Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 1 P.C. ACT AGENDA 02-03-86REPORTS NO..1. 1,~2,-86 ACTION AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COI~ISSION REGULAR NEETING JANUARY 27, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White ~ Present: Don Lamm, Ed Knight, the consultant team, Suzanne Atkins, Donna Orr and approximately 200 citizens PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting January 13, 1986. 2. Approve Final Tract 8451 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2293. Puckett moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried $-0. Action Agenda January 27, 1986 page two PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company. An area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use (which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Ed Knight, Senior Planner ommttO COntinue the open public hearing to the next sston meeting. Motion carried 5-0. White requested staff prepare the cmm~e___nts from tonight and the balance of questions on the EIR and reduce them to a checklist of issues to review next meeting. A{X4INISTRATIVE MATTERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 4. Oral Report on Council actions of January 20, 1986. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSIO# CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Puckett coved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Cmmisslon meeting. Motion carried 5-0. AGENDA TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: ' ~:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. 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: {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 from Planning Commission meeting January 13, 1986. Approve Final Tract 84B1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 2293. Agenda January 27, 1986 page two PUBLIC NEARZNGS 3. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant:' Location: Request: Presentation: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company. An area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line {Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use (which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Ed Knight, Senior Planner AI)MINISll~ATIVE MAITERS Old Business None. New Business None. STAFF CONCERNS 4. Oral Report on Council actions of January 20, 1986. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COHMISSION REGULAR MEETING ~A#UARY ].3, 1986 CALL TO ORDER: 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL~ Present: Well, Puckett, Baker, McCarthy, White Also present: Larry Webb, Warren Roche, Melissa Holmes, Tom Smith, Start Hoffman, Bob Kallenbaugh, Terry Austin, Don Lamm, Ed Knight, Laura Pickup, Donna Orr, The 1trine Company team and approximately 230 citizens. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC CONCERNS: None. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 9, 1985. 2. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting December 23., 1985. McCarthy moved, White seconded to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. AMENDMENT #1 TO USE PERMIT 80-17 Applicant: Bill Taylor on behalf of Taylor's Restaurant Location: 1542 E1Camino Real Request: To expand an existing game room by 320 square feet. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Don Lamm, at the applicant's request, recommended the Commission table this item for a period not more than 6 months. White moved, McCarthy seconded to table this item for a period of six months. Motion carried 5-0. Mi nutes January 13, 1985 page two PUBLIC HEJ&RINGS 4. AMENDMENT ~1 TO USE PERMIT 84-7 Applicant: Location: Request: Presentation: Karen Cripps 15411 Red Hill Avenue, Unit D Approval of a 1750 square foot expansion and extension of previously allowed hours of operation for the California Sunshine Gymnastics School Laura Pickup, Assistant Planner Commissioner White questioned the parking requirement. Laura Pickup responded there are six spaces for loading and unloading and four spaces as permanent parking for the instructor~. Puckett moved, Baker seconded to approve Amendment #1 to Use Permit 84-7 by the adoption of Resolution 2292. Motion carried 5-0. 5. EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMMUNITY A. DRAFT EIR 85-2 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, b, c. C. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 D. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN Applicant: Location: Request: An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Flortan on behalf of The Irvine Company. An area bounded by the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east. To amend the General Plan, Zoning and enact a specific plan to permit the development of 7,950 dwelling units, plus neighborhood commercial, general commercial, mixed use (which includes commercial, office, research & development) and related public facilities on 1,740 acres. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development Ed Knight, Senior Planner, gave a brief overview of the plan and explained the process for approval. Larry Webb, Project Manager, presented the concept of the plan through a slide presentation and introduced the various consultants involved. Warren Roche, Urban Plan and Melissa Holmes, Edaw, reviewed the more specific land use proposals, some of the components of the plan and how the regulations and policies within the plan will apply to the implementation process when the development process occurs after the plan is adopted. Minutes January 13, 1986 page three Roche further explained that there are 12 sectors in the plan, each with a maximum allowable number of units. If a sector is developed with less than the number, the number can be included in another area. An area can be developed with more than the allowed number with the approval of the Director of Community Development. At no time can the overall 7950 amount be exceeded. Tom Smith, MBA, summarized the process involved in preparation of the EIR. The key issues were: 1) traffic and circulation; 2) land use; 3) public service and utilities (schools and parks); 4) drainage; 5) topography. Start Hoffman, explained the plan is fiscally balanced and highlighted the process. Bob Kalle~bau~h, RBF, explained the wastewater system; disposal system; water distribution system; analyzed electrical, telephone and gas system; and commented on the flood control aspects of the plan (Peters Canyon Wash and E1Modena Channel). Terry Austin, Austin Foust Associates, reviewed issues that had been raised in the past. He explained the East Tustin circulation system is designed so as not to rely on regional facilities; it is self sufficient. On the other hand, it does have the ability to tie into the other systems when the need should occur. The system is adequate not only for East Tustin but for other traffic that may occur in the system. Monica Florian, The Irvine Company, introduced Company team members. She presented an overview of the role the Company has played in the formulation of the plan. Chairman Well called for a 10 minute recess at 9:10 p.m. The hearing recovened at 9:30 p.m. and Chairman Well opened the hearing for public testimony. The following people spoke: Charles Rob¥, Racquethill Homeowners, requested answers in writing to the issues he raised and presented the Commission with a typed report and petition containing 234 signatures of county residents requesting deletion of Racquet Hill as a through commuter/collector road to the East Tustin project. {The typed report is on file in the Tustin Community Development Department.) Michele Brooks, Racquethlll Homeowners, requested answers in writing to the issues she raised and thoroughly reviewed the typed report presented by Charles Roby addressing negative impacts on Racquet Hill, cited law precluding the specific plan from being adopted for the following reasons: 1} Racquet Hill is not a through street on the O.C. Master Plan of Arterial Highways; 2) The data upon which circulation plans were made assumes routes for the Eastern Transportation Corridor and the Bottleneck which have not been adopted; 3) The data base for traffic planning selectively includes and deletes the land use data for the unincorporated area of Irvine directly east of East Tustin; 4) There is no provision for the increase in width of Racquet Hill/Skyline to meet standards for a "commuter/collector" road. Howard Hay, Racquethill Homeowners, requested deletion of Racquet Hill as a connector for the following reasons: 1) increase traffic on Skyline; 2) dangerous intersection; 3) Racquet Hill would be subject to more traffic; 4) children use the streets and intersections as walkways and bikeways; 5) Irvine Company concept of culdesac community would be lost; 6) opportunity for two culdesac communities. Minutes January 13, 1986 page four Tom Trace¥, Racquet Hill Homeowners, requested answers in writing and expressed concern in the decline of real estate values in homes adjacent to the project. He expressed further concern with the plan's insufficient provision for church sites. He pointed out that the city of Ir¥ine makes it virtually impossible for churches to buy land and doesn't want the same thing to happen in Tustin. John .Murphy, city of Irvlne, went on record stating their city is currently reviewing the draft EIR and it has been agendized for their January 28th City Council meeting. They will send their formal comments on the draft EIR. Alicia Francis, 1792 San Juan, expressed support for the traffic plan and a westerly exit from 'East Tustin; tired of traffic congestion caused by county residents on Tustin streets; suggested an overpass on Browning to alleviate traffic on Red Hill. She also wanted provisions made for churches in East Tustin. Carol Schrider, Foothill Communities Association, presented a typed statement (on file in the Tustin Community Development Department) summarized as follows: 1) Inadequate compliance with CEQA guidelines to furnish the public and officials with complete documentation; 2) Inaccurate and inconsistent technical data in the EIR; 3) Insufficient specific detail to be a specific plan, therefore, inappropriate designation as a Program EIR with no subsequent public review; 4) Unsubstantiated maximum densities with excessive latitude to the land developer. Unlike the existing General Plan there is no maximum density for gross project acres as an absolute ceiling; 5) Incomplete input of adequate arterial impact analysis and mitigation; 6) Inadequate or omission of mitigation measures; 7) Absence of an adequate phasing program to assure roads, schools, flood control, etc. progress in pace with development construction; 8) Lack of compliance with the existing Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. She further requested a 90 day extension for the public review process. Janlne Harmon, Foothill Communities Association, addressed the East Tustin EIR citing, in the Association's opinion, inconsistencies, omissions and other errors. (A copy of the typed material is on file in the Tustin Community Development Department). She highlighted the need for Commission review of each sector site plan; excessive latitude for change to the developer; and requested an extension of time for the public review process. ~tephen Johnson, 420 W. Main, concentrated his comments on public facilities; items that would cost the taxpayers money. He felt there is nothing in the report that commits the Irvine Company to a time frame or money to accomplish the public facilities, i.e., new schools, new roads, or new and improved flood control. He expressed fear that the city will have to sell bonds to build the roads and public facilities all of which will rest with the taxpayers. He suggested the plan contain a time schedule and commitment for payment. His further concern was wi th the density of the development, namely, the 15% latitude which can be granted by the Director of Community Development without further public input. He urged the Commission not listen to the "salesman's" assurances and read the fine print. Cliff Polston, Tusttn Boy's and Girl's Club, praised The Irvine Company for the many community contributions they have made especially the financial assistance to the Boy's and Girl's Club; therefore, he supports the project and the Company. Joe Langley, Hillsboro Lane, supported the plan and asked the Commission to consider carefully the points raised by public input. His main concern has been the community's sports needs and he is satisfied the plan will fullfil those needs. Minutes January 13, 1986 page five Carole Katz, Summit Ridge Homeowners, requested the public input time be extended and expressed concern with increased traffic on Skyline. Larry Keith, 2292 Pavilion Dr., addressed the proposed density compatibility. He referred to Sector 8 with 8,000 sq. ft. lots abutting homes with 23,000 sq. ft. lots and wondered where the compatibility exists. Don Lamm stated that the questions requesting written answers will be addressed in the EIR and will hopefully be returned on January 27th; copies can be obtained from city staff. He stated staff would make more loan copies of the specific plan and EIR available for public review. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, Chair Well asked for a motion. McCarthy moved, Baker seconded to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on JanuaryS, 1986. Chair Well called a recess at 10:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:55 p.m. Commission discussion/comments ensued as follows: White: 1) impressed with the quality of the presentations tonight; 2) requested staff outline the development {sector) package; 3) requested staff take a position on the benefits and detriments to the plan of dropping the road links; 4) Wants an explanation at the next hearing how the master plan projects are part of the project and not part of the city tax burden and present how the process, general plan through implementation, attaches the facilities to the project; 5) wants to know how the densities of the plan match the densities of adjacent development; 6) suggested rethinking of the density transfer concept, i.e., who has that authority, when it occurs and what transfer information is available at the time it is done. There should be a very simple mechanism; 7) Wants to establish fiscal requirements for processing the project and also for the arterial function so the project remains profitable for the city; 8) Wants prohibition of outside paging and loudspeaker systems. McCarthy will submit his in writing. Puckett expressed concern with the lack of church sites and wants to know what can be done to designate the sites. Baker will submit in writing. Well will submit in writing. White moved, Puckett seconded to continue the public hearing to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on January 27, 1986. Motion carried 5-0. AI)I~II( ISll~ATIVE RR]TERS Old Business None. New Business None. Minutes January 13, 1986 page six STAFF CONCERNS 6. 