SEIR are related to phasing of development rather than of buildout. Instead issues of what anticipated impacts, if any, will result at specific key stages of actual development is analyzed. COMCLUSIONS: 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. Finally, a public hearing will be conducted considering the draft allowing for still further public input on the subject. Therefore, upon completion of the scheduled hearing, it is recommended that the Commission forward its recommendation to the City Council concerning-certification o~ the ~c~ing~Benior Planner OD:do Lattach: '"O~RT ~. ~ L ~N '~ ~' __'mm -- Planning Consultant Resolution No. 2367 Responses to Comments (SEIR) Community Development Department 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. 2367 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (TO EIR 85-2) PLUS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES AS A FINAL SEIR The Planning Commission of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That in conjunction with the preparation and adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 85-2 was prepared and finally certified on March 17, 1986. That as a portion of the adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, prior to any development within the area a Development Agreement in accordance with Section 64864 of the California Government Code must be approved. C. That the proposed Development Agreement currently being processed was not complete at the time EIR 85-2 was certified. That as a result of an initial study questionnaire prepared upon submittal of the proposed Development Agreement it has been determined that new information is available related to development phasing in the East Tustin Specific Plan area and this information could result in the identification of additional environmental impacts that were not addressed in EIR 85-2. That as a result of this new information and in conformance with Section 15163 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines a draft Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared as a supplement to EIR 85-2. Said document addresses issues associated with the implementation of a proposed development agreement. That a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed project has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, for the City of Tustin. Gm That distribution of the Draft SEIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. He That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft SEIR. That the public review period for the draft EIR ended on September 26, 1986 and that comments received by the public, Commission, staff and other agencies have been addressed to this date. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2367 page two That the Draft SEIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of the City of Tustin. That the City Council of the City of Tustin shall be, as described in CEQA, the body responsible for the certification of Draft SEIR as a final SEIR. That the Draft SEIR was distributed to the Planning Commission and that they reviewed this document, received public testimony and considered comments on Draft SEIR and responses thereto in their review of the subject actions involving the East Tustin area. II. It is therefore resolved that the Draft SEIR, as a supplement to EIR 85-2, the con~nents and responses thereto are recommended to the City Council for their consideration and certification as a final EIR for the actions involving the East Tusttn area. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the day of , 1986. CHARLES E. PUCKETT, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement (Supplement to EIR 85-2 State Clearinghouse #8505221?) 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 DEIR Written comments received during 30-day DEIR review period: A. State Office of Planning and Research B. State Depa~.tment of Water Resources C. County of Orange Fire Department D. United States Marine Corps E. City of Itwine 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 eomments 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 dur!ng the public review period, which began on August 27, 1988 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 Guidalines, Section 15132. This report is organized as follows: the first section provides a list of person/agencies commenting on the- SEIR and the second section contains individual comments followed thereafter by responses. To facilitate review of the responses, an index number (e.g., A-l, B-2) has been assigned to each comment and to its corresponding response. COI',,i'..IUNIT. ~,[YELO~r4ENT Jeffrey S. Davis City of Tustin Department of Co..¥.unity Development 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 SubJ eat: September 26, 1986 East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement (SCH# 85052217) Dear Mr. Davis: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above n~med dr~ft Environmental I-.