HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 E. T. PLND COMM. 03-03-86A ^ I'"1 ! ...... PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: MARCH 3. 1986
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LO~TION:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL HEMBERS
COI~NITY DEYELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COI~UNITY (TUSTIN RANCH)
TIlE IRVINE COMPANY
THE SUBOECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ARA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE
UNINCORPORATED COI~UNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND CO#AN HEIGHTS TO
THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA
WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (HYFORD liON)) FOR THE CITY OF
IRVINE TO THE EAST
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: A OI~ EN¥IRONIE~TAL ~MPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMITTED
FOR THIS PROOECT.
L
RECOI~ENDATION:
The East Tustin Steering Committee submitted a recommended plan to the Planning
Commission, who in turn approved seven separate resolutions (enclosed),
recommending adoption of the East Tusttn Planned Community to the City Council.
In keeping with these actions, the following draft Council Resolutions and
Ordinances will adopt the East Tusttn Planned Community:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Resolution 86-28, certify Draft EIR (85-2) as ftnal EIR (85-2).
Resolution 86-29, GPA 86-1a, Land Use Element.
Resolution 86-30, GPA 86-1b, Circulation Element.
Resolution 86-31, GPA 86-1c, Seismic Safety Element.
Ordinance 966, Zone Change 86-1, East Tusttn Area.
Resolution 86-32, East Tustin Specific Plan No. 8, Section 1.0 and 2.0.
Ordinance 967, East Tustin Specific Plan No. 8 Section 3.0.
BACKGROUND:
A complete background on the East Tusttn planntng process ts located In the
attachments under the January 13th Planning Commission staff report. In
summary, the process began approximately three years ago with the Company's
request to commence planning in the area. A Steering Committee made up of City
and Company officials was formed and a total of stx separate consultant firms
were retained to perform the work. At a point where the land use plan was still
flexible yet developed to a sufficient level of detail, It was presented at a
Town Hall meeting. Subsequently, the plan was modified where possible and the
accompanying documents prepared.
~_~//~Ctty Council Report
East Tusttn
page two
The Planning Commission held a series of advertised workshops on the plan tn the
.month of December [985, and subsequently went to Public Hearing on the project
on January [3, [986. This meeting was held for public input on issues and was
conttnuedto January 27, [g86.. Additional issues were brought up at the January
27th meeting, and the heartng was continued until February [0, [986 to allow the
E[R review pertod to end and for the Commission to read and consider the
comments and responses. .This information was presented to the Commission at
thetr February loth meettng. The Commission considered these comments and
ultimately adopted Resolutions 2294 through 2300 which recommends 'the adoption
of the East Tusttn Planned Community to the City Council. These resolutions
have been enclosed for your review.
DISCUSSION:
The East Tusttn plan has been a comprehensive process, resulting in' numerous
documents, staff reports and attachments. No short summary can grasp the amount
of information and regulations that make up this planning effort. The following
synopsis endeavors only to present the key elements of the plan and a summary of
current changes from the Comatsston along with current issues arising out of the
Planning Commission hearings.
The overall East Tusttn process includes four key elements, the Environmental
Impact Report (E[R), General Plan Amendments, Zone Change, and Specific Plan.
The draft E[R was prepared for the proposed actions (GPA, Zone Change, Specific
Plan) and represents the body of information that describes the envtronmontal
effects of the proposed project. The document was distributed for a 45 day
public review period; the public comments and city responses are now enclosed
for your review. Staff and the consultants have prepared a set of draft
findings in accordance with C£QA, and these represent the measures that will be
taken to mitigate these affects. Where mitigation is not possible, a statement
of overriding considerations is submitted.
The General Plan Amendments either lay a foundation for further actton or
supplement existing elements with additional information. They provide the
opportunity to consider the Zone Change and Specific Plan and although they do
not represent entitlement for the project, the ability to consider the Specific
Plan is contingent upon the enactment of the general plan amendments. The Zone
Change reflects the level of planning to date by delineating between
Residential, Commercial or [nsttttttonal instead of the overall Planned
Con~nuntty. The proposed zoning is st111 contingent on the enactment of the
Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan represents the policies and regulations that will guide
development in the East Tustin area. It limits the amount and density of
residential development, setbacks, height, and allowable uses in each district.
The area is divided into twelve sectors, and policies and regulations are
proposed that recognize the individual aspects of each sector.
Community Development Department
City Counc11 Report
East Tusttn
page three
Although the specific plan has been developed to a high level of detM1, this
level of planning cannot answer all issues. Consequently, there are further
reviews of not only each sector, but any development within each sector. Given
the nature of a program E[R, staff wtll submit an environmental determination on
each discretionary action to ensure it meets with the requirements of the
program E[R. [f tt does .not, further environmental work will be required. The
January 27, 1986 Planning Commission staff report details this revte~ process.
Additional Comments:
As a result of the Planning Commission hearings, proposed changes to the
project are in Resolution No. 2297 and 2298. Two key changes to the plan
include the removal of Racquet Hill Drive as a connector to "Future Road"
and the reduction of La Colina Avenue to a two lane secondary road.
One component of the Specific Plan that has not been completed to date is
the Development Agreement. This is an implementation tool that provides
assurances to both the City and the Company regarding fiscal
performances, 'infrastructure phasing, and entitlement assurances. The
Development .Agreement will not alter the content or regulations of the
Specific Plan, but provides a greater level of detail in regard to
infrastructure and fiscal issues. Since the Agreement is not forthcoming,
the Commission recommended that the East Tustin Plan be conditioned that
no development can take place until the Development Agreement is in
place. In essence, an approval of the East Tusttn Plan would put the
General Plan and Zoning in place, but nothing can be implemented until
such time that the Development Agreement is approved. At such time as the
Development Agreement is adopted, all components of the plan will be in
place and development could proceed. A concise fiscal impact report was
prepared for the Specific Plan and stated that the proposed plan can be
fiscally balanced. Further, a preliminary infrastructure financing plan
was prepared and shows how infrastructure can be provided. The
Development Agreement essentially is a further refinement on the
information contained in the documents.
During the Planning Commission process, the hours of public testimony were
reviewed by staff and a summary was presented to the Commission. This
summary is also enclosed in the Council report, and has been broken 'down
into three areas, the Specific Plan, EIR, and project implementation. It
is the intent of this summary to identify all issues brought up by the
public and indicate how the Specific Plan does or could respond to that
concern.