0ral Report on Council actions of January 6, 1986.. Presentation: Donald D. Lamm, Director of Community Development CO~I)4ISSION CONCERNS None. ADJOURIOqE)~I' Puckett moved, McCarthy seconded to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried 5-0. KATHY WEIL, CHAIRMAN DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: OgNER: LOCAT[ON: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: . REQUEST: JANUARY 27, 1986 FINAL TRACT 8451 AOAMS, STREETER CIVIL ENGINEERS THE IRVINE COMPANY SOUTH OF DON AVENUE, NEST OF TUSTIN BOUNDARY, NORTH OF MOULTON PARKNAY PLANNED CO)~4UNITY INOUSTRIAL AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED FOR THIS PROJECT (EIR 73-1) TO CREATE ONE LOT OF 12.5 ACRES FOR THE FINAL PORTION' OF LAND UNOER THE ORIGINAL FlAP FOR THE TUSTIN-IRYINE INOUSTRIAL COMPLEX RECOI~4ENDATZON: Recommend approval of Final Tract 8451 to the City Council by the adoption of Resolution No. 2293. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Tract No. 8451 was approved by the City Council on March 4, 1974, by the adoption of Resolution No. 74-15. The map consisted of 302.7+ acres which was subdivided into 76 lots plus 3 lettered lots for the Tustin-Trvine Industrial Complex. All of the numbered and lettered lots were approved under final tract maps except this portion. The lots north of Walnut, west of Franklin were part of Final Tract 8590. The lots westerly of Myford Road, north of Walnut were part of Final Tract 8603. All of the lots south of Walnut, westerly of the spur line were part of Final Tract 8763. The lots located at the southwesterly corner of Myford and Walnut were part of 10401. Only these 12.5 acres remain from the original tentative tract map. (See Exhibit "A".) Community Development Deparlment Planning Commiss~on Report January 27, 1986 page two The applicant is now requesting final approval of this map to create one lot of 12.5 acres for the final portion of land under the original map. The proposed map is in conformance with the Tusttn Area General Plan and the Planned Community District Regulations for the Tustin-Irvine Industrial District (Ordinance No. 611). The final map is in substantial compliance with the tentative map. All the conditions of approval .have been satisfied. MAC:em Exhibits: Final Map Resolution No. 2293 Exhibit "A" Community Development Department TRACT NO. 845'i' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2293 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP N0.'8451 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Plannlng Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Final Tract No. 8451 was submitted by Adams, Streeter Engineers on behalf of the Irvine Company, pursuant to Ordinance 847 for the purpose of creating one lot for the property known as a portion of Lot 188, Blocks 45 and 63 of Irvtne Subdivision recorded in Book 1, page 88 of miscellaneous map records of Orange County. That said map is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and the Planned Community District Regulations for the Tustin-Irvine Industrial Complex. Ce That an Environmental Imapct Report was previously certified for this project (EIR 73-1). D. That the final map is in substantial co~liance with the tentative map. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Final Tract 8451 subject to the approval of the City Engineer. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: ZON I NG: ENV I RONHENTAL STATUS: JANUARY 27, 1986 EAST TUSTIN PLANNED CO.UNITY (TUSTIN RANCH) (Continued publlc hearing from 1/13/86) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 85-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1A, B, C ZONE CHAMGE 86-1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE IRVINE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF THSTIN THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA AMA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TOSTIN AMD THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AMD COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST. (PC) PLANNED COMMUNITY A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMIlq'ED FOR THIS PROJECT. RECO~ENDED ACTION: Upon the closure of the public hearing, staff recommends the adoption of the following resolutions in order to allow the East Tustin Specific Plan to be considered by the City Council: 1. Resolution No. 2300, EIR 85-2 2. Resolution No. 2293, GPA 86-1a. 3. Resolution No. 2295, GPA, 86-1b. 4. Resolution No. 2296, GPA 86-1c. 5. Resolution No. 2299, ZC 86-1 6. Resolution No. 2297, Specific Plan No. 8 7. Resolution No. 2298, Specific Plan No. 8 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held its first public hearing regarding the East Tustin Specific Plan on January 13, 1986, at which time staff and consultants presented a comprehensive report on this plan. After this presentation, the public hearing was opened for public and Commission input. Since many speakers requested a response to their comment, staff and the consultant team have attempted to answer each of the inquiries and enclose it as a part of this staff report. Corn reunify Dcvelopmcn~ Dcparlment Planning Commission East Tustin page two DISCUSSION: Answers to various written questions or inquiries have been enclosed, and have been broken down to either the draft Environmental Impact Report or Specific Plan text. Responses were given to those questions that had sufficient detail or focus to allow staff' to analyze and prepare a valid response. Comments directed to the draft Environmental Impact Report can still be sent to the city until January 31, 1986, at which point the review period will expire. Comments can still be expressed beyond this deadline as a part of the City Council public hearing pr.ocess. Some Commissioners submitted comments regarding the content of the Specific Plan, with recommendations for change. Some of these comments have been incorporated into the draft resolutions for the Specific Plan with a recommendation to either include or replace portions of the Specific Plan. Additional comments will be presented to the Commission as a part of staff's presentation at the January 27th meeting. The mechanism to finance public facilities and infrastructure in the East Tustin plan will be reviewed. Additionally, staff should have more information regarding the status of Racquet Hill Road, and some preliminary comments regarding phasing of improvements and fiscal balance. Several comments presented by both the Commission and the public questioned the limitation and review processes of the Planned Community. Although covered in the attachments, staff feels some regulatory portions should be covered in this staff report. These include: 1. What limitations are imposed on the number of residential units: a) There is a maximum ceiling of 7,950 units for the total East Tustin area. With the exception of units transferred from Tentative Tract 12345, this number is an absolute maximum. b) There is a maximum number of units for each sector. c) Each land use district sets a maximum number of dwelling units per acre. As shown on pages 2-23, 3-22, and 3-29, the maximum number of dwelling units per acre is established. d) Units may be transferred from sector to sector in keeping with Section 3.4.3. of the Specific Plan (pg. 3-11). This transfer does not increase the unit cap of 7,950 units, any transfer of units into a sector must be decreased in another sector. Community Development Department Planning Commission East Tustln page three 2. Further regulatory aspects: a) Hillside District Guidelines, Special guidelines designed to regulate development in hillsides, includes preservation of ridgelines, vegetation, drainage, and land form. b) Sector Policies, each sector has established policies related to specific requirements, such as vegetation (Eucalyptus groves, Redwood grove), drainage (Peters Canyon and E1Modena), golf course, etc. c) Section 3.0 establishes specific setback, height, density restrictions and allowable uses for residential district. Special restrictions apply to areas adjacent to existing residential. Hillside areas, Sectors 1, 2, 4, and 5 Hillside areas located in these sectors are limited to Estate density, a maximum of two dwelling units per gross acre. Although Section 3.0 may allow lots as small as 8,000 square feet, the density limit cannot exceed this 2 du maximum. There must be either larger lots or common open space in order to achieve the density limitation. The 8,000 square foot lot allows flexibility in a hillside situation, and cannot be used to allow a greater density than allowed. Review Process: Subsequent to this Planned Community process, the Planning Commission will be receiving development plans and subdivision maps at several separate stages until the buildout of the East Tustin area. These include: a) Sector Processing, initial plans for an entire sector will be submitted to the Planning Commission. This includes: 1) Initial subdivision map for the entire sector, which is a discretionary item by Commission. 2) Sector Plan; includes circulation, grading, drainage, geology, trail design, and median and parkway landscape. A non-discretionary review by Commission. As part of the subdivision map, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the map and sector plan are in conformance with policies in Section 2.0, and the means to implement these policies has been identified. b) Development Plan Processing Individual projects within a sector that has an approved sector plan and subdivision map. This includes: 1) May have another subdivision map to further divide land use areas. Community Development Department Planntng Commission Eas: Tustln page four 2) Could be a discretionary project, such as CUP for apartments, or the project could be non-discretionary, such as design review for a single family home project. Applicants must submit a site plan, elevations, signing, and landscape plans. The Planning Commission may ask for further information as deemed necessary. The program EIR requires that at each discretionary step (subdivision .maps, CUP's) staff will examine the program to determine whether the action is covered in the EIR or additional environmental documents must be prepared. Senior Planner EK:do attach: Answer sheets Resolutions Staff report Jan. 13, 1986 Community Development Department 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 RESOLUTION NO. 2300 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CONSIDERING DRAFT EIR 85-2 IN ME REVIEW PROCESS OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESS The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin, California does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission ftnds and determines as follows: Ae That an Environmental Impact Report would be required due to potential affects identified in an initial questionnaire done for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Specific Plan for the East Tustin area. That a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project has been prepared by Michael Brandman Associates, for the city of Tustin. That distribution of the Draft EIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft EIR. E. That the public review period will continue on the Draft EIR until January 31, 1986. That the subject Draft EIR is a program EIR and subject to the following provisions as shown in the California Environmental Quality Act. That subsequent activities shall be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. The city shall use an initial questionnaire to document the evaluation of subsequent activities to determine whether the environmental effects of the program are covered in the EIR. That the Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of the city of Tustin. He That the City Council of the city of Tustin shall be, as described in CEQA, the body responsible with the certification of EIR 86-2 as a final EIR. That the Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission and that they reviewed this document and received public testimony in their review of the subject actions involving the East Tusttn area. 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 2300 page two II. It is therefore resolve~y the Planning Commission of the city of Tustin that they reviewed and considered the contents of Draft EIR 85-2, and received public testimony in their review and recommendations regarding actions involving the East Tustin area. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on the day of , 1986. KATHY WEIL, CHAIRMAN DONNA ORR, RECORDING SECRETARY 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2293 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AND DIAGRAM OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENEraL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST: UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH: AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST: ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO) The Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and Monlca Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company requesting amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan. Ce That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of amending the Land Use Element text and diagram concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A. Specially, the following changes will be made: Exhibit A will be incorporated in the Tustin Area General Plan diagram as the land use plan for the East Tustin area. The following text will be added to the Land Use Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. Under General Concerns and Considerations, letter C. East Tustin Area. The land use element currently provides for a use designation known as Planned Community. The P.C. use is a method to assure the compatibility of land uses with the character of surrounding developments and provide for a vehicle to ensure precise development plans are reviewed and approved prior to development. One of the purposes of the land use element is to provide for flexibility and integration of land use for transitional properties by classification as Planned Community. 