-T~act Repor~ (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed a~ the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has ~hecked -.l%iclu agencies have cou~ented. Please review ~he No=ice 6f Completion ~o ensure that your cogent package is cormplete. If the package is not in order, please notify t~e State Clearinghouse in~qediately. Your eight digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply prcmptly. Please note ~hat recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make subsr~n~-Ive comments on a project are w-ith~n the area of the agency's expertise or '~hich relate ~o activities wh_tch That agencymust carr~ out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 15la, Stats. !98~.) ~ese c,~,~,erl.~s ~ forwarded for your use in preparing your fi~l EIR. you need more infonua~ion or clarification, we suggest you contact the co~w~enting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/qa5-0613 if you P~ve any questious regare~ng the environmental r~view process. Sincerely, Chief Deputy Dir~t~or Cffice of Planning and Research cc: Resources Agency A1 ~F~nclosures Specific Ptan Oevelo~ment A~reement SEIR (Supptec~flcal ko EII~ ~.5o2) ,'. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS State Office of Planning and Research A-1 Comment so noted. St&te ~, California The Resources Agency morandum To From 1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary for Resources 2. City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 Attention: Jeffrey S. Davis : Depa~mentof Wate~Resources Los Angeles, CA 90055 Subject: DE1/{ for East Tustin Specific Plan Development Agreement to EIR #85-2, SCH 85052217 I Recommendations of the staff of the Department o~Water Resources on the J subject document are attached. The recommendations are related to water J 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 informa=ion, you' may wish to contac= John Pariewski a= (213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opportunity ~o review and commen~ on ~hi$ re~ort. 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 requirements of this section." o 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 Al12.18.1M-1979. Title 20. ~=~ -~-n ~=ifornia Administrmti-ze Code Sect£cn -c~o(b; A~oiaance Efflciencv Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do non csmolv ~.;i%h regu!aticns. No new 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 Buildinqs) prohibits the installation-of fixtures unless the manufacturer bbs certified to the CEC compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Administrative Code, Sections 2-5352(i) and (3) 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 recirculating hot %~ater piping in a%tics, garages, crawl spaces, or un~eated spaces o~her than between floors or in interior walls, insulation of ~ater-heating systems is also required. Health and Safety Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of residential ~ater softening or conditioning appliances unless certain condi=ions are sa=isfied, included is the requirement that, in most instances, the in-.or=l- lation 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. 2. Drinkinq 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 4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used. 5. 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 ?;ith icw water-using plants %.;i~erever feasible. 2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses, such playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses. 3. Group plants of similar water use to reduce overirrigation of !ow-~.;ater-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 top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. Preserve and protect existing trees an~ shrubs. Established plants ame often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetaticn. ~lhe -= ~ e De~_r~men~ of Water Resources or local ;~ater district may aid in developing these materials or providing other information. 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 water 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. This aids ground water recharge. 13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer recharge areas as open space. ,artment of Water Resources Recommendations for Flood Damage Prevention In flood-prone areas, flood damage prevention measures required to protect a proposed development should be based on the following guidelines: 1- It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground water should be mitigated. 2. Ail building structures should be protected against a 100-year flood. o 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). The potential damage to the proposed development by mudflow should be assessed and mitigated as .required. Gracznu should b.= !imi~ed t~ ~r-; mcnths to minimize associated with sediment transport during ccnstruction. State Department of Water Resources B-1 B-2 The water conservation measures delineated within the State Department of Water Resources attaehment will be considered at more detailed levels of planning as appropriate. Many of the recommended water conservation measures are already included in Section 3.13.6 of FEIR 85-2. The remaining reeommen"dations will be incorporated into the project as feasible and appropriate. 