At this time, staff is currently reviewing certain aspects of the Specific
Plan with residents adjoining the project area. These conversations could
result in recommended changes to the Specific Plan (either text or land
use plan), but it is not possible to determine the extent of those
changes prior to the submittal of th~s staff report. If agreement can be
reached, staff will verbally present recommended changes to the City
Council at its March 3rd meeting.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
East Tusti n
page four
At this time, the City Attorney ts reviewing the proposed Tusttn Unified
agreement with The Irvine Company and the condition proposed for inclusion
into the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission altered the wording of
the condition, as shown in' Resolution No. 2298 No. 13. Staff will be
presenting a verbal presentation regarding this issue at the March 3rd
meeti rig.
Director of Community Development
EITWARD M. KNIGHT
Senior Planner
EK:do
Attach:
Resolution 86-28
Resolution 86-29
Resolution 86-30
Resolution 86-31
Ordinance 966
Resolution 86-32
Ordinance 967
FEIR, Technical Appendices, Comments and Responses
East Tustin Specific Plan
Planning Commission Resolutions
Planning Commission Staff Reports
Community Development Department
Z
O~
u
Z
ZZ
~°
LU
LU
U
z
z
~z
w
o o o
z z z
Z
U4
n,
--_
RESOLUTION NO. 86-28 REGARDING THE EAST TUSTIN EIR
WILL BE DELIVERED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
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. 86-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF TUSTIN,
ADOPTING 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" AI-FACRED HERETO)
The City Council of the city of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council 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
Montca Flortan on behalf of The Irvine Company requesting
amendment to the Tusttn Area General Plan.
That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of
the State of California, a public hearing before the City
Council 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 Tusttn 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 Tusttn 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
i9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-29
page two
It is the tntentifi-the East Tusttn 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 7,g$0 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 densi~ 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 co~atible 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 7,950 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
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86~29
page three
That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Final
EIR 85-2 has been prepared, certified and considered .which
adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the
proposed project, its significant environmental impacts, and the
alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed project. The City
Council, having final approval authority over this project has
reviewed and considered the information contained in Final EIR
85-2 prior to approval of this project.
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid certain of the significant environmental
effects thereof. Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15092 of the
State CEQA Guidelines all significant environmental effects and
corresponding mitigation measures together with the requisite
findings and facts related thereto have been comprehensively set
forth in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28-whtch is incorporated
herein by this reference. Conditions have been adopted as part
of this project or will be incorporated at the appropriate level
of development review which incorporate all of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. The benefits of the project
have been balanced and considered against its possible
unavoidable environmental risks and against the project
alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report
and those benefits are found to be overriding, all as set forth
in Attachment A to ResolutiOn 86-28, which is incorporated
herein by this reference.
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.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
IlO
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-29
page four
s)
The plan will expand the employment opportunities within
the city of Tustin by providing for office/research and
developnmnt uses in the Mixed Use area.
That the Planning Comission approved Resolution No. 2294,
recon~nding to the City Council that GPA 86-1a be adopted.
II.
The City Council does hereby adopt General Plan A~mndnmnt 86-1a,
amnding the land use elenmnt textland 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 nmettng of the Tusttn City Council on the
day of , 1986.
Attest:
FRANK GREINKE, MAYOR
MARY E. WYNN, CIl~ CLERK
LAND USE DIAGRAM
Tustin Area General Plan
EXHIBIT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12'
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 86-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF TUSTIN,
ADOPTING 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-S) TO THE
SOUTH; EXISTING RESIOENTIAL OEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF
TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS
AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;
ANO UNINCORPORATEO AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE
(MYFORD ROAO) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT
"A" ATTACHED HERETO).
The City Council of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council 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
Montca Flortan 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 City
Council was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of
amending the Circulation Element of the Tusttn Area General Plan
concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A.
Specifically, the following changes are to be made:
1. The extension of La Colina, from Browning Avenue east to
Future Road as a secondary road.
Included in the Circulation Element text: Although La
Coltna road is designated as a secondary highway from
Browning Avenue to Future Road, the roadway will be
restricted to the improvement of only two lanes of traffic
within the city of Tustin. This condition will remain in
effect until such time that the county of Orange or other
appropriate public entity improves the roadway from Newport
Avenue to Browning Avenue to secondary standards. If the
county removes the secondary status for La Colina from
Newport Avenue to the city boundary, the city will consider
this amendment in its circulation element and diagram.
This section will also be added to the Sector 8 and 9
policies, located in Section 2.14.3 of the East Tustin
Specific Plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-30
Page two
Em
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.
The inclusion of a full directional interchange on the I-5
Freeway at Jamboree.
That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Final
EIR 85-2 has been prepared, certified and considered which
adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the
proposed project, its significant environmental impacts, and the
alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed project. The City
Council, having final approval authority over this project has
reviewed and considered the information contained in Final EIR
85-2 prior to approval of this project.
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid certain of the significant environmental
effects thereof. Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15092 of the
State CEQA Guidelines all significant environmental effects and
corresponding mitigation measures together with the requisite
findings and'facts related thereto have been comprehensively set
forth in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28 which is incorporated
herein by this reference. Conditions have been adopted as part
of this. project or will be incorporated at the appropriate level
of development review which incorporate all of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. The benefits of the project
have been balanced and considered against its possible
unavoidable environmental risks and against the project
alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report
and those benefits are found to be overriding, all as set forth
in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28, which is incorporated
herein by this reference.
The proposed amendments to the circulation element ~hall 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:
!
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
~8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-30
Page three
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 Tusttn Specific Plan Area.
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.
4. All projects wtthtn the East Tusttn Specific Plan area
shall meet air qualtty requirements in compliance with
"reasonable available control measures" of the South Coast
Air Qualtty Management Plan. Such measures include but are
not ltmited to increased use of bicycle/pedestrian
facilities and traffic stgnal synchronization.
5. 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
wtll be determined when final grading plans showing lot
locations, structure setbacks and precise butldtng pad
elevations are developed.
G. That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2295,
recommending to the City Council that. GPA 86-1b be adopted.
TI.
The City Council does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 86-1b,
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 Tusttn Ctty Council, held on
the day of , 198 .
Attest:
FRANK GREINKE,
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN,
Ctty Clerk
I ~:GI:ND
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
Tustin Area General Plan
l
j-
EXHmn' A
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
9.1
~3
~6
~7
RESOLUTION NO. 86-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1c, AMENDING THE SEISMIC
SAFETY 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 I~ISTIN 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 City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council 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
Montca Florian on behalf of the Irvtne 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 City
Council 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 E1 Modena 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 Tusttn.