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2293 page two It is ~the intent th'-the East Tustin area to utilize Planned Community as a land use tool in general and specific planning. The majority of the area is divided into three Planned Community designations: P.C. Residential; P.C. Commercial; and P.C. Mixed Use. The Planned Community Residential area is anticipated to have a density range from two dwelling units per gross acre to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. It is anticipated that the subject area will support a total residential dwelling unit count of 8,000 units for the 1,740 acre site. At the city of Tustin's current population rate per unit (1980 census) of 2.43 person/unit, the population density of the East Tustin area may be approximately 19,440 people, a 47.63 percent increase over the 1985 population of 40,815. Dwelling unit types shall range from single family detached to multiple family apartments. Portions of East Tustin located in hillside areas shall maintain a maximum density not to exceed two dwelling units per gross acre. Portions of East Tustin on level terrain and adjacent to existing residential areas shall be single family detached and maintain a character of development compatible with existing development. Outside of these requirements, remaining areas may have residential densities ranging from two dwelling units per gross acre to 25 dwelling units per gross acre. While residential unit limitations are imposed, the location, designation and density range of residential units will be determined at such time that the area undergoes specific planning. The location of planned community residential areas are consistent with the goals of the land use element and internally consistent with other elements of the general plan. To ensure that density ranges are internally consistent, specific planning will allow these densities to be studied against the goals and objectives of the other elements. To ensure that the entire subject area is considered, one specific plan for the entire area will be prepared. The land use diagram will serve as the base to determine location of residential units and the entire project area will not exceed approximately 8,000 dwelling units. Both the specific plan, and the general plan, will be used in future consistency findings in the East Tustin area. Planned Community Commercial will support all retail commercial uses with support office uses. Planned Community Mixed Use can support retail commercial uses or office/research and development uses. The recreational use shown on the diagram is designated as exclusively for a golf course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 22 23 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2293 page three That a draft environ'mental impact report (DEIR 85-2) for the subject general plan amendment has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. That General Plan Amendment 86-1a would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners based upon the following: 1) That the requirement of specific planning insures internal consistency with other general plan elements. 2) That the use of the Planned Community designation will provide flexibility while ensuring compatibility with adjacent residential areas. 3) The land use diagram will provide for sufficient school and park sites in accordance with the city of Tustin ordinances and Tustin Unified School District requirements. 4) The plan shows commercial locations to provide support to the future population and existing surrounding residential areas. 5) The plan will expand the employment opportunities within the city of Tustin by providing for office/research and development uses in the Mixed Use area. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 86-1a be approved thereby amending the land use element text and diagram of the Tustin Area General Plan for properties within the East Tustin Specific Plan Project area identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission on the day of , 1986. KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary LAND USE DIAGRAM Tustin Area General Plan 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2295 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1b, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE {MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO). The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve follows: as The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ae That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan. That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of amending the Circulation Element of the Tustin Area General Plan concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A. Specifically, the following changes are to be made: The extension of La Colina, from Browning Avenue east to Future Road as a secondary road. The inclusion of Myford Road, north of the I-5 Freeway as a major highway to Portola Parkway, and as a primary highway from Portola Parkway to the northern city boundary. The upgrading of the status of E1 Camino Real/Laguna Road from a commuter highway to a secondary highway from Red Hill Avenue east to Myford Road. 4. The inclusion of a full directional interchange on the I-5 Freeway at Jamboree. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2t 25 26 9.8 Resolution No. 2295 Page two That a draft environmental impact report {DEIR 85-2) for the subject general plan amendment has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed amendments to the circulation element shall be submitted to the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency in order to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways to reflect the city's amendments. That General Plan Amendment No. 86-1b would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners based upon the following: The proposed amendments to the circulation system along with other planned improvements will support East Tustin development, will provide capacity for other traffic, and will also provide traffic relief for other existing city streets. Costs of construction of improvements permitted by General Plan Amendment 86-1b will be provided wholly or in fair-share proportion by development projects approved within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area. o Adequate right-of-way areas will be reserved within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area prior to development, ensuring availability of land for construction of circulation systems. All projects within the East Tustin Specific Plan area shall meet air quality requirements in compliance with "reasonable available control measures" of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. Such measures include but are not limited to increased use of bicycle/pedestrian facilities and traffic signal synchronization. Noise generated in association with newly constructed circulation systems will be mitigated by the use of barrier walls. Such walls will be berm, wall or a combination of berm and wall, the final type and configuration of which will be determined when final grading plans showing lot locations, structure setbacks and precise building pad elevations are developed. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 2295 Page three II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment 86-1b be approved thereby amending the circulation element of the Tustin Area General Plan for properties within the East Tustin Specific Plan Project Area identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary LEGEND --% CIRCULATION DIAGRAM Tustin Area General Plan EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 21 23 24 25 26 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2296 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1c, AMENDING THE SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLA~ FbR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TN£ CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO TNE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPWERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" A~'TACHED HERETO). The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that when it is deemed to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend a part of the General Plan. That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan. That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning Commission was duly called, noticed .and held for the purposes of amending the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General Plan concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A. Specifically, the following changes are to be made: Chapter 3 of the adopted Seismic Safety Element, as it pertains to the Norwalk and E1Modena Faults {pages 24 and 25) is hereby amended to read as follows: Norwalk and E1Modena Faults The Norwalk Fault is suggested to be a high-angle reserve fault dipping to the north. The fault is approximately 16 miles long, roughly trending northwest, and has been thought to be an accurate trace between Buena Park and the unincorporated area to the northeast of Tustin. There is much speculation regarding the exact location of the Norwalk Fault. Its exact location easterly of the intersection of Commonwealth and Euclid in Fullerton is unknown, although several locations have been postulated. 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2296 Page two A number of petroleum geologists have expressed doubt as to its location east of Fullerton since their attempt at drilling to find oil trapped on such a fault has revealed no good evidence. The County has stated that some surface exposures led them to believe that the fault exists and may form a ground water barrier, but again evidence is not good. Field work in a cooperative program between Orange County and the State to be undertaken during the coming year might shed more definitive information. As noted in Draft Environmental Impact Report 85-2 prepared in conjunction with development of the East Tustin Specific Plan, a portion of the E1 Modena Fault is located within the Peter's Canyon area of the city of Tustin. (See Exhibit A.} Based upon information presented in DEIR 85-2, the E1 Modena Fault has characteristics that indicate the fault was at one time active. However, based upon preliminary findings of a geotechnical analysis, the fault may not be active at this time (see DEIR 85-2, Appendix C). Should additional study reveal that the E1 Modena Fault is active, development occurring near the fault could be exposed to the potential for surface rupture. Such potential for adverse impact could be reduced by the establishment of a structural setback zone on either side of the mapped trace of the fault. Future development could also be exposed to secondary impacts associated with seismic activity including: expansive soils, weakened rock materials which perform poorly in cut slopes, and perched groundwater which can cause seepage in graded areas adjacent to faults. However, such impacts can be controlled by special foundation design or overexcavation, buttressing or laying back cut slopes, and subdrainage, respectively (DEIR 85-2). That the attached Exhibit "A" be included as exhibit in the Seismic Safety Element. That a Chapter 8 be added to the Seismic Safety Element establishing policies to be observed in conjunction with development within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area. The additional text shall read as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2296 Page three Chapter 8 Policies To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to development in the East Tustin Specific Plan area resulting from various seismic activities, the following policies are hereby established as a part of the Seismic Safety Element: Ct Detailed geotechnical and soils engineering reports shall be prepared subsequent to development of preliminary design layouts and final grading plans {e.g., at the tentative tract map preparation stages). This report will provide further, more detailed measures for treatment of excavational (ripping) difficulties, surficial material removals, cut and fill slopes, expansive soils, faults and liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of roadway stream crossings). Prior to development in the Upper Peter's Canyon area a geotechnical analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact status of the E1Modena fault. If it is concluded that the fault can be considered active, additional detailed analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact location and extent of the fault. This study will serve to define the location and width of any structural setback zone made necessary by the fault. All structures to be constructed in the project area shall be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes adopted by the city to maximize safety in the event of an earthquake. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) for the subject general plan amendment has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. That General Plan Amendment 86-1c would be in the public interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the surrounding property owners based upon the following: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2296 Page four The proposed amendment provides information not presently contained within the Seismic Safety Element that further identifies and appraises potential seismic hazards in the East Tustin Area as required by Section 65302(f) of the Government Code of the State of California. That policies established by the proposed amendment ensure that maximum effort be taken to minimize potential adverse impacts of seismic activity. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 86-1c be approved thereby amending the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Geology EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN City of Tustin EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2299 LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" Al-rACHED HERETO). The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE REZONING FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACII~TTIES COMMERCIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: T~E SANTA AHA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE as The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: That a proper application (Zone Change No. 86-1) has been filed upon direction of the City Council and by Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine company for the purposes of changing the zoning designation for the property shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto from Planned Community to: Planned Community/Residential (PCR); Planned Community/Commercial (PCC); Planned Community/Mixed Use (PCMU); and Planned Community/Community Facilities (PCCF) as delineated on the same Exhibit A. B. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider Zone Change 86-1 was duly called, noticed and held. C. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) was prepared for this project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. D. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons: e This comprehensive zone change would be consistent with goals and objectives of the city of Tustin calling for a balance of residential, commercial, employment, educational and recreational land uses. This comprehensive zone change will provide a mechanism by which the East Tustin Specific Plan can be implemented. As proposed the East Tustin Specific Plan is more consistent with the Housing Element of the Tustin Area General Plan than existing zoning in that a variety of housing types would be permitted and owner occupied housing will be encouraged. 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 2299 Page two Under extsttn~ r~oning, residential development would be in direct conflict with agreements between the city and the United State Marine Corps as they pertain to air corridor easements. These agreements specifically prohibit residential uses in the corridor areas south of Bryan Avenue. 5. The adoption of this comprehensive zone change would be consistent with the Tustin ARea General Plan as amended. 6. That no development will be allowed within the project area prior to the adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan. II. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 86-1 changing the zone designation for the property shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto from Planned Communtiy to: Planned Community/Residential (PCR); Planned Community/Commercial (PCC); Planned Community/Mixed Use (PCMU); and Planned Community/Community Facilities (PCCF) as delineated on the same Exhibit "A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary ZONING EXHIBIT A 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2297 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY ADOPTION', BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, 1.0 AND 2.0 OF THE-E~T TUSTIN SPECIFIC (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8). The Plannin9 Commission of the city of Tustin follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines A. That a joint application was filed by OF THE COUNCIL SECTIONS PLAN does hereby resolve as as follows: the city of Tustin, and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company for the purposes of adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the property indicated in Exhibit A attached hereto, commonly known as East Tustin. That a comprehensive land use study covering the subject property was commissioned and completed. Ce That as a result of the land use study, a Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit B attached. D. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. That establishment and implementation of the plan as submitted, under the circumstances of this case, will not 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: The proposed residential and commercial development is consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan as amended and adopted. 2. Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications have been considered. The scope and depth of plan analysis are commensurate with the level of detail contained in the plan and the specificity of land use entitlement its adoption authorizes. The various components of the plan as well as the plan in its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public policy impacts of the proposed development. 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 2297 Page two Appropriate ~gation measures are incorporated in the plan to ensure that concerns identified at this level of planning are resolved as part of the more detailed site plan review which must be completed before private development may proceed. Administration of the plan is thoroughly integrated into the city's development processing system. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable city ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered. Adequate time and opportunities have been afforded interested organizations and, members of the public to comment on or propose changes to the plan if they so desired. Go That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the plan as submitted 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 approved. He That Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as prepared (Exhibit B) are intended to be informational in nature, to provide conformance with specific plan regulations, yet also establish policy guidelines by which the project area should be developed. As such Sections 1.0 and 2.0 should be adopted by Resolution of the City Council, subject to the recommended changes enclosed as Attachment "A". II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit "B" attached hereto be approved as policy documents and adopted by a Resolution of the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 KATHY WEIL, Chairman DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary Attachment "A" EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS AS REQUESTED BY TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION e e Page 1-6, Second "bullet" under Seismic Safety. Change fire retardant to fire resistant roofing, as defined by the Underwriter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois. Page 2-16, Change "stucco or woodensiding" to read "off-white or earthtone stucco and/or woodensiding." Page 2-16, Letter B Change to read "Fire resistant roofing materials must be used on structures occurring within the Hillside District." "Class A minimum as rated by the Underwriter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois." Page 2-19, Add to second "bullet" which begins "Include only ..." "fire resistant plant materials, where feasible." Page 2-43, Add to Letter C, "The Planning Commission should prepare a plan stipulating and regulating the hours when sports lights can be used." That the Planning Commission recommends that no sector plans, tentative tract maps, or building permits be issued in the East Tustin Specific Plan area until a Development Agreement for said area is considered and adopted by the city of Tustin. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2298 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION, BY ORDINANCE, OF SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIF~C~LAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) AND EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN. The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company for the purposes of adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the property indicated in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, commonly known as East Tustin. B. That a comprehensive land use study covering the subject property was commissioned and completed. That as a result of the land use study, a Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with Sections 65450 through 65457 of the California Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit "B" attached, along with Exhibit "C". D. That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held. That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) has been prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Fo That establishment and implementation of the plan as submitted, under the circumstances of this case, will not 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: The proposed residential and commercial development is consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan as amended and adopted. 2. Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications have been considered. The scope and depth of plan analysis are commensurate with the level of detail contained in the plan and the specificity of land use entitlement its adoption authorizes. The various components of the plan as well as the plan in its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public policy impacts of the proposed development. 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Resolution No. 2298 Page 'cwo So Appropriate m~gation measures are incorporated in the plan to ensure that concerns identified at this level of planning are resolved as part of the more detailed site plan review which must be completed before private development may proceed. 6. Administration of the plan is thoroughly integrated into the city's development processing system. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable city ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered. Adequate time and opportunities have been afforded interested organizations and members of the public to comment on or propose changes to the plan if they so desired. That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the plan as submitted 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 approved. He That Section 3.0 of the East Tusttn Specific Plan as prepared is intended to establish land use regulations and development standards, as well as administrative procedures necessary to implement said regulations and standards for residential and commercial development within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area. Further, that said regulations, standards and procedures should be adopted by Ordinance of the City Council. Further, Exhibit "C" is established as the land use plan, by Ordinance, and' shall present the development guide for the East Tustin Area. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that Section 3.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto be approved as the regulatory documents for the East Tustin Area and that it be adopted by an Ordinance of the City Council, subject to the recommended changes enclosed. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the day of , 198 DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary KATHY WEIL, Chairman ATTACHMENT "A" EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS AS REQUESTED BY TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION 1. Page 3-6, Change Lot, Width to read "the width of the front of the lot measured at the setback of the main structure." 2. Page 3-12, Change 4 to read "any revision to increase the number of dwelling units by a total of 15 percent or less... " 3. Page 3-22, Section A-l, Change to read "permitted density, maximum dwelling units per gross acre." 4. -Page 3-26, Section B2, letter C5, Change to read "garages that have rear access from a private drive or alley shall maintain a minimum 3 foot setback from property line and include an automatic garage door opener; and" 5. Page 3-29, Change C1. to "Table C1." 6. Page 3-30, Under open space, Change the last sentence to read "areas retained as permanent open space shall be maintained by a mandatory private homeowners association." 7. Page 3-34 Letter "H", Change to read "A certificate of compliance with applicable . . ""... will be insured by the homeowners association and will be required .... " 8. Page 3-35 letter h. Department stores, change to permitted in General Commercial, letter q. Liquor stores, change to use permit in General Commercial. 9. Page 3-39 Letter 3.?.4.E. Change,, to read "A certification of compliance with applicable .... 