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). ~TY OF RECEIVED COMMuNItY DEVE/OPMEN~ ~e ORANGE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 180 SOUTH WATER STR E ET P.O. ROX 86, ORANGE. CALIFORNIA 92666~086 (714) 5383551 LARRY J. HOLM~ DIRECTOR OF FIRE SERVICES SERVING THE UNINCORP<3RATEO AREAS CYPRESS IRVINE LA PALMA~ LO~ ALAMI TOS PLACENTIA SEAl. 8EACH TUSTIN VILLA PARK YORBA LINDA 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 line 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 Cl C2 SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES County of Orange Fire Department C-1 C-2 Item 5 of Section 2.3.2 of the SEIR 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 seryices 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. The second paragraph of the project impacts discussion in Section 3.3.1 is revised to note that the new fire station would operate initially with one single engine pumper and would require a total of nine firefighters. 4 UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS MARINE CORPS AIR BASES, WESTERN AREA Mr. Jeffrey S. Davis Department of Community Development City of Tustin 300 Centennial:Way Tustin, California 92680 RECEIVED COMMUNITy DD/F. L OPUENr 11103.27 Aq/OO18a ~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 lette~ dated August 27, 1986 and we have no comments. Thank you for the opportunity to review. If further information required, please contact Ann Dotson at 651-3702. D1 Sincerely, ~..Co~nel, ~.S_~-~arine Corps Cum~unit)C~Plans and Liaison Officer By direction of the Commander 7.." £; yEC. September 26,:1986 Mr. Jeffrey Davis Senior Planner city of Tustin Department of Community Development 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680' Dear Mr. Davis: COMMENT ON DRAFT SUPPT,EM~NTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Thank you for the opportunity to review the D~aft 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 cc' John Murphy, Manager of Development Services Greg Aldrich, Transportation Services Jayni Barker, Assistant Planner E1 bbSJDAVIS City of Irvine 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. LOCATION 1990 -EAS~ TUSTIN PHASE I- ITAP Volume Percent -EAST I~STIN PHASE II- Volume Percent Myford n/o I-5 1-5 Underpass Mtchelle-Walnut Walnut-Moulton Moulton -Barranca Harvard Walnut -Moul ton Moulton-Warner Culver n/o I-5 I-S 0vercroasing I-5 - Walnut Walnut-lCD 1CD-Warner Warner-Barranca Irvine Boulevard w/o Tustin Ranch Tustin Ranch-Myford Myford-Culver e/o Culver I-5/Myford Interchange Myford NB on-ramp Myford NB off-ramp Myford SB off-ramp Myford SB on-ramp Myford-Culver 57200 18400 32 34800 61 51200 13200 26 24900 49 42400 6800 16 12900 30 58100 7500 13 14200 24 47700 3700 8 7000 13 3600 300 8 600 17 13000 900 7 1800 14 12700 1000 8 1900 1~ 28600 1100 4 2100 7 25400 300 1 600 2 24700 300 1 600 2 28700 300 1 600 2 48900 2100 4 4000 8 47300 1800 4 3400 7 32500 5900 18 11200 34 27500 6000 22 11400 41 30100 3900 13 7300 24 26400 3400 13 6400 24 19000 3700 31 6900 58 9300 2300 25 4300 46 18400 3000 16 5700 31 8000 1900 24 3600 45 184600 4600 2 8700 5 Walnut w/o Tustin Ranch 25000 2000 8 3800 15 Tustin Ranch-Michelle 34400 2000 6 3900 11 Michelle-Myford 28300 1700 6 3100 lA Myford-Harvard 10500 1500 14 2800 27 Harvard-Culver 9500 800 8 1400 13 e/o Culver 23800 600 3 1200 5 Irvine Center Drive w/o Myford 42700 400 1 700 2 Myford-Harvard 63400 4400 7 8400 13 Harvard-Culver 57900 3800 7 7200 12 Barranca w/o Myford 27500 700 3 1300 5 Myford-Harvard 3220~ 0 0 0 0 HarVard-Culver 35900 500 1 900 3 e/o Culver 26600 400 2 700 3 Note: East Tustin traffic shares show all trips which have either end ~f the trip in East Tusttn, even though in many cases~ particularly on the arterials, the other end of the trip is in the City of Irvine. East Tnattn Phase II is cumulative of both Phase I and Phase II development. NORTH TUSTIN MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL POST OFF]CE ~}OX 149~ TU~TtN, C.,J~IFO~Nk'~ 92~1 (714) 832-54~6 · (714) 832-5462 27 September 1986 Mr. Jeffm~y 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 us 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 Ediso~ 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 dwelling 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- merits, property condemnations, and increased traffic load - particularly if this agreement is activated to the maximum - should be addressed. 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 Agr.eement. 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 Advisory Council F-2 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 constucted 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. 