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
2~
27
28
Resolution No. 86-31
Page two
A number of petroleum geologists have expressed doubt as to
1ts locatton east of Fullerton stnce thetr attempt at
dr1111ng to ftnd otl trapped on such a fault has revealed
no good evidence. The County has stated that some surface
exposures led them to belteve that the fault extsts and may
form a ground water barrter, but agatn evtdence ts not
good. Fteld work tn a cooperat!ve program between Orange
County and the State to be undertaken durtng the comt ng
year mtght shed more deffnttfve Information.
As noted In Draft Environmental Impact Report 85-2 prepared
tn conjunction wtth development of the East Tusttn Spectftc
Plan, a portton of .the E1 Modena Fault ts located wtthtn
the Peter's Canyon area of the ctty of Tusttn. (See
Exhtbtt A.) Based upon Information presented tn DEIR 85-2,
the E1 Modena Fault has characteristics that indicate the
fault was at one ttme acttve. However, based upon
preliminary ftndtngs of a geotechntcal analysis, the fault
may not be acttve at thts ttme (see OEIR 85-2, Appendtx
C). Should additional study reveal that the E1 Modena
Fault ts acttve, 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 etther stde
of the mapped trace of the fault. Future development could
also be exposed to secondary tmpacts associated wtth
setsmtc acttvtty Including: expansive soils, weakened rock
materials which perform poorly in cut slopes, and perched
groundwater whtch can cause seepage In graded areas
adjacent to faults. However, such tmpacts can be
controlled by special foundation destgn or overexcavatton,
buttressing or laytng back cut slopes, and subdralnage,
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
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-31
Page three
Chapter 8
Policies
To mtntmtze the potential for adverse impacts to
development tn the East Tusttn Specific Plan area resulting
from various seismic activities, the following poltctes are
hereby established as a part of the Seismic Safety Element:
Oetatled geotechnical and soils engineering reports
shall be prepared subsequent to development of
preliminary design layouts and ftnal gradtng plans
(e.g., at the tentative tract map preparation
stages). This report wtll provide further, more
detailed measures for treatment -of excavattonal
(ripping) difficulties, surftclal matertal removals,
cut and fill slopes, expansive soils, faults and
liquefaction hazards (Influencing the destgn of
roadway stream crossings). Additionally, a slope
stability analysts which includes identification of
bedding planes and sltp planes, locatton of ancient
landslides, and provisions for surface and subsurface
drainage control.
Prior to development In the Upper Peter's Canyon area
a geotechntcal analysis shall be conducted to
determine the exact status of the E1Modena fault. If
it is concluded that the fault can be considered
acttve, additional detailed analysts shall be
conducted to determine the exact locatton and extent
of the fault. This study will serve to define the
locatton and width of any structural setback zone
made necessary by the fault.
Ce
Al1' structures to be constructed in the project area
shall be designed in accordance with the seismic
design provisions of the Uniform Butldtng Codes
adopted by the city to maximize safety in the event of
an earthquake.
That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Final
EIR 85-2 has been prepared, certified and considered which
adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the
proposed project, its significant environmental impacts, and the
alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed project. The City
Council, having final approval authority over this project has
reviewed and considered the information contained in Final EIR
85-2 prior to approval of this project.
O
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-31
Page four
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid certain of the significant environmental
effects thereof. Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15092 of the
State CEQA Guidelines all significant environmental effects and
corresponding mitigation measures together with the requisite
findings and facts related thereto have been comprehensively set
forth in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28 which is incorporated
herein by this reference. Conditions have been adopted as part
of this project or will be incorporated at the appropriate level
of development review which incorporate all of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. The benefits of the project
have been balanced and considered against its possible
unavoidable environmental risks and against the project
alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report
and those benefits are found to be overriding, all as set forth
in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28, which is incorporated
herein by this reference.
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:
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.
That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2296,
recommending to the City Council that GPa 86-1c be adopted.
II.
The City Council does hereby approve General Plan Amendment No.
86-1c, amending the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General
Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting'of the Tustin City Council, held on
the day of , 198
Attest:
FRANK GREINKE, Mayor
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk
1
2
3'
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE .NO. 966
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
REZONING FROM PLANNED COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL;
PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL; PLANNED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND
PLANNED COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE 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 IR¥INE
TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO).
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
Ae
That a proper application (Zone Change No. 86-1) has been filed
upon direction of the City Council and by Montca 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 City Council to consider Zone
Change 86-1 was duly called, noticed and held.
Ce
That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Final
EIR 85-2 has been prepared, certified and considered which
adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the
proposed project, its significant environmental impacts, and the
alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed project. The City
Council, having final approval authority over this project has
reviewed and considered the information contained in Final EIR
85-2 prior to approval of this project.
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid certain of the significant environmental
effects thereof. Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15092 of the
State CEQA Guidelines all significant environmental effects and
corresponding mitigation measures together with the requisite
findings and facts related thereto have been comprehensively set
forth in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28 which is incorporated
herein by this reference. Conditions have been adopted as part
of this project or will be incorporated at the appropriate level
of development review which incorporate all of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. The benefits of the project
have been balanced and considered against its possible
unavoidable environmental risks and against the project
alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report
and those benefit~ are found to be overriding, all as set forth
in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28, which is .incorporated
herein by this reference.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 966
Page two
D. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons:
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 Tusttn Area
General Plan than existing zoning in that a variety of
housing types would be permitted and owner occupied housing
will be encouraged.
Under existing zoning, 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 Tusttn Area General Plan as amended.
e
That no development will be allowed within the project area
prior to the adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan.
II.
E. That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2299,
recommending to the City Council that Zone Change 86-1 be
adopted.
The City Council does hereby approve 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 Tusttn City Council, held on
the day of , 198
Attest:
FRANK GREINKE,
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN,
City Clerk
ZONING
EXHIBIT A
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
2t
25
26
1!7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 86-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION, BY RESOLUTION
OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS 1.0 AND 2.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN
SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8).
The City Council of the city of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows:
TUSTIN
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
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.
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.
That a public hearing before the City Council to consider the
Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held.