10. Page 3-19, add letter R. The use of outdoor speakers, buzzers, music, or other devices with noise amplification outside of the interior of the structure is strictly forbidden in the entire planning area. 11. That the Planning Commission recommends that no sector plans, tentative tract maps, or building permits be issued in the East Tustin Specific Plan area until a Development Agreement for said area is considered, and adopted by the city of Tustin. F~espanse-To-Comments of 111318~ Planning Commission Hearing EAST TUSTIN Job No. 3NI02.0~ I. Will this Specific Plan proposal correct this existing imbalance of renter to owner availability? (F.C.A.) It is expected that the Specific Plan will have significantly less renter units os a percentage than the existing city. Any apartments that are proposed within the Specific Plan are subject to o conditional use permit and must be approved by the Planning Commission through a public hearing process which provides a vehicle through which the percentage of rental units con be controlled. How are residential land use acreages adjusted to allow for the actual community (md public neighborhcxxl park acreages that will be required? (Refer to page 2-12 in Specific Plan) (Kathy Well) The acreage of community and neighborhood public porks will be determined when the tract maps are submitted for approval of each sector. If the actual number of units and their corresponding population establish either more or less parkland is required from that which is shown on the Specific Plan~ then this difference in acre- age will either be added to or taken away from the land use designation that immediately surrounds the park as shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Map. Such an adjustment in acreage may result in an increase or decrease in units for that land use area~ however~ such a change will still have to correspond with the controls that are stipulated in the Specific Plan. The controls include: (I) the distribution of the number of dwelling units permitted within a sectorl (2) the maximum number of dwelling units permitted for the overall planl and (3) the maximum density within a land use area. Changes could include shifting locations or acreage of public neighborhood parks within the sector from one land use area to another or between sectors or the actual elimination of a public neighborhood park, Changes cannot include altering the locations that are shown for community porks on the Land Use Plan nor can such changes decrease individual parks below the minimum site size standards established in the city's park ordinance, 3. What are the policies regulating the sectors? (Ran White) There are a series of policies which apply to the various sectors within the Specific Plan. Develoment ~hust be consistent with these policies. This consistency wilt be determined at all levels of review including Sector Plan Review/Initial Sector Sub- division Review, Commercial Sector Conceptual Site Plan Review~ Development Project/Subdivision Map Review~ and Design Review. The specific policies are iden- tiffed for each sector within Section 2. I.Zt.3. The policies are intended to provide guidance for the development within each sector in order to assure that the devel- opment will be consistent with the individual sector characteristics as well as indi- vidual sector development objectives. The policies specifically deal with intensity of development compatibility with adjacent uses~ development compatibility with Se the sector's natural physical characteristics, and specific sector processing require- ments. Policies for Sectors I, 2, 4, and 5 are also directly tied to the Hillside Dis- trict Guidelines in Section 2.13 which deal with landform modification and natural feature protection within the hillside areas. The policies regarding density transfer are explained in the answer to Question #S. What is the development package that will be provided to the Planning Commis- sion? (F~on White and F.C.A.) Per the development regulations in Section 3.0 the Planning Commission is to review the Sector Plans, including plans for the Hillside District, Subdivision Maps with individual "Development Projects", Conceptual Site Plans for the Commercial areas, and general design proposals determined significant enough by Community Develop- ment Staff to warrant Planning Commission Review. Further, all development projects shall be subject to Planning Commission review as either a non-discretionary project if permitted by right in the specific land use area or discretionary project (public hearing) if subject to a conditional use permit. Planning Department should not approve any increase in dwelling units~ all requests should come to the PIc~ning Commission and City Council. (John McCarthy) Transfers of dwelling units between sectors are not an increase in units or density. Sector unit maximums found in the Statistical Analysis ore intended to be a means to account for all allowable units and to ensure that the maximum of 7,950 is not exceeded. Thus, the sector units are not a regulatory maximum~ density categories within the sector serve that function. Each time a unit transfer is made, the Statis- tical Analysis will be revised to show how all 7,950 units are allocated to sectors. This system was deemed to be more useful than the practice of allocating a range of units to each sector. How does density transfer occur and haw is it accounted for? (Ran White~ Kathy Weil~ and F.C.A.) The Specific Plan stipulates a maximum number of dwelling units that can be devel- oped within each sector. If a sector is not developed to its maximum, than the dif- ference between the maximum number permitted and the actual number developed can be allocated to other sectors as credit for the loss. The amount of proposed transfers will be reviewed and determined when individual tentative subdivision maps or site plans are submitted for projects within each sector. If a transfer to a sector is proposed and if the transfer is 15 percent or less than the total units assigned to the sector, then such a transfer will be approved by the Director of Community Development. If the proposed transfer is greater than IS percent, then the transfer must be approved by the Planning Commission (see also #5 above). All increases to be allowed must result in conformity with the criteria established on pages 3-11 and 3-12, Section 3.b,.3, paragraph 3. Also, density transfers are res- tricted overall to the maximum 7,950 units allowed in the Specific Plan. The only way that the 7,950 units may be exceeded is by transferring units from Tentative Tract 123/t5 or by amending the Specific Plan. All proposed unit transfers will be accounted for in a revision to the East Tustin Sta- tistical Analysis. Upon approval of a unit transfer the Director of Community Development will amend the Statistical Analysis found on page 3-13 to reflect the new allocation of units to each sector caused by those transfers. 7. Is the wording on Page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph 4 inaccurate? (Kathy Well) Yes, the wording on page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph b, is inaccurate and should be changed to the following: "Any revision to increase the number of dwelling units by 15 percent or less in any sector shall be approved by the Director of Community Development." 8. What is meant by inclining a _ce~__~ roads on page 2-20? (Kathy Well) Any access roads climbing slopes are to vary in gradient so as not to create a con- stant monotonous incline. What happens to development surrounding the geologic faults? As determined by the Alquist-Priolo Act, no structures will be permitted within 50- feet of the centerline of an active fault. As part of the Sector Review Process, a detailed geologic investigation is required to determine fault activity and precise location. As detailed project development plans are proposed for each sector the land uses will be specifically sited relative to active faults. It is not anticipated that the active fault will have any impacts on density within the sector. 10. How do existing densities match proposed Specific Plan densities along the edge of the Specific Plan Area? (Ran White) Along the western edge of the project the existing densities vary. Between Bryan and lrvine the density is approximately ~,.5 du/ac. Between Irvine and La Colina the density is approximately 3.32 du/ac. Between La Colina and Racquet Hill the density is approximately 2.77 du/ac, in the flatland and 1.25 to 1.5 du/ac, in the hillside. Between Racquet Hill and Foothill the density is approximately 1.85 du/oc. Between Foothill and Lower Lake Drive the density is I.h7 du/ac. (This does not include one large lot just south of Lower Lake Drive which has a density of .23 du/ac.). From Lower Lake north the density is approximately I.~,0 du/ac. I I. How ore proposed 8,600 square feet (5 du/ac.) lots compatible with the area adjacent to Red Hill Ridge where lots are 23,000 square feet (2 alu/ac.). The Red Hill Ridge Area with a density of two du/ac, has larger lot sizes because it is part of the hillside' area. It is adjacent to and overlooks existing residential lots in the flatland area along Browning where the density is higher and the lots are smaller. Sector 8 is also in the flatlond area. The development proposed for this area is compatible with the existing fictional development as it includes only Single Family Detached (SFD) units with similar setback restrictions and height limitations. 12. 13. There is reference to noise abatement procedures applying to all residential proper- ties an page 3-39, paragraph 3.7.z~D. Isn't this a typo that should change residential to commercial? (KathyWeil) Yes -- the text should be changed to read commercial not residential. Unlike the existing General Plan, there is no maximum density for gross project acres as an al~olute ceiling. Therefore, what ore the maximum ceilings or limita- tions an density proposed for the plan? (F.C.A.) The proposed Specific Plan has the following limitations which affect density: a. It establishes a total ceiling of 7,950 units~ b. _ It distributes the number of units within each sector~ c. It establishes specific residential density maximums for each land use area throughout the plan~ d. It establishes specific development policies for the various sectors and specific development standards and controls for each land use type in order to assure that development is compatible with existing adjacent uses and is compatible internally within the plan area. The combination of the above provides for a much greater level of control than is provided by the existing General Plan. To insure that the plan goals and objectives are achieved. Why is there no number designation for the table an page 3-2~?. (Kathy Weil) 15. None of the tables in Section 3.0 have numeric designations as they are considered part of the text of the regulations. Why was the number of allowable housing units raised from 8~000 to ~000 dwelling unit? The increase of units is part of the balance achieved by the proposed plan in meeting a wide variety of public and private goals. F'or example, the proposed units ensure that the costs of ma]or public improvements, such as roads, a freeway interchange, flood control channels, etc.~ can be reasonably born by the new development. In most cases, such major infrastructure is needed regardless of the number of units built in East Tustin and serves larger regional needs in addition to local needs. The proposed units also help to make new open space, such as the golf course, possible. Why~ if you multiply'each the total acr_n~__~ of residential category by its gross density do the total number of units inthe plan add to I 1~517 whereas the maximum ceiling is supposed to he 7,DS0? (John McCorthy) The maximum allowable units the Specific Plan will be permitted to generate is 7,f~50. The density categories are designoted by a maximum number of units. The proposed development projects can generate a number of units less than or equal to that maximum. Because there is a ceiling on the number of units for the whole site area, we established an average density for each category, enabling the plan to encompass the maximum allowable 7,f)50 units. When this density average was determined, we used it to establish the distribution of units among sectors, which totals 7,950 units. The proposed pro]eat cannot exceed the density category maxi- mum nor can the total number of projects proposed for each sector exceed the total number of units allowed for that sector unless a density transfer occurs as described in the Specific Plan. 17. Where is Table 2.57 (J. McCarthy) 18. 19. 21. This is a typographical error, it should be referred to as Table 2.4. There is no Table 2.5. If density transfers between sectors are proposed in the development review proce$__s why, in all cases, ge they not subject to review by the Plenning Commission? (J. McCarthy) A ;transfer, if less than 15 percent above the designation in any sector was proposed, would not signicantly alter the basic character of development nor would it alter the basic intrastructure requirements for any sector. Therefore, it is proposed that increases of less than 15 percent would be approved by the Director of Community Development, so long as the increases met the criteria established on pages 3-11 and 3-12, Section 3.b,.3, paragraph 3a, b, and c. In the estate area why is the averoge lot size stated as 10,000 square feet when at 2 d.u./ac, lots should be I/2-acre or 21,780 square feet? (John McCc~thy) Overall gross density of two dwelling units per acre does equate to 21,780 square foot per unit. Gross density consists of several factors such as local streets, flood control devices, parks and open space elements, slopes, trails, and other permitted uses. Net residential lot area excludes these elements, therefore the net lot size will be less than 21,780 square foot. The 10,000 square foot average lot size established for the estate areas is a minimum average size. Due to hillside slope areas~ variation in terrain and preservation of natural features the sizes of the lots will vary. There may be lots as Iow as 8,000 square feet and lots that are greater than I/2-acre in size due to these various factors. The minimum average I 0,000 net square footage is established as an overall average control for the estate density areas. If en increase is approved in the allowable number of units in one sector, then a like decrease will be required from another sector to conform to the maximum allowable units of 7,950 as stated on page 7. (John McArthy) Yes. This would be accomplished by the method of density transfer described in Sections 2. I and 3.4.