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 Edison Company s31 lAST CHAPMAN AV[NUE ' RECEI'VED ,SiP 25 1986 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PATRICIA I ~BUTTRESS September 23, 1986 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 Page 5, t16 Utilities Page 20-27 Public Services/Utilities - Cumulative Development will result in a long term increase in the demand for public services and utilities. Environmental Initial Study Form Proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alteration to power utilities. Development Agreement The formation of a M&llo-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,,munity 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 antieipated within the MPAH. As noted above, the Development Agreement in itself does not provide for any increase in development over that which is allowed by the Speeifle Plan nor any roadway configurations other than those noted in the Specific Plan. F-4 Concurrence so noted. R E C F I V' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PLANNING September 29, 1986 FILE MURRAY STORM DIRECTOR, EMA ROBERT G. FISHER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. SOX 404~ SANTA ANA. CA 92702-4048 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA AN~ CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714) 834,-4643 NCL 4120 Jeffrey S. Davis Community 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 Aha Freeway and west of Myford Road. We have the following comments: Transporation Corridors/Highways 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 landow-aer 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 I ambiguous and should be clarified. The City requirements for involvement in park )lanning, access and development should be specified. The County has already decided to establish the subject park and has included it in the County General 63 Plan. Dedication of the park prior to or concurrent with development approvals is required by the County Recreation and Resources Elements of the General Plan ~nd should also be the policy of the City to resolve the park issues as early possible. These issues can and should be resolved as a part of the proposed! ~evelopment 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. Two new regional parks have been proposed along the anticipated alignment of the bikeway, and other communicty parks are expected · rb . The "park to park" orientation for the bikeway following to be adjacent or nea y ....... ~ ~A b~ ~.o v ~o~ular among recreational, the scenic riparian corridor :s ang~c~pa~u ~v ~ _~r~ ~ ~ training, and co~uting cyclists. As a Class I bikeway of exceptional potential, certain features in the 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 he project vicinity including cross sections, access points and ramp connections.' · fhese 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, aHopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 1983. Pro~ect Planning Our Project Planning division recommends that the last sentence of No. 1 in the ~ydrolo~y/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 recommended 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 t~ 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 County of Orange Environmental Management Agency G-1 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. Again, the comments are directed toward the terms of the Development Agreement and not to the potential environmental impacts thereof. FEIR 85-2 addresses potential impacts associated with the project'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 pla~ ring 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). 0-5 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 subieet to the review and approval of Caltrans, the recommended modification of the mitigation measure adds nothing substantive to the measure. ERRATA SHEET 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. 20 21 SOURCE: AUSTiN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC~ ,ntersection Locations East Tustin Development Agreement City of Tustin DRAI~T CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS 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 sbsl! 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. FINDINGS Transportation/Circulation Significant 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 Roacl/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 construction of the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 interchange and the improvement of the Myford Road/I-5 interchange. Such coordination 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 significant 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. Facts in Support of Finding - Responsibility for the construction of the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 and the improvement of Myford Road/I-5 interchanges 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 interchange improvements. As such, 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 logical-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 Ph~,ses 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 majQr 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 rejected 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 acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Hydrolo~y~Vater Q, uality 