That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Final
EIR 85-2 has been prepared, certified and considered which
adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the
proposed project, its significant environmental impacts, and the
alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed project. The City
Council, having final approval authority over this project has
reviewed and considered the information contained in Final EIR
85-2 prior to approval of this project.
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid certain of the significant environmental
effects thereof. Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15092 of the
State CEQA Guidelines all significant environmental effects and
corresponding mitigation measures together with the requisite
findings and facts related thereto have been comprehensively set
forth in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28 which is incorporated
herein by this reference. Conditions have been adopted as part
of this project or will be incorporated at the appropriate level
That establishment and implementation of the plan as submitted,
of development review which incorporate all of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. The benefits of the project
have been balanced and considered against its possible
unavoidable environmental risks and against the project
alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report
and those benefits are found to be overriding, all as set forth
in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28, which is incorporated
herein by this reference.
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. 86-32
Page two
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 adopted.
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.
Appropriate mitigation 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.
e
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.
That Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the East Tusttn 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".
1
2
3
4
5
6~
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-32
page three
That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2297,
recommending the adoption of Section 1.0 and 2.0 of the East
Tusttn Specific Plan by resolution by the City Council.
II.
The City Council hereby adopts Secttons 1.0 and 2.0 of the East
Tusttn Specific Plan as presented tn Exhibit "8" attached hereto and
adopted as a policy document, subject to the changes enclosed as
Attached "A".
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the day of , lg8
Attest:
FRANK GREINKE, MAYOR
MARY E. WYNN, CITY CLERK
Attachment "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
AS REQUESTED BY TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
3e
Page 1-6, Second "bullet" under Seismic Safety. Change fire
retardant to fire resistant roofing, as defined by the
Underwrlter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois.
Page 2-16, Change "stucco or woodenslding" to read "off-white or
earthtone stucco and/or woodensidtng."
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
Underwrtter'.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 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.
That Racquet Hill Drive shall be deleted from the Land Use Map
for the East Tusttn Specific Plan.
Council hereby authorizes staff to correct typographic errors
and clarifications in the Specific Plan text. Staff shall not
be authorized to alter any policy, regulation or use as a result
of these corrections.
Community Development Department
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24:
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 967
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
TUSTIN ADOPTING SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST
SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) AND
"C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN.
CITf OF
TUSTIN
EXHIBIT
The City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
That a jo!nt application was filed by the city of Tustin, and
Monica Flortan 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 accordancewith 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 City Council to consider the
Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held.
That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Final
EIR 85-2 has been prepared, certified and considered which
adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the
proposed project, its significant environmental impacts, and the
alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant
environmental effect for the proposed project. The City
Council, having final approval authority over this project has
reviewed and considered the information contained in Final'
85-2 prior to approval of this project.
Changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid Certain of the significant environmental
effects thereof. Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15092 of the
State CEQA Guidelines all significant environmental effects and
corresponding mitigation measures together with the requisite
findings and facts related thereto have been comprehensively set
forth in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28 which is incorporated
herein by this reference. Conditions have been adopted as part
of this project or will be incorporated at the appropriate level
of development review which incorporate all of the mitigation
measures identified in the EIR. The benefits of the project
have been ~balanced and considered against its possible
unavoidable environmental risks and against the project
alternatives identified in the final environmental impact report
and those benefits are found to be overriding, all as set forth
in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28, which is incorporated
herein by this reference.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 967
Page two
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 r~stdential and commercial development is
consistent with the Tusttn 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.
Appropriate mitigation 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.
7. 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.
1
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
~13
14
15
1¢
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
Ordinance No. 967
page three
That Sectton 3.0 of the East Tusttn Spectftc Plan as prepared ts
tntended to establish land use regulations and development
standards, as well as administrative procedures necessary to
Implement satd regulations and standards for residential and
commercial development wtthtn the East Tusttn Spectftc Plan
Area. Further, Exhtbtt "C" ts established as the land use plan,
by Ordinance, and shall present the development guide for the
East Tusttn Area.
That the Planntng Commission approved Resolution No. 2298,
recommending to the Ctty Counctl that Sectton 3.0 of the East
Tusttn Spectftc Plan be adopted by ordinance by the Ctty
Counctl.
II.
The Ctty Counctl hereby adopts Section 3.0 of the East Tustln
Spectftc Plan as presented tn Exhtbtt "B" and Exhtbtt "C" attached
hereto as the regulatory documents for the East Tustln Area, subject
to the changes enclosed as Attachment "A".
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meettng of the Tusttn Ctty Counctl, held on
the day of , [986.
ATTEST:
FRANK H. GREINKE, MAYOR
MARY E. NYNN, CZTY CLERK
10.
11.
12.
ATTACHMENT "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
BY TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
Page 3-6, Change Lot, Width to read "the width of the front of
the lot measured at the setback of the main structure."
Page 3-12, Change 4 to read "any re~ision to increase the number
of dwelling units by a total of 15 percent or less .... "
Page 3-22, Section A-l, Change to read "permitted density,
maximum dwelling units per gross acre."
'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"
Page 3-29, Change Cl. to "Table C1."
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.
Page 3-34 Letter "H", Change to read "A certificate of
compliance with applicable . . "" . will be issued by the
homeowners association and will be required ....
Page 3-35 letter h. Department stores, change to permitted in
General Commercial, letter q. Liquor stores, change to use
permit in General Commercial.
Page 3-39 Letter 3.7.4.E. Change,, to read "A certification of
compliance with applicable . . .
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 strtctly forbidden in the entire
planning area, except in the case Of spectal events, and these
wtll require a temporary use permit.
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.
That Racquet Hill Drive shall be deleted from the Land Use Map
for the East Tustin Specific Plan.
Community Development Department
Exhibit "A"
page two
13.
14.
15.
16.
Page 3-19 letter O. Change to: Plans for the noise attenuation
of units located near arterial highways or freeways or under the
Browning Corridor which insure that interior and exterior noise
levels do not exceed the city of Tusttn noise ordinance, shall
be submitted for review and approval at the time of builder's
tentative tract consideration for residential development.
Page 3-46. Change: Medium Low and Medium & Medium High 1.
Detached; the credit for guest on-street parking from 100% to
50%.
Page 3-46. Change:' 3. Multiple Family (apartments) 2 bedroom;
from 1.8 required parking spaces to 2.0 required parking spaces.
Council hereby authorizes staff to correct typographic errors
and clarifications in the Specific Plan text. Staff shall not
be authorized to alter any policy, regulation or use as a result
of these corrections.