-3 of the Specific Plan. In the Specific: PI~ why are there discrepancies for the total project acreage between the Specific Plan Md EIR? (F.C.A.) The discrepancies regarding site acreage are a result of changing data. These figures c~e close approximations. The site is currently comprised of approximately 1,7~,0 acres. The Phase I Area consists of approximately 170 acres and the Myford interchange is planned to cover approximately 20-acres. Together this totals approximately 1,930-acres that were annexed to the City. The 1,988-acres addressed on page 8~3 of the EIR, is a figure from a 2-1/2 year old study; the new figures are more accurate. The 1,820-acres addressed on page I of the Specific Plan is a typographical error, it should read as 1,7~,0-acres. Given the flexibility to change Sector boundaries, density transfer unknowns, the Browning corridor stipulation, the unknown size and location for the regional park, and others, then why aren't all sector plans subject to review by the Planning Com- mission? (F.C.A.) All Sector plans are subject to review by the Planning Commission as established on pages 3-15 and :3-16, Section ~3.5, paragraph C, "Sector Plan Processing." Any changes in boundaries or other changes are all subject to the controls and limitations that have been established for the sectors under sector policies in Section 2.0 and Development Standards in Section 3.0 of the Specific Plan, and all changes found must be found consistent with those policies and standards. When specific sector site plar~ are proposed with permanent sector boundaries why aren't the maximum dwelling units far the sector established at that time? (F-.C.A.) Sectors are bounded by fixed property lines established by the Specific Plan area boundary, arterial roads and defineable physical features of the land. Adjustments to those boundaries would occur through specific detailed alignments of the arterial roads. These adjustments would be minor in nature. Such adjustments will not affect the maximum number of units allowed in the Sector, the Sector land Use Area Densities, Sector Policies nor the Development Standards. Why haven't church sites been provided for in this plan? (M. Brooks and I. Trocy) The Specific Plan Regulations allow churches to-occur in all of the residential land use areas as well as in the neighborl~od and general commercial land use areas sub- ject to a conditional use permit. Zoning of property typically and appropriately plans for locations of broader categories of land use such as residential, commercial and industrial. Zoning does not typically regulate site specific locations for the variety of the many types of uses that might occur within the city. Individual uses are normally identified as specific uses which are permitted within certain zoning categories, or in the case of East Tustin Specific Plan, a land use area. Individual uses such as church organizations normally find locations and acquire sites based on their own individual needs and requirements such as number of facilities, size, Ioca- tional preference and cost of land. To predetermine and regulate specific sites for all of this individual uses that may occur within the plan would not be practical nor will it guarantee that the individual needs and requirements of these organizations will be met. An important consideration in planning for these uses is to provide the broadest possible opportunity for them to occur and not to specifically regulate their size and location. This opportunity has been provided in the East Tustin Specific Plan by allowing chu.rches to occur within almost all of the land use areas. Irvine and Orange developments should pay for circulation improvements in Tustin which benefit them, e.g. N-S arterial. (John McCarthy) New developments in East Tustin, as well as major new developments in most other cities, fund roads to serve their traffic. In addition, they fund a part of the regional circulation system which provide traffic capacity to residents from other cities. However, there is no exact accounting system to balance the contribution to the regional system among cities. In the case of the N-S arterial, it is anticipated that Tustin, Orange and Irvine development will all contribute to construction. For that Dortion abuting the Irvine- Tustin boundary, the costs will be shared equally. In the canyon portion of Tustin, Irvine will have no direct access to the N-$ arterial. Orange development will con- struct the entire roadway through its area. Plons for noise attenuation of units located within the Browning Corridor should be required in the Specific Plon. (Kathy Weil) Noise levels in the Browning Corridor do not exceed the City of Tustin noise ordinance or any established noise standards. BD 2/I RESPONSF_,S 'IX) COMMF..NT~ 1. Ou Page 117 of the HIE the phase H of the R~t Tustin development of 1,050 homes appears not to be considered in the overnll figures. (John J. MeCarthy) It is assumed that this comment is referring to Phase I of the East Tustin development area which consists of 1,050 dwelling units and was processed as a seperate project in 1985. The population and housing figures for the Phase I development are not included with the discussion on page 117 of the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR because this section pertains only to the Specific Plan. However, the population and housing characteristics of Phase I are included in Section 4.0, "Cumulative Impacts," of the EIR. Will aircraft noise levels aetunHy be tested to determine any impacts after construction? At what point in the approval process do we assure that the devalopraent under the corridor is sufficiently protected? Are the noise level readings "me event" or eum,,l~tive? How high above the ground will the hoUcopters be over the residential? (Kathy Weil) The City of Tustin currently does not require aircraft noise levels to be tested after Development under the corridor is considered to be sufficiently protected when indoor noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL and outdoor noise levels do not exceed 65 CNEL (These standards are consistent with the noise guidelines of the Marine Corps Air Station, Department of Aeronautics, and Federal Aviation Administration.) As discussed on page 154 of the E1R, the East Tustin area is definitely outside the 65 CNEL impact are for helicopter operations. The helicopter noise levels delineated within the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR reflect cumulative noise levels based on the daily average number of flights. The guidelines of the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study (AICUZ) indicates that outbound aircrafts are to maintain a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above sea level and the inbound aircrafts maintain a minimum altitude of 2,500 feet above sea level. However, under special circumstances such as heavy fog or heavy rain, inbound aircrafts may be permitted to reduce their elevations to 1,500 feet above Elevations within the study area range from approximately 715 feet above sea level in the northeast corner to 75 feet above sea level where the E1 Modena Channel crosses under the Santa Aha Freeway. Therefore, outbound helicopters would be permitted to fly approximately 1,285 to 1,925 feet above the project site depending on the topography while inbound aircrafts would be permitted to fly approximately 1,785 to 2,425 feet above the project area. 3. Beeause the ETSP projeet will place further burden on e~-~ing Hbrary facilities (pege 167), mitigation measures should be required. (FAC) The additional use of existing library facilities does not necessarily constitute a significant impact. The County of Orange is responsible for library facilities and services within the City of Tustin, and was provided copies of the Draft EIR for the project. The discussion of library impacts has been or will be reviewed by the County and specific mitigation measures may be recommended as appropriate. 4. I~adequate eomplianee with CEQA Guidelines to furnish the public and offieinl~ with complete documentation. Over 80 copies of the EIR and technical appendices were distributed to agencies, local offici~l~ and the general public during the week of December 18, 1985. This distribution included forwarding copies of the ErR and appendices to local homeowners associations, via certified mail. Also, copies were forwarded to local libraries and are available for public review. Similarly, copies are available for public review at Tustin City Hall. Additional copies of the ErR and appendices were forwarded to local libraries on January 14, 1986 to further facilitate public review. CEQA does not.. require that documentation associated with an EIR (i.e., a specific plan) be circulated along with the EIR during the public review period. However, copies of the East Tustin Specific Plan were made available for public review at Tustin City Hall, and were forwarded to local officials, at the time of the Draft EIR distribution. How does the faet that drainage/flooding mitigations will not be addressed untft later in the approval process affeet the legality and fi~lity of this Will the rnitigntions be just ns binding? Without tho~e studies/findings, how complete is this ~3R? (Kathy Weft) The program EIR for the East Tustin Specific Plan provides mitigation measures based on the level of project planning currently being considered. The mitigation measure on page 52 of the EIR acknowledges that at future more precise levels of plann!ng, detailed hydrology/drainage studies will be prepared and will serve to mitigate the potential for flooding hazards. The mitigation measure in the program EIR is not intended to preclude the project from future environmental review to ensure that such studies and accompanying mitigation does occur. (See response to comment No. 9--). This approach is in accordance with the letter and intent of CEQA. 6. Consideration should also be given to using fire-resistant plants in the natural i~]~de areas, particularly near dwellings. (Kathy Weft) As stated in Section 3.13.2 of the DEIR, development in the Hillside District shall be subject to the guidelines of the 1976 Fire Protection Planning Task Force Report. This report provides for several measures for fire protection landscape treatments at open space/urban development interface areas. Would increasing the water supply to the onsite freshwater marsh present a greater potential foe health and safety hnzerds than eurrently ex~.~ts? (Kathy Weft) Such potential health and safety hazards as well as measures to mitigate such potential hazards are issues which would be assessed in detail at more precise levels of project planning. I~suffieient speeifie detail to be a Specific Plsru ~herefere i~ppropriate designation as a Program ~ with no subsequent public review. (Bob Break) The level of detail required for a specific plan is at the discretion of the affected jurisdiction. A specific plan serves as a guide for development, and is intended to provide for the systematic implemention of general plan policies. A program EIR evaluates the overall impacts of a series of interrelated actions which comprise a "project", as in the ease of a specific plan (see additional discussion below). As such it is appropriate to catagorize the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR as a program EIR. The ~ Tustin Specific Plan ~ is a Program ~R defined on page I as ~intended to serve as the sole e~vironmental document fo~ the proposed specific plan. No environmental impact report or negative declaration n¢~d be ~ed pursuant to Division 13 fo~ any subsequent individual site and building development plans which conform to the stao~ds and guidelines contained in p~oposed specific plan? Califmmia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require a minimum of 45 days review. The FCA respectfully requests that this period be extended a minimum of 90 days from today and that additio~ml sets of the three volumes be made ava~able at the public library as a real opportunity fo~ review and eorame~t. Section 15165 of the Guidelines also states that: "Where individual projects are, or a phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking comprise a project with a significant environmental effect, the Lead Agency shall prepare a single program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168. As noted in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared in a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: geographically; as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; in connection with issuance of rules regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as individual activities carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Although a program EIR may be appropriate for projects meeting only one of the criteria noted above, the "project" as addressed in the East Tustin Specific Plan Ell{ basically reflects all of the criteria. The advantage of a program ErR, as described in the Guidelines, is that is allows a more comprehensive analysis of the overall impacts associated with a series of actions than would otherwise not occur with individeual EIRs for each project action. A program ErR does not, however, preclude subsequent individual activities within a project from the requirement for additional environmental analysis, if appropriate. As specifically stated in Section 15168(c) of the Guidelines; "Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either and EIR or a Negative Declaration." As such, CEQA specifically provides for additional environmental analysis and subsequent puiblic review following a program EIR, if and as appropriate. CEQ~ Guidelines stipulate a minimum 30 days review period for all EIRs, a minimum 45 day review period for projects involving state agencies and a maximum review period of 90 days for all EIRs. The length of the review period, aside from meeting minimum requirements, is at the discretion of the lead agency. The City of Tustin is the lead agency for the East Tustin Specific Plan project and considers a 45 day review period to be appropriate for the subject EIR. Additional copies of the EIR and appendices were forwarded to local libraries on January 14, 1986; and additional copies have been provided to interested parties, including local homeowners associations. It should be noted that this additional distribution follows the extensive original distribution which occurred in December 1985 (see response to comment no. 4). 