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. Police and Fire Protection ~erviees 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 Agreement 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. ~'TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS3 BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Section 15093 of the Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "(a) CEQJ~ 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 oufweigh 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 aecordance 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 faeilities and expansion of civic center facilities. The Development Agreement is the vehicle for infrastructure improvements which serve to impacts. the implementation of mitigate development 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. Report to the Planning Commission ITEM NO. 5 DATE: OCTOSER'13, 1986 SUBJECT: REPORT ON COUNCIL ACTIONS - October 6, 1986 Oral presentation. do Attachments: City Council Action Agenda - October 6, 1986 Community Development Deparlment 7:00 I. ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR ~ETING OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 6, 1986 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ALL PRESENT II. ROLL CALL MAYOR SALT/LRELLI RECOGNIZED MARGARET BYRD'S 88TH BIRTHDAY. CHERRILL CADY PRESENTED THE COUNCIL WITH TILLER DAYS' VISORS AND BADGES AND ENCOURAGED ALL TO Al-rENO. III. PROCLAMATIONS TO BE PRESENTED AT 1. TUSTIN HIGH TILLERS BASEBALL TEAM - 1986 CENTURY LEAGUE TOURNAMENT A LATER DATE CHAMPIONS PRESENTED TO (}lIEF 2. FIRE PREVENTION WEEK - OCTOBER 5-11, 1986 BUCK HENDERSON. CHIEF HENDERSON PRESENTED FORMER MAYOR FRANK GREINKE WITH A PLAQUE FROM THE FIRE 0E PARTMENT. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS ADOPTED RESOLUTION 1. -~0. 86-118 PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 138 RANCHWOOD/BELLEWICK - RESOLUTION NO. 86-118 RESOLUTION NO. 86-118 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, MAKING APPLICATION FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY KNOWN AS RANCHWOOD/BELLEWICK ANNEXATION NO. 138 Recommendation: Receive testimony from affected residents; and adopt Resolution No. 86-118 at the conclusion of the hearing. RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION FOR PERSONNEL MATTERS AT 7:11 P.M. COUNCIL RECONVENED AT 7:26 P.M. DENIED ZONE C~ANGE 2. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 - 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435, AND 445 SIXTH STREET - ORDINANCE NO. 976 ORDINANCE NO. 976 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON SIXTH STREET BETWEEN "B" STREET AND PACIFIC STREET AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1 TO PLANNED COMMUNITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (P.C. RES.) Recommendation: M.O. - That Ordinance No. 976 have first reading by title only. M.O. - That Ordinance No. 976 be introduced. DENIED SPECIFIC 3. -aLAN NO. 11 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 - 335, 345, 355, 365, 405, 415, 425, 435, AND 445 SIXTH STREET - ORDINANCE NO. 977 ORDINANCE NO. 977 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 REGULATING DEVELOPMENT UPON CERTAIN PROPERTIES ON SIXTH STREET BETWEEN "B" STREET AND PACIFIC STREET AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE I 10-6-86 DENIED USE PER,lIT 4. NO. 86-26 BUT ADVISED THE IN~VELOPER T}L~T HE COULD CONE BACK WITH A R.AN FOR R-1 ZONING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 86-26 - 405, 415, 425 SIXTH STREET - RESOLUTION NO. 86-121 RESOLUTION NO. 86-121 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT 86-26 AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT OF EIGHT (8) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN CONFORMANCE WITH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 (405, 415, 425 SIXTH STREET) Recommendation: affirm approval 86-121. Uphold the findings of the Planning Commission and of Use Permit 86-26 by adoption of Resolution No. RUDY NENA V. PUBLIC INPUT OF TUSTIN I~)LICE DEPARTMENT, RI:PRESENTING THE POLICE ASSOCIATION. SAID THEY WERE AGAINST DRUGS ANO WERE IN FAVOR OF THE DRUG POLICY WIIICH HAl) BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM. THE ISSUE OF RIGHTS AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE CONSI'ITUTION~L WOULO BE UP TO THE JUOICIAL PERSONNEL BUT HE SUGGESTED BT WE GO VERY SLOMLY ON THIS. k TUSTIN RESIDENI' HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TILRSH FEES ON HIS TAX BILL BECAUSE HE HAD ALREADY PAIO THO MONTHS ll~H BILLS BEFORE HE RECEIVED HIS TAX BILL. STAFF WILL AGENOIZE THIS MA1TER FOR THE NEXT ~EI'ING. APPROVED APPROVED VI. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 15, 1986, REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 29, 1986, ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 2. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,460,505.03 RATIFICATION OF PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,197.65 APPROVED STAFF 3. RECOI~NDATION APPROVED STAFF 4. RECOI~tENDRTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION 5. NO. 86-122 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - SAN DIEGO CREEK SEDIMENT MONITORING PROGRAM Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject amended agree- ment; and authorize a supplemental budget appropriation of $4,400 for fiscal year 1986-87 as recommended by the Public Works Depart- ment/Engineering Division. NORTH-SOUTH ROAD (JAMBOREE ROAD) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute two agree- ments pertaining to preparation of subject EIR between Irvine Boule- vard and Chapman Avenue as follows: 1) Agreement between The Irvine Company and City of Tustin designating the City as the administrator of the Consultant Services Agreement and providing reimbursement for same; and 2) Consultant Services Agreement between L.S.A. and City of Tustin for preparation of EIR as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. RESOLUTION NO. 86-122 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION (1985-86 SIDEWALK AND CURB REPAIR PROGRAM) Adopt Resolution No. 86-122; and assuming no claims or stop payment notices are filed, authorize payment of final 10% retention amount 30 days after recordation of Notice of Completion as recommended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. APPROVE]) STAFF 6. RECOI~4ENOATION REJECTION OF CLAIM NO. 86-11; CLAIMANT: LAURA KREIFELS, STEVE BARISH & MELANIE GRAVES; DATE OF LOSS: 12/29/85; DATE FILED WITH CITY: 4/2/86 Reject subject claim as recommended by the City Attorney. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 2 10-6-86 )gOPTED RESOLUTION 7. NO. 86-120 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 8. NO. 86-117 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 9. NO. 86-119 APPROVED STAFF 10. RECOMI~ENDATION _ ADOPTED 11. 'ESOLUTIO# NO. 86-112 ADOPTED 12. RESOLUTION NO. 86-123 RESOLUTION NO. 86-120 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENT AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR COLUMBUS TUSTIN ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTING (David-Richards Construction Company) Adopt Resolution No. 86-120 as recommended by the Community Services Department. RESOLUTION NO. 86-117 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ACCEPTING WORKS OF IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING RECORDATION OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR COLUMBUS TUSTIN BACKSTOP RENOVATION (Wakefield Associates, Inc.) Adopt Resolution No. 86-117 as recommended by the Community Services Department. RESOLUTION NO. 86-119 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE APPLICATION OF THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT TO THE PROPOSED RANCHWOOD/BELLEWICK ANNEXATION NO. 138 Adopt Resolution No. 86-119 as recommended by the Community Develop- ment Department. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PACIFIC BELL AGREEMENT Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute subject agreement as recommended by the Community Development Department. RESOLUTION NO. 86-112 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER LICENSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 1540 AND 1541 AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS Adopt Resolution No. 86-112; and ~uthorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement to permit application for a state child care license as recommended by the Community Services Department. RESOLUTION NO. 86-123 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE JOINT EFFORTS OF THE TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE' TUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE PREVENTION A HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE 1986-87 SCHOOL YEAR AND BEYOND Adopt Resolution No. 86-123; and forward a copy of same to the Attorney General's Crime Prevention Center as recommended by the Police Department. VII. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION - None VIII. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION - None IX. OLD BUSINESS MOVED TO NOT PUT IN SUIA)ECT t~EDIAN ISLANDS 1. MAIN STREET LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ISLANDS Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. ECEIVED AND FILED 2. EASTERN/FOOTHILL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS JOINT POWERS AGENCY fNNEDY RE(IEIESTED A COPY OF lliE JPA MINUTES AND CO~II'TEE ASSIGN~mENTS. Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 3 10-6-86 APPROVED STAFF R£COMMEXDATIOII APPROVED STAFF RECOI~ENDATION NEW 1. BUSINESS MITCHELL AVENUE - HEATHERFIELD DRIVE TRAFFIC CONCERNS Recommendation: Direct staff to send a letter questionnaire to all potentially affected residents along Heatherfield Drive to determine how many residents would be in favor of the permit parking program as recom- mended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO UPGRADE CURRENT HP3000 THROUGH LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT Recommendation: Authorize the Finance Director to enter into a lease purchase agreement with Hewlett-Packard to upgrade the existing Series 33 taking advantage of Hewlett-Packard's trade-in upgrade program as recommended by the Finance Department. ROYLEEN WHITE TO 3. WAIVER OF LIGHT FEES FOR YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAMS TALl( WITH JOSEPH LANGLEY AND COME BA£K TO COUNCIL WITH RECOFI~ENDATIONS FOR SOME EXEMPTIONS FOR YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAHS Recommendation: Pleasure of the City Council. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 86-124 AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS SEVENTEENTH STREET BETWEEN COSTA MESA FREEWAY TO PROSPECT AVENUE RESOLUTION NO. 86-124 1) RESOLUTION NO. 86-124 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCREASE THE ALLOCATION FROM THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEVENTEENTH STREET BETWEEN THE COSTA MESA FREEWAY AND PROSPECT AVENUE (NORTH) 2) Approve AHFP Project Administration Agreement No. 1173 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same subject to City Attorney's final review; and 3) Authorize a supplemental budget appropriation for Fiscal Year 1986- 87 in the amount of $87,700. APPROVED STAFF RECOMMENDATION 5. PURCHASE OF WATER TRUCK Recommendation: Reappropriate $12,500 from the 1985-86 fiscal budget into the 1986-87 fiscal budget; and authorize the purchase of a used 1981 water truck from Hertz Rental in the amount of $17,500 as recom- mended by the Public Works Department/Engineering Division. XI. REPORTS RATIFIED 1. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS - SEPTEMBER 22, 1986 BUT THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURE AND PARKING AT THE PAVILLION RESTAUIU~NT ON 17TH Sll{EET AT YORBA. STAFF TO KEEP IN MINI) COUNCIL'S CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT. All actions of the Planning Commission become final unless appealed by the City Council or member of the public. 'EIVED AND FILED 2. TUSTIN RANCH ROAD (JAMBOREE) RIGHT OF WAY RECEIVED AND FILED 3. CITIZEN CONCERN - TREE TRIMMING ON PARKER DRIVE RECEIVED AND FILED 4. NEWPORT AVENUE MEDIAN ISLAND LANDSCAPING CITY COUNCIL ACTON AGENDA PAGE 4 10-6-86 ~EIVED AND FILED 5. FRONTIER PARK INFANT SWING )TAFF TO SEND LETTER TO J/UiIES MAY WtlO WAS CONCERNED AROUT THE INFANT SWING. APPROVED STAFF 6. CITIZEN INQUIRY - RELOCATION OF ARMY NATIONAL GUARD HELICOPTERS TO RECO~NDATION TUSTIN MARINE CORPS AIR STATION Recommendation: Direct staff to respond to the citizen making the inquiry; and receive and file. HUSTON XII. OTHER BUSINESS REQUESTED CLOSED SESSION FOR PERSONNEL MAI'rERS FOLLOWING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I~?L:TING. THE ACTING COI~NITY OEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR RESPONOED TO COUNCILNAN EOGAR THAT THE PLANS FOR THE SENIOR CITIZEN BUILDING ANE AT THE ARCHITECTS FOR CORRECTIONS. EDGAR REPORTED THAT WE HAD A REPORT FROM THE F.A.A. INDICATING THAT THE MONITORED NOISE IN TUSTIN IS 50 OBCNEL AND THAT IS 15 O8'S LESS TTLRN THE STATE STANDARD. HE FELT THAT WITH THIS REPORT THRT ANY DISCUSSION WIll~ THE AIRPORT IS IRRELEVRNI'. EDGAR REQUESTED THRT THE WEETING BE AO~OURNED IN t~EMORY OF WILLIAM H. GRAY, FORMER COUNClLHRN, AND GUS THOMSON, FORMER ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY. KENNEDY ASKED STAFF TO LOOK INTO W~iETHER PACIFIC BELL HAS STAGGERED THE WORKING HOURS OF EMPLOYEES SO THAT TRAFFIC WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED. SALTARELLI REQUESll"D COI~qUNITY SERVICES STAFF TO LOOK INTO ESTABLISHING A TEEN PROGRAM IN ~USTIN. COUNCIL CONCURRED. ..riVED TO PASS THE CITY OF llJSTIN ALCOHOL AMD DRUG ABUSE POLICY. SENATOR SEYMOUR IS HOLDING SESSIONS ON HIS BILL Si) 2175 WHICH IF ENACTED INTO LAW WOULD ALLOW AN EMPLOYER TO CONDUCT ~OATORY DRUG TESTING. MOVED TO ADOPT THE CIIANGES IN GENERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN A ~MO FROM COUNCILMAN HOESTEREY DATED 9-23-86. IN RESPONSE TO HOESTEREY'S CONCERNS ABOUT A POLICY OF DIRECTION IF PROPOSITION 61 PASSES, STAFF IS TO OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SAMITATION DISTRICTiS POLICY FOR COUNCIL REVIEW. KELLY STATED THAT HE STILL FELT THE NOISE FROM AIRPt. ANES )iRS NOT BEING PICKED UP BY THE MONITORS AND THAT THE MONITORS SHOULD BE MOVED. SALTARELLI RESPONDED THAT HE COULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AS A/( INDIVIOUAL BUT THE COUNCIL HAS TAKEN NO STAND ON IT. 11:11 P.M. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Recessed to the Redevelopent Agency Meeting, thence to a Closed Session for Personnel matters and thence to the next Adjourned Regular Meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA PAGE 5 10-6-86 ACTION AGENDA OF A REGULAR EETING OF THE TUSTIN REDEVELOPt, IENT AGENCY OCTOBER 6, 1986 7:00 P.M. 11:11 1. CALL TO ORDER ALL 2. ROLL CALL PRESEI~I' APPROVED 3. NONE 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 15, 1986, REGULAR MEETING Recommendation: Approve. OTHER BUSINESS 11:12 5. ADJOURNMENT To the next Adjourned Regular Meeting on Wednesday, October 22, 1986, at 7:00 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION AGENDA Page I 10-6-86