Community Development Department
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2300
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 8S-2, PLUS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, AS FINAL EIR 85-2
The Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That an Environmental Impact Report would be required due to
potential effects 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 dtstrtbuti, on of the. Draft EIR was made to interested public
and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and
evaluation.'
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the
Draft [IR.
That the public review period for the draft EIR ended on January
31, 1986 and that comments received by the public, Commission,
staff and other agencies have been addressed to this date.
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
tnttt&l 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.
That the City Council of the city of Tusttn shall be, as
described in CEQA, the body responsible for the certification of
EIR 85-2 as a final EIR.
I.. That the Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission
and that they reviewed this document, received public testimony
and considered comments on Draft EIR and responses thereto in
their review o~ the subject actions involving the East Tustin
area.
2
3
5
6
?!
8~
10
17
18
27
Resolution No. 2300
page ~o
II. It is therefore resolve~--that the Draft .EIR 85-2, the comments and
responses thereto are reco,,.,ended to the City Council for their
consideration and certification as a final EIR for the actions
involving the East Tustin area.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ~t a reg l~L~.~/me~.:ng of the.~Tustin Planning Commission
held on the /~)i~Tt day of --O/~,f~;~.x/' , 1986.
'DONNA ORR, RECOR1)ING SECRETARY
KAll(Y WEIL CHAIRMAN
RATIONALE FOR
P~G COMMII]SION RECOMMI~ID&TION
FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDRR&TION OF
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN leu (SS-It)
The environmental documentation process for the ~st Tustin Specific Plan began in
June 1983, with the initiation of the early planning studies and preparation of the
environmental baseline description for the project area. Alternative plans developed
for the project area were evaluated for potential impacts using the environmental
baseline document in 1984 and 1985.
In May 1985, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and mailed to responsible
public ngencies, the State Clearinghouse, local affected agencies and interested
community organizations. The NOP was distributed again in November 1985 to allow
for additional comments and/or updating comments on the earlier NOP. The NOP
provided a description of the proposed Fast Tustin Sgecific Plan, general
identification of possible environmental impacts and requested that comments
concernin~ issues that should be addressed in the draft BIR be submitted to the city
by December 1, 1985.
On December 18, 1985, the draft EIR and draft Fast Tustin Specific Plan were made
available for a 45-day pubUe review period, which ended on January 31, 1986. The
draft EIR identified the foUowing potential impacts and recommended mitigation
measures for the ETSP:
Alternative 6.1, eno P~jeeta. would prevent any development from' occurring
onsite and would effectively preserve the ex/stin& ageieultueal and open spare
land uses at the site foe a Umited number of years. The continued use of the
site foe aqTfeultural open spare uses is not a v/able lone-term use of the site,
nee it is considered with the existir~ general plan which designates the site for
tu~an uses. In that all environment~l impeets would be avoided under this
altetmative, is is clearly considered to be an environmentally superior option to
the proposed project. This alternative was rejected, however, because it fails
to provide foe the objective established for the project, and is contrary to the
goals, objectives and p~ovtsions of the Tustin General Plan which designate the
project site foe urban development.
Altet~mtive 6.2, gzistin~ C mneml Plan would allow the project site to be
develo9ed under, the existin~ general plan land use designat/ons. Compared to
the etueent project proposal, the development of uses of a lower intensit7
would dfoed the advantages of l~t_~ tra/fie, noise and air quality imparts as
well aa reduced demands on public serv/ees and utilities. Second to ~he "no
peojeet~ alte~mtive, this alternative may be considered to be the
environmentally supoeioe alternative. However, the existing general plan land
use designat/ons provide foe vet7 little commercial, employment and reereat/on
uses to support the residential development allowed, thus creating an
"unbalaneedw communitT. Based on land use balance considerations, this
alternative was rejected in favor of the current proposal.
Alternative 6.3~ Maximum Vaesidential Development provides foe a greater
number of residential units and lesa commercial uses than the eurrentiy
proposed project. The relative advantages would include le~ traffic generation
especially during peak travel hours, less mobile sourer air and noise ponution
and a greater contribution .in the number and tTpe of units added to the city's
extstiag housing stork. The dtsadvantages include greater impeets on public
serv/ees and utilities el~oe~i~lly [~Mblie ~oO]a, greater demands on Hmited
existing commercial and employment land uses and the exposure of more
dweIling units to ex/sting noise sourers pa~. tie~!nely military aircraft noise. A~
the apparent disadvantages exceeded the advantages, this alternative was
rejected in favor of the current project proposal.
11
Alteem~ti~-6o4~ M~xim~m Commeeel~l Dmrelopme~t provides loc more
eommero/al and less residential development than the current proposal The
primary advantages of this alternative include geeater local employment and
shopping opportunities for project residents and less of a demand on pubUe
schoois. The disadvantages, which serve as the reasons for rejecting this
alternative, include increased traffic generation especially during peak travel
hours~ increased mobile source air and noise pollution and a higher intensity
development character than that of the local area.
Du~ng the draft ~ pubUe review period, two noticed pubUe hearings were held
before the Tustin Planning Commt-~rion to receive pubUe testimony regarding the
draft ~ ~md Specific. ~ (see comments A-1 through A-9 and H-1 through H-28 in
the Eespon~e to Comments document for summaries of comments received at the
hea~inp). Ove~ five hours of pubUe hearing testimony and a total of 26 letters
ineo~orating approximately 300 separate comments (inelu. ding ors/comments) were
received on the draft
The City of Tustin has prepared written responses to comments ~eeeived du~ng the
gr~ pubUc ~'eview period. The Planning Commission has received direct pubUe
testimony, reviewed the draft grr~and the eommonts and responses thereto~ in
consideration of the proposed aetiom involving the East Tustin area. This review
proeass has invelved each environmontal category and issues required by CEQA and
the State EIB guidelines. In recognition of this review, and the comprehensive
evaluation of environmental impacts contained in the HIE, the Tustin Planning
Commission recommends that the City Council consider the draft EIlt)eomments and
responses thereto as a final ~.r~ for their review and certification as provided in
Section 15090 of the State ErR guidelines.
12
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2294
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 ll~E 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 NORll4: AND UNINCORPORATED AREA
WII~IN 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 as
follows:
I. The Planntng 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 Flortan 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:
1. Exhibit A will be incorporated in the Tustin Area General
Plan diagram as the land use plan for the East Tusttn area.