16. The EIR reflects ineowisteneies and subjectivity inappropriate fo~ a research doeumant, l~smple: Air quality "may have a signifieant impact on regional quality~ (page 19) but it is ~]-~o stated of Air Quality, ~Projeet implementation w~l result in the generation of air pollutants...that will eontrRmte to the eum,flstive degradation of the ambient air quality" (page 246). Seonnd example: It is stated that ETSP is aesthetically consistent "with existing and planned surrounding land uses," but fer the same City of Irvine General Plan area it ~would be highly speculative" (page 212) to try to assess cumulative impacts. Neverthel~, the transportation data indicates a 50 percent increase in population and 70 percent increase in traffic volume with this General Plan d~vulopment just east of the ETSP Project. (FCA) With respect to the first example, it is hereby noted that the subject statement on page 19 of the DEIR is incorrect, and should reflect the fact that the project will have a significant impact on regional air quality. Regarding the second point, the discussion of cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources which occurs on page 220 of the DEIR refers to the fact that development of the project site and surrounding areas will change the visual character from open space to urban uses. This change in land use and accompanying change in visual/aesthetic character is anticipated in the existing local general plans, and is therefore not considered to be significant. The statement on page 212 of the EIR refers to the speculative nature of attempting to identify specific uses east of the project, at a similar level of deatil to the projects listed in Table 40. The two subject discussions (page 212 and page 220) deal with completely different levels of analysis, are not analogous. Part of the intent of the cumulative impacts analysis is to quantify impacts to the extent possible. Such quantification can be provided for projects with some delineation of the specific nature and extent of uses, as in the case of the projects identified in Table 40. Although the general nature of uses east of the project site is known, a clear understanding of the actual uses to occur would be very difficult at this time, especially considering that this area will not even begin development for several years. For this reason, it was considered that a cumulative assessment would be speculative. As for the traffic and population data which is cited for the area east of the project site, this data is based on city and county regional projections and may not actually be specific to the subject area. 11. The approved Rllowable dwellings for the East Tustin Residential Project are listed as 1218 (p. 212) and as 1050 (p. 215 and 75). Which f~ro was used for eum,dRtive impact study? Generated po[:l, ulatio~ f'~'ures for the project range from 19,053 (p. 170) to 19,319 (p. 215) and current pot~,i~tien of Tustin at 49,815 (p. 109) is listed 9,000 too high. (FAC) The delineation of 1218 units for the East Tustin Residential Project as shown on page 212 is a typographical error. The correct number is 1050 units, which was utilized in the cumulative impacts analysis. The population figure at 19,319 on page 215 is based on an average population density of 2.43 as indicated by the City Planning Department. The population figure of 19,053 on page 170 is based on population factors delineaqted in the City's park ordinance which are specific to housing density categories (also shown on page 170). The population factor of 49,815 as shown on page 109 is a typographical error and the correct number is 40,815. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS EAST TUSTIN HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS All development should have mandatory membership in a homeowner's association. (Kathy Weil} It is anticipated that many of the residential developments will have homeowner associations as needed for maintenance of common landscaped, open space, or recreational areas. Membership will be mandatory for thos~ residents living in developments with homeowner associations. PRIVATE STREETS Do the private street standards eliminate 9uest parking? (Kathy Well} Parking requirements are determined according to the district (i.e., low, medium-low, etc.) and will not be affected by private or public street designation. If private street standards eliminate required parking, it will need to be provided elsewhere in the development. PARKING REQUIREMENTS A two-bedroom apartment should have two spaces required. (Kathy Weil} The Specific Plan requirement of 1.8 spaces, plus .25 guest spaces, for a two-bedroom apartment is consistent with the Phase I - Residential. Adequacy of parking is as much a function of good site planning as it is of the number of spaces. All multiple family developments in East Tustin will require a conditional use permit as part of the approval process. The planning commission will have an opportunity to evaluate the parking solution for each development at that time. - 2 - GOLF COURSE How does the plan assure that the golf course will remain open to the public? (Kathy Weil) The Specific Plan states on Page 2 - 37 that the golf course will be privately owned and managed but be open to the public. As a privately owned and managed course, it is not a municipal course and thus the liability will not be the city's. SET-BACKS The medium density attached residential front set-back should be modified to be consistent with the Phase I Residential standards. (Kathy Weil) The medium density front set-back standards are consistent with or greater than the Phase I Residential standards. DEFINITIONS How is lot width defined if there is no garage in front? (Kathy Weil) The definition as written applies to cul-de-sac or unevenly shaped lots. The intent is to assure that there is an acceptable width at that point where a structure is built. It is recommended that the definition of lot width be modified to read: "The width at the front of the lot measured at the set-back of the building." FIRE HAZARD GUIDELINES Change "fire retardant" to "fire resistant" and add after class "A" minimum, "as rated by the Underwriter's Lab, Chicaqo, IL." (Kathy Weil) It is recommended that the above change be made as suggested. MCE:wb 1/22/86 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Response to written comments, 1/22/86 SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: SOURCE: SUBJECTS: RESPONSES: SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: Tustin Gold Key AsSociation Letter, Jan. 10, 1986 Bryan Avenue The East Tustin Specific Plan does not propose any change to Bryan Avenue. FCA, comment #4 North-south route, La Colina, ADT, construction traffic - The north-south route is already on Arterial Highway Plans and no change is proposed. - La Colina extends beyond Browning in the City of Tustin Arterial Highway Plan. - The 122,977 ADT for the east Tustin area under the General Plan is correct and a check is being made on the portion of this in the East Tustin Specific Plan area (the Auto Center and Residential Phase I need to be deducted from the 122,977 ADT). - At the subdivision level, an access plan for construction traffic is approved by the City Engineer. FCA, comment #8 Western Connections This is a County issue, and apart from Racquet Hill, the connections are included so as to be in conformance with City or County arterial highway plans. Ron White East/West Road Connections Benefits of these roads can be summarized as follows: 1. Goods and services available in East Tustin can be more easily accessed by adjacent residential areas. 2. Fire access to parts of east Tustin will be from the adjacent area. 3. Neighborhood continuity provides more flexibility for the school district. 4. Traffic is diverted from other streets such as Newport Avenue, Red Hill, Browning, and Irvine Blvd. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN Response to written comments, 1/22/86 Page Two SOURCE: SUBJECT: RESPONSE: SOURCE:' SUBJECT: RESPONSE: FCA Lack of Compliance with MPAH Plan does comply with City and County Arterial Highway Plans. Inclusion of collector roads such as Racquet Hill connection does not imply non-conformance, since collector roads are not normally included on the MPAH. FCA ETC Alignment The generalized conceptual alignment shown in the traffic study conforms with the current MPAH as modified by the Memorandum of Understanding between the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. If the eventual corridor alignment differs significantly from this, it will not affect the East Tustin Specific Plan. EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RESPONSE TO ISSUES AND QUESTIONS JANUARY 21, 1986 The following are responses to questions generated by the Tustin Planning Commission as outlined in the attached letter dated January 17, 1986. Will all construction in the East Tustin Development be on City sewers? (John J. McCarthy). The development area will ultimately be served by a gravity sewerage system, however, interim use of leach fields and septic tanks may be considered in estate areas to a limited extent until trunk facilities are extended into the northern portions of the development area. Development within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area is currently master planned to be served by wastewater facilities provided by Irvine Ranch Water District. Will the ultimate flood control improvements take care of a lO0-year frequency flood? (Kathy Weil) Regional flood control facilities, those owned and operated by the Orange County Flood Control District including the E1Modena Channel, will be designed to convey the discharge from a lO0-year storm. Local facilities, those facilities operated by the City of Tustin which typically are found on the interior of the residential subdivisions, will be designed to carry discharges from 10-year and 25-year storms depending on their location in the watershed. This level of flood protection is typical of that required of developments throughout Orange County. Does the Orange County Flood Control District have money for upstream improvements? (John J. McCarthy) The Orange County Flood Control District has currently allocated funds for the design of a portion of the E1 Modena-Irvine Channel from Bryan Avenue to the Redhill-La Colima Channel during the calendar year 1986. These efforts will also include design of the Redhill Channel (Fl3) and La Colima-Redhill Channel (FO7SO1) from the E1 Modena Channel to Irvine Boulevard. No funds are currently allocated for construction of these facilities. 4. When will the box culvert crossin~ of Bryan Avenue be constructed? ~John J. McCarthy) The construction of the box culvert bridge crossing of Bryan Avenue will commence upon completion of the bypass channel and tie-in facilities, which is scheduled for mid-February, 1986. It is anticipated that the bridge will take approximately two to three months to construct. BELLEWICK COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 861 Tustin, California 92681 Ms. Kathy Weil Chairman City of Tustin Planning Commission City Center 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 December 24, 1985 Dear Commissioner Well; On behalf of the Board of Governors of the Bellewick Community Association, I wish to inform you of our Board's approval and support of the Proposed Land Use Plan of the East Tustin Specific Plan. Our support of the Plan derives in large part from the interest, cooperation, and flexibility exhibited by the Irvine Company. As originally presented, there were several items in the Plan (especially those relating to housing densities), with which members of our 80 home community took exception. Representatives of the Irvine Company met several times with representatives from our community, listened to their comments and suggestions, and were flexible enough to modify the Plan to accommodate their concerns. The coop- eration of the Irvine Company with our and other involved homeowners associa- tions has resulted in a land use plan which exhibits an orderly, attractive, and functional development which is, at the same time, comparable with the existing residential areas which it borders. It is inevitable that the East Tustin area will be developed. We are pleased that the Irvine Company has listened to our requests, and has acted in a conscientious and cooperative manner to insure the compatability of the East Tustin development with the existing neighborhoods and community. Sincerely, Gerald Feldman Chairman, Board of Governors Bellewick Community Association cc: Members of Tustin City Council Members of Tustin Planning Commission Chairman, The Irvine Company Pl nnin Commission DA'rE: SUBJECT: APPLICANTS: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONHENTAL STATUS: JANUARY 13, 1986 EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COMI4UNITY (TUSTIN RANCH) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ~PACT REPORT NO. 85-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1A, B, C ZONE CHANGE 86-1 SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE IRVINE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COF~qUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE NEST;UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAO) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST. (PC) PLANNED COPIIUNITY A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ]HPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBIqTTTEO FOR THIS PROJECT. REC~ENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the following actions: Accept staff report presentation. 2. Accept project manager and consultant presentation. 3. Conduct the public hearing and receive public testimony. 