The following text will be added to the Land Use Element of
the Tusttn Area General Plan. Under General Concerns and
Considerations, letter C. East Tusttn 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
.21
5
6
$
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
26
28
Resolution t4o. 2294
page two
It is the intent in-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 ant-ictpated to have a
density range from ~o dwelling units pe~ 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 7,950 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 7,960 dwelling units. Both the
specific plan, and the general plan, will be used in future
consistency findings in the East Tusttn 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
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
19.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2294
page three
That a draft envt~6amental 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:
l)
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.
S)
Re 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 85-1a be approved thereby amending the
land use element text and diagram of the Tusttn Area General Plan for
properties within the East Tustin Specific Plan Project area
identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED AND 6~TED at ~k reg61ax meeting the Tustin Planning Commission
'DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary
KAll~Y WEIL,
,y
LAND USE DIAGRAM
Tustin Area General P!an
1
2
3,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2295
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CIl~ COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 86~1b, AJ4ENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN
AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR TIffS-AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA AHA
FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
THE CIl~ 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 CIl~ 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:
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 Tusttn, and
Montca 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 Tusttn Area General Plan
concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit A.
Specifically, the following changes are to be made:
The extension of La Coltna, from Browning Avenue east to
Future Road as a secondary road.
Included in the Circulation Element text: Although La
Colina road is designated as a secondary highway from
Browning Avenue to Future Road, the roadway will be
restricted to the improvement of only two lanes of traffic
within the ci'ty of Tustin. This condition will remain in
effect until such time that the county of Orange or other
appropriate public entity improves the roadway from Newport
Avenue to Browning Avenue to secondary standards. If the
county removes the .secondary status for La Colina from
Newport Avenue to the city boundary, the city will consider
this amendment in its circulation element and diagram.
This section will also.be added to the Sector 8 and g
policies, located in Section 2.14.3 of the East Tustin
Specific Plan.
1
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
1,5
16
17
18
19
20
21
Resolution No. 2295
Page 'cwo
The incluston~T 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
Htll Avenue east to Myford Road.
4. The Inclusion of a full directional interchange on the I-5
Freeway at Jamboree.
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 ctty's amendments.
That General Plan Amendment No. 86-1b would be tn the publlc
tnterest and not detrimental to the welfare of the publlc 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.
Adequate right-of-way areas will be reserved within the
East Tusttn Specific Plan Area. prior to development,
ensuring availability of land for construction of
circulation systems.
All projects within the East Tustln 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.
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
19.
15
14
1§
16
17
18
19
20
21
9.6
27
28
Resolution No. 2295
Page three
Noise generat:-~ in association with newly constructed
circulation systems wtll be mitigated by the use of barrter
walls. Such walls wtll be be~m, wall or a combination
be~m and wall, the ftnal type and conftgurat.ton of which
wtll be determined when fln&l grading plans showtng
locations, structure setbacks and precise butldtng pad
elevations are developed.
I1.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Ctty Council
that General Plan Amendment 86-1b be approved thereby amending the
circulation element of the Tusttn Area General Plan for properties
wtthtn the East Tusttn Specific Plan Project Area Identified on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPT~D~t a regular ~eeDtng of the~Tusttn Ple/nning Commission,
held on the y/L//~'~ day of ~3'~J~/~/J , 198_~Z-
'DONNA ORR,
Recording Secretary
Chat r~n
E
LEC'-.I~D
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
Tustin Area General Plan
EXHIBrr A
1
3
4
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. 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 PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA
FREEWAY (I-$) 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 IRVIN£ 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 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
Montca Flortan on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting
amendment to the Tusttn Area General Plan.
That in accordance with Section 65358 of the Government Code of
the State of Caltfornta,.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 mmde:
Chapter 3 of the adopted Seismic safety Element, as it
pertains to the Norwalk and E1 Modena Faults {pages 24 and
25) is hereby amended to read as follows:
Norwalk and E1 Modena 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 Tusttn.
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
2.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
2~
9.6
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 geotechntcal analysis, the fault
may not be active at this time (see OEIR 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
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2296
Page three
Oe
Chapter 8
Policies
To mtntmtze the potential for adverse impacts to
development in the East Tusttn Specific Plan area resulting
from various seismic activities, the following policies are
hereby established as a part of the Seismic Safety Element:
Detailed geotechntcal 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 excavattonal
(ripping) difficulties, surftctal material removals,
cut and fill slopes, expansive soils, faults and
liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of
roadway stream crossings). Additionally, a slope
stability analysis which includes identification of
bedding planes and slip planes, location of ancient
landslides, and provisions for surface and subsurface
drainage control..
Prior to development in the Upper Peter's Canyon area
a geotechntcal 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.
1
2
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 four
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:
The proposed amendment provides information not presently
contained within the Seismic Safety Element that further
identifies and appraises potential seismic hazards in the
East Tusttn 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.~t a reglar~et~Fng of .the Tusttn Pl.~nntng Commission,
held on the /L~l.~ day of -(T/Y~-~/~/y, 198_~..
DONI~ ORR,
Recording Secretary
Chairmen
Geology
EAST TUSTIN 5PEOF~ PLAN
City of Tus'dn
1
5
?
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19,
2~
28
RESOLUTZON NO. 2299
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
RECOMMENOING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE REZONING FROM PLANNED
COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL; PLANNED
COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL; PCANNEO COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND PLANNED
COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY:THE
SANTA ANA FREENAY (X-S) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL .
OEVELOPMEHT IN THE CZTY OF TUSTIN AND T~E UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS ANO CONAN HEIGHTS TO THE NEST;
UNINCORPORATEO LANO TO THE NORTH; ANO UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN
THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORO ROAO) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE
TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" A~TACHEO HERETO).
The Planning Coltsston of the City of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planntng Commission ftnds and determines as follows:
AD
That a proper application (Zone Change No. 86-1) has been ftled
upon direction of the ¢tty Counctl and by Montca Florlan on
behalf .of the Irvtne company for the purposes of changing the
zontng designation for the property sho~n in Exhtbtt ~A"
attached hereto fro~ Planned Community to: Planned
Community/Residential (PCR); Planned Coluntty/Commerctal (PCC);
Planned Community/Mixed Use (PCt4U); and Planned
¢oemntty/Coemuntty Fa¢t11.ttes' (PCCF) as delineated on the same
Exhtbit A.
B. That a public hearing before the Planntng Commission to constder
Zone Change 86-1 was duly called, noticed and held.
That a draft envfronmantal tmpact report (DEIR 85-g) was
prepared for this project in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
O. That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons:
e
e
This comprehensive zone change would be consistent wtth
goals and objectives of the city of Tusttn calltng fo~ a
balance of residential, commercial, employment, educational
and recreational !and uses.
This comprehensive zone change will provide a mechanism by
which the East Tustln Spectftc Plan can be fmplemented.
As proposed the East Tusttn Spectftc Plan ts more
conMstent with the Housing Element of the Tusttn Area
General Plan than extsttng zontng in that a variety of
houstng types would be permitted and o~ner occupied houstng
wtll be encouraged.
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
2~
25
26
28
Resolution No. 2299
Page two
Under existtn~-'2ontng, 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 specl fi ca 11 y proht bi t
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 Tusttn 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 Communtty
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".
Tustin P1)nning Commission,
PASSED AND ADOPTE.~ at a regla~J~/me~ttngof~he
held on the .~/0~ day ofj~, 198_~_.
ffONNA~ORR,
Recordtng Secretary
Chairman
ZONING
EXNI~IT A
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17'
18
19
20
9.1
23
24
25
26
28,
-RESOLUTION NO~ 2297
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTION', BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS
1.0 ANO 2.0 OF TNE-EA~T TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
(SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8).
The Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines
does hereby resolve as
as follows:
Oe
That a joint application was filed by the city of Tusttn, 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.
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.
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 Tusttn Area General Plan as amended and
adopted.
e
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 pl'an as well as tie plan in
its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public
policy impacts of the proposed development.
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
Resolution No. 2297
Page
Appropriate m~t~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 Tusttn, and
should be approved.
II.
That Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the EaSt Tusttn 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".
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.
PASSEDheld onANDtheADOPTED'atdaya reg~lar~eee~ing of the , 198~..
UON)~A ORR,
Recording Secretary
Attachment "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENTS AS' REQUESTED BY TUSTIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 1-6, Second ?bullet" under Seismic Safety. Change fire
retardant to fire resistant roofing, as defined by the
Underwrtter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois.
Page 2-16, Change "stucco or woodensidtng" to read "off-white or
earthtone stucco and/or woodenstding."
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
Underwrtter'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
Tusttn Specific Plan area until & Development Agreement for said
area is considered and adopted by the city of Tustin.
That Racquet Hill Drive shall be deleted from the Land Use Map
for the East Tusttn Specific Plan.
eom munity Development Department
2
$
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
96
9-7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2298
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THE AOOPTION, BY ORDINANCE, OF SECTION 3.0 OF THE
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFI~'-PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8)
AND EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN.
The Planning Commission of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a Joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and
Monica Flortan on behalf of the Irvtne Company for the purposes
of adopting a comprehensive land use plan for the property
indicated in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, commonly known as East
Tusttn.
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 6S4S7 of the
California Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit "B"
attached, along with Exhibit "C".
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 8S-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 Tusttn 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.
e
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.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
9.4
25
28
Resolution No. 2298
Page two
5. Appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated in the
plan to ensure that concerns identified at this level of
planning are resolved as part of the mere 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 o~ 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.
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 Tusttn
Area.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that
Section 3.0 of the East Tusttn 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 ADOPTE_~O at a regu rl~?~ee!~ing of the T~stin P)~nntng Commission,
held on the //~ day of (~L/.~ ~z/~jY~L~ , 198~_.
'DONNA ORR,
Recordtng Secretary
Chairman
-®
. ATTACI~MENT "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECI:FIC PLAN RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
AS REQUESTED BY ~qJSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Page 3-$, Change Lot, Width to read "the width of the front of
the lot measured at the setback of the main structure."
Page 3-[2, Change 4 to read "any revision to increase the number
of dwelling units by a total of 15 percent or less .... "
Page 3-22, Section A-l, Change to read "permitted density,
maximum dwelling units per gross acre."
Page 3-25, 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 tnclude an
autometlc garage door opener; and"
Page 3-29, Change C:t. to ~Table Ct."
Page 3-30, Under open space, Change the last sentence to 'read
"areas retained as permanent open space shall he maintained by a
mandatory private homeowners association."
e
Page 3-34 Letter "1~ ", Change to read "A certificate of
compliance with applicable . . ." ". · · will be tssued by the
homeowners association and will be required .... "
Page 3-35 letter h. Oeparl=nent stores, change to permitted tn
General Commercial, letter q. Liquor stores, change to use
per,fit tn General Coemerctal.
Page 3-39 Letter 3.7.4.E. Change to read "A-certification of
compllance wtth applicable .... "
Page 3-[9, add letter R. The use of outdoor speakers, bUzzers,
mustc, or other devtces wtth notse an~ltftcatton outstde of the
tntertor of the structure is strtctly forbidden in the enttre
planntng area, except in the case of spectal events, and these
wtll requtre a teeporary use perett.
That the Planntng Comtsston recommends that no sector plans,
tentative tract maps, 'or butldlng permtts be tssued tn the East
Tusttn Spectftc Plan area unttl a Oevelopment Agreement for satd
area is considered, and adopted by the ctty of Tusttn.
[2.
That Racquet Htll Ortve shall be deleted from the Land Use Map
for the East Tust~n Spectftc Plan.
[3.
Page 3-[9, add letter S. The Tusttn Untfted School Otstrtct and
The Irvtne Company shall enter into the necessary agreements to
enable the school dtstrtct to obtain financing for the
acquisition,' construction and/or use of school facilities
necessary to accomeodatee the students generated by the East
Tusttn residential development. Ftnal approval of the
residential maps shall be contingent upon thts agreement or tn
the absence of such an agreement upon the determination of the
City Counct1.
Corn munity Development Department
14.
15.
16.
Page 3-19 letter O. Change to: Plans for the notse attenuation
of units located near arterial higl~ays or freeways or under the
Browntn~ Corridor which insure that interior and exterior notse
levels do not exceed the ct~ of Tusttn noise ordinance, shall
be submitted for review and approval at the time of builder's
tentative tract consideration for residential development.
Page 3-46. Change: Medium Low and Medium & Medium High 1.
'Detached; the credit for guest on-street parking from 10u% to
50 .
Page 3-46. Change: 3; Multiple Family (apartments) 2 bedroom;
from 1.8 required parking spaces to 2.0 required parking spaces.