4. Continue the subject applications to the Commission's next meeting on January 27, 1986, thereby allowing staff and project consultants adequate time to research and answer questions raised by the Commission and community. BACKGROUND: The area known as East Tustln geographically located east of Browning Avenue and north of I-5 was annexed to the city in the late 1970's. The property is owned by The Irvine Company and while annexed under agricultural preserve status was originally planned and zoned to be developed for residential and support commercial, public and service facilities. ~. , Corn munity Development Department ~" /~Planni ng Commisston East Tusttn page two Since the agricultural preserve status on the majority of property expired in 1984 and January, 1986, the property owner has requested permission to commence development. Responding to The Irvtne Company request, it is the city's intention that East Tustln be planned from 1ts tnceptfon and not permitted to develop tn a piecemeal unplanned fashion. To Implement this policy, a public-private partnership was formed by establishment of a Steerfng Committee to direct preparation of the East Tustin plan. The East Tustin Steering Committee was formed in March 1983 and originally comprised of the following members: Don Saltarelli, Councilman; Richard Edgar, Councilman; Jim Sharp, Planning Commission Chairman; Bill Huston, City Manager; Don Lamm, Director of Community Development; Monica Flortan, Vice President, The Irvine Company; Rick Cermack, Director, The Irvine Company; and, Coralee Newman, Manager, The Irvine Company. The Steering Committee retained a consultant team under direction of Larry Webb, J.L. Webb Planning, project manager, and monitored ongoing preparation of the land plan and support documents. The city Community Development staff provided a secondary overview of the consultant team and (mplemented Steering Committee direction. After 2-1/2 years of preparation, a concept land use plan was brought forth to the public in a "Town Hall Meeting" on March 27, 1985. Responding where possible to community concerns, the land use plan has been modified over that viewed at the Town Hall Meeting. Secondly, the specific plan text has now been prepared along with the necessary draft Environmental Impact Report and its support technical studies. Lastly, a development agreement contractually binding Irvtne Company commitments and city approvals, while not submitted at this time, will ultimately be presented to the Planning Commission and Council for consideration. During the month of December, 1985, Planning Commission study sessions were conducted to review the background and substance of the East Tustin plan. The purpose of the Commission's meeting on January 13th is to receive staff, consultant and public testimony and eventually formulate a recommended position to the City Council. While draft EIR #86-2 is submitted for Commission consideration, the public review period remains open until January 31, 1986. Therefore, the Commission will not make a final recommendation concerning the EIR but refer it to Council with opinions concerning it's ultimate certification. Any member of the community still wishing to address the adequacy of the environmental document may do so prior to January 31, 1986. PLAN AMALYSIS: The processing of the East Tusttn Specific Plan is actually composed of several individual procedures. Attached to this staff report is a copy of the public mehearing notice outlining General Plan Amendment 86-1 A, B, and C which proposes ndments to the Land Use, Circulation and Seismic Safety Elements. These Community Development Department ~Planntng Commission East Tustln page three amendn~nts are necessary to ensure conslstancy between the city's General Plan and ultimate zoning and development of the property. Secondly, Zone Change 86-1 is proposed incorporating minor changes to the property zoning from its present designation of {PC) Planned Community to Planned Community-Residential, Commercial, Community Facilities and Mixed Use. The Zone Change is simply a refinement of the present Planned Community zoning. Specific Plan No. 8 is the actual land use regulatory document containing policy statements ~of the city in Section 2 of said document and zoning development standards in Section 3. It is this plan that more definitively indicates types and density of residential development and approximate locations of community parks, schools, an 18 hole golf course, support commercial shopping centers and office complexes. Lastly, draft EIR 85-2 provides the environmental analysis for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan applications. Due to the extensive detail presented in the specific plan and environmental documents, a comprehensive presentation will be made at the Commission's meeting on January 13th. Staff and consultants will be prepared to address the Commission's questions at that time. Hopefully to address as many advance questions as possible, members of the consultant team and Steering Committee mat with community groups that expressed interest in the project. Meetings were conducted with the Foothill Community Association of North Tustin, the North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council, the Tustin Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee, the Belwick Homeowners Association and additional meetings are planned with other homeowner associations adjoining the East Tustin area. In addition, 340 public hearing notices were mailed in accordance with State law to all property owners within 300 feet adjoining the East Tustin project area. Newspaper articles have been published announcing the meeting on January 13th and the availability of the Specific Plan and environmental documents at the Tustin Branch Library, City Hall and Police Department. While the plan may be purchased at City Hall, a summary report is available free of charge. CONCLUSIONS: Development of East Tustin will obviously impact surrounding communities in both Tustin and the County area of north Tustin. However, the subject area has had an urban designation status since 1973, and the expiration of the agricultural preserve would mean the ultimate conversion of the land to urban uses in accordance with a master plan. Reacting to this fate, the city/Steering Committee has strived to produce a plan with the proper balance of land uses and one whose fiscal impact will not be detrimental to Tusttn. The balanced land use plan includes public and private parks whose acreage is nearly double that existing in Tustin. Sites are also being reserved for public Community Development Department Planning Commission East Tustin page four schools and commercial shopping centers to provide convenient services to those new residents of our community. The majority of heavier commercial and employment based businesses (research and development) are located adjoining the [-5 freeway. This balanced plan, therefore, provides both local employment and a varlety of housing opportunities from rental apartments to estate size homes in the foothills. The East Tustin plan represents countless hours of staff, property owner and consultant time over the past three years. While it cannot address every single concern raised by the community, hopefully it is the best and most practical alternative. Therefore, the East Tustin Steering Committee recommends adoption of this plan by both the Planning Commission and City Council subject to substantial mitigation measures and contractual obligations between' the city and The Irvine Co.any. Director of Community Development Senior Planner DDL:do attach: land use map project summary public hearing notice DEIR with appendices ETSP Community Development Department ©07~ ~ LAND USE PLAN PROJECT SU~tARY The proposed land use plan encompasses approximately 1,740 acres of level and hilly terrain. Over 70 percent of the site is relatively flat (0 to 5 percent slope) or 1,218 acres, with the remaining 522 acres made up of htllsfde terrain with slopes ranging from 5 to over 30 percent slope. Level porttons are sttuated in the southern acres, with htlly terrain in the northern acres. The east and west branch of the Peters Canyon Wash extend from the northern reaches of the area, exittng tnto the Ctty of Irvine sphere of influence northerly of Irvlne Boulevard. At thts ttme, the area Is completely undeveloped, primarily supporting agricultural uses. The statistical summary of the proposed plan includes: Land Use Designation Acreage Restdentlal Estate (up to 2 du/ac) Low (upto 5 du/ac) Medlum Low (up to 10 du/ac) Medium (up to 18 du/ac) Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac) 415 287 SO 239 178 Open Space Public Neighborhood Parks* Community Parks Golf Course 14 37 150 Commercial/Business Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Mixed Use 10 31 121 Institutional Elementary Schools* Intermediate Schools High School 58 15 40 Other Uses Roads (arterial and major only**) 101 Certain park and school site acreages have not been established. Such acreage will be taken from residential land use area. ** Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major roads, has been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses. The proposed plan would permit a maximum of 7,950 dwelling units divided among twelve separate sectors. Ten of the sectors permit residential development, and each is divided into land use types with a maximum density allowable for each type. Additionally, each sector is given a total number of dwelling units, although units may be transferred from sector to sector, subject to certain criteria. With the exception of units transferred by Tentative Tract 12345, the maximum number of dwelling units for the specific plan area can not exceed 7,950 units. OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Tustln, California, will conduct a public hearing on January 13, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California, to consider the following: 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1a,b,c An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company, requesting an amendment to the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tustin area bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south; existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west; unincorporated land to the north; and unincorporated area within the sphere of influence line {Myford Rd.) for the city of Irvine to the east encompassing approximately 1,740 acres. a) 86-1a: An amendment to the Land Use Map, to change the current designation of Residential Single Family, Commercial, Public and Institutional, and Planned Community, to Planned Community/Residential, Planned Community/Commercial, Golf Course, and Public and Institutional, which can have a suffix of open space, school, community park, neighborhood park or regional park. The Planned Community designation requires the submission of detailed development regulations. b) 86-1b: An amendment to the circulation element of the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tustin area, described above. Amendments to the current circulation element include: extension of La Colina from Browning Ave. east to Future Road as a secondary road; inclusion of Myford Road north of the I-5 Freeway to the northern city boundary as a major highway to Portola Parkway, and as a primary highway from that point to the city boundary; extension of Portola Parkway to Future Road as a primary highway; and upgrading the status of E1 Camtno Real/Laguna Road to a secondary highway from Red Hill Avenue east to Myford Road. c) 86-1c: An amendment to the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General Plan for the East Tustin area, described above. The amendment incorporates language and policies regarding the status of the E1Modena Fault. The subject fault has been identified in EIR 85-2, and may be active, based upon further investigation. General Plan policies in this regard will require these further studies prior to construction. If it is concluded that the fault can be considered active, additional detailed analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact location and extent of the fault. This investigation will serve to define the location and width of a structural setback zone for the fault, in keeping with state law requirements. 2. ZONE CHANGE 86-1 An application filed jointly by the city of Tustin and Montca Florian on behalf of The Irvine Company requesting an amendment to the zone designation for the East Tusttn area, bounded by the Santa Aha Freeway {I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tustin and the January 13, 1986 notice page two unincorporated community of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west; unincorporated land to the north, and unincorporated area wfthin the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvine to the east, encompassing approximately 1,740 acres from Planned Community to Planned Community/Residential, Planned Community/Commercial, Planned Community/Community Facilities, and Planned Community/Nixed Use. These zone designations require the submission of detatled development regulations, and wt11 be governed by the East Tustin Specific Plan text and land use maps. 3. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8/EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN An application filed Jointly by the city of Tustin and Monica Florlan on behalf of The Irvtne Company, requesting the implementation of a specific plan; prepared in accordance with Government Code 65450 et.seq, for the East Tustin area, bounded by the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) to the south, existing residential development in the city of Tusttn and the unincorporated communities of Lemon Heights and Cowan Heights to the west, unincorporated land to the north, and untncorpdrated area within the sphere of influence line (Myford Road) for the city of Irvtne to the east. The area encompasses approximately 1,740 acres. The specific plan will permit the construction of 7,950 dwelling units over Z,16g acres in density ranges including Estate (2.0 du/ac), Low (5.0 du/ac), Medium Low (10 du/ac), Medium (18 du/ac), Medium High (25 du/ac). Supporting these dwelling units will be a public parks system including 37 acres of community parks and 14 acres of public neighborhood parks, including approximately five elementary school sites, an intermediate school site, and a high school site. The Peters Canyon trail system is included, along with the possibility of a regional park in the northern part of the plan. The plan also includes a 10 acre neighborhood commercial site, a 31 acre general commercial site, and a 121 acre mixed use area, which encompasses retail commercial uses, a hotel/motel, and office/research and development uses. A 150 acre golf course is also included within the planning area. The plan includes the planning and improvements for the areas circulation system, water, sewer, utilities and drainage. Development within the specific plan area will be governed by the East Tustin Specific Plan text and related exhibits. The text includes policies and guidelines, as well as development standards, regulations and administrative procedures. The land use plan and text are on file with the city, and may be reviewed either at the Community Development Department or the Tusttn Branch Library, adjoining the civic center. A draft Environmental Impact Report (86-2) has been prepared for the actions noted above, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A copy of this document is on file in both the Community Developn,~nt Department and the Tustin Branch Library, 345 East Main Street. Information relative to these items is on file in the Community Development Department and is available for public inspection at City Hall. Anyone interested in the above hearings may appear and be heard at the time and place noted above or may call the Community Development Department at (714) 544-8890 ext. 250. Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Publish: Tustin News January 2, 1986