Corn munity Development Department
Report to the
Planning Commission
SUB,]ECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
FEBRUARY ~O. ~986
EAS'r TUS'T'ZN PI. ANNEJ) (:OI~gdlUNZ'r'Y (I'USTIN P.J~NCH)
(CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FROH 1/27/86)
THE IRYINE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF' TUSTIN
THE SUB&ECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEHAY TO THE
SOUTH; .EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DL'YELOPI~NT IN THE CITY OF TOSTIN AND
THE UNINCORPORATED COIdB~UNITIES OF LEJtON HEIGHTS AND COIgAN HEIGHTS
TO THE NEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED
AREA NITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (HYFORD ROAD) FOR THE
CITY OF IRYINE TO THE FAST.
(PC) PLANNED COII~JNITY
ENYXROIOIENTAL
STATUS:
A UNJ~'T EN¥IRONPI[NTAL ~14PACT REPORT HAS HEENIpREPARED AND
SUBNTTI-LD FOR THIS PROdECT~
REC0114ENDED ACTION:
Upon the closure of the public hearing,
following resolutions in order to allow the East Tusttn Specific Plan
considered by the Citl/ Council:
staff recommends the adoption of the
to be
1. Resolution No. 2300, EIR 85-2
2. Resolution No. 2294, GPA 86-1a
3. Resolution No. 2296, GPA 86-1b
Resolution No. 2296, GPA 86-1c
5. Resolution No. 2299, ZC 86-!
6. Resolution No. 2297, Specific PlanNo. 8
7. Resolution No. 2298, Specific Plan No. 8
BACKGROUND:
The public hearing for the East Tusttn Specific Plan was continued until the
Februar~ [0, 2986 meeting, primarily to allow the Commission to receive and
review comments submitted by the public during the EIR review period. The
review period for the EIR ended January 32, 1986.
_ DISCUSSION:
All comments received by the January 31 deadline have been reviewed and
responses are enclosed for Commission review. In some cases, a response may be
further elaborated on for the City Council, but the responses as currently
submitted provide enough information for Commission consideration and
reco~m¥~ndatton of the plan to the Council. These responses provide a framework
for further Council consideration.
, Corn munitv Devetoom._enT. Pe_Partme. n...t ........................... .
feast Tusttn
February lO, 1986
page two
As an advisory body, the Planntng Commission does not certify the EIR as a ftnal
document. The Commission will be making a recommendation on the draft EIR, but
ultimately .it is the City Counctl that must review the total record, make
findings and certtfy the draft E~R as a final EIR.
Enclosed in this staff report are comments from the city of Irvine, which
arrived at the city of Wednesday, February $, 1986. In accordance with CEQA,
these comments are considered late, and the city has no legal requirement to
address them. The city of Irvine is an adjoining public agency to Tustin, and
therefore the comments will be addressed for final Council consideration of the
EIR. Due to the lateness of the comments, a comprehensive review and response
cannot be prepared, but a preliminary review of the comments show that most of
Irvtne's issues are similar to other comments that have been addressed for
Con~ntssion consideration. The comments are enclosed for Commission review and
consideration.
SPECIFIC PLAN:
In keeping with a Commission request, a list of issues raised by the public has
been categorized and enclosed for Commission review. The format identifies the
issue, a city staff response, a response from The Irvtne Company and a
recommended action. It is the intent of this issues list to provide the
Commission with a concise description of all concerns and how the specific plan
does or could respond to that concern.
The MOU between the. Tusttn Unified School District and The Irvine Company is
enclosed for Commission review. In accordance with this agreement, the
following condition is recommending for inclusion into Section 3.0 of the
Specific Plan: letter S, under General Development Standards; Final residential
maps shall not be approved by the city until such time as Tustin Unified School
District and The Irvine Company have entered into the necessary agreements to
enable TUSD to obtain financing for the acquisition, construction or use of the
necessary school facilities to accommodate students generated by residential
development of that map.
In regard to the Racquet Hill Drive connection, staff has included a condition
in the draft resolutions for the specific plan that would delete Racquet Hill
Drive from the land use plan.
Additionally, concerning the status of the La Colina connection into the
proposed "Future Road", the EIR states that no more than two lanes of roadway is
required on La Colina as a result of this project. In accordance with this
recommendation, the following language has been added to the draft resolution
for the Circulation Element amendment:
"Although La Coltna road ts designated as a secondary highway from Drowning
Avenue to Future Road, the roadway will be restricted to the improvement of
only two lanes of traffic within the.city of Tustin. This condition will
remain in effect until such time that the county of Orange or other
Community Development Department
East Tusttn
February 10, 1986
page three
appropriate public entity improves the roadway from Newport Avenue to
Browning Avenue to secondar7 standards. If the county removes the
secondary status for La Colina from Newport Avenue to the city boundary,
the city will consider this amendment in its circulation element and
diagram. This section will also be added to the Sector 8 and 9 policies,
located in Section 2~14.3 of the East Tusttn Specific Plan."
This language has been added in order to minimize thru traffic on La Coltna~and
limit the roadway to two lanes.
Also included in this staff report is a letter from The Irvtne Company, and each
member of the Commission has been given a copy of a petition of north Tustin
residents opposing the Lower Lake connection.
Senior Planner
EK:do
Community Development Department
THE IRVINE COMPANY
February 7, 1986
Mrs. Kathy Well, Chairperson
Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
Dear Chairperson Weil=
On Monday evening, you will be considering action on the East
Tustin Specific Plan. Considerable consultant and community
testimony has been received regarding this plan over the past
eight weeks, and as a participant in the formulation of the plan,
we would like to cogent on several subjects ~hat have been
raised during the hearing process. We offer these comments in
writing in recognition of the Conission's desire to focus
attention at the next meeting on Commission discussion and
action.
It is our hope that the Co~mission will be able at that time to
conclude its deliberations and act on the Specific Plan. As you
weigh the wealth of evidence you have received, we believe you
will conclude that a tremendous amount of thought has been given
to the formulation of this plan by the City, the consultant team,
the con-unity and The Irvine Company. We believe you will see a
sensitive, cohesive, balanced plan in which all the pieces fit
together in their proper places. We hope you will conclude that
this plan fulfills the challenge originally set forth by the City
Council and that you will recommend it to them for adoption.
Benefits of the Plan
some people have questioned what benefit is received by the City
from approval and implementation of the East Tustin Specific
Plan. The answer to this question, we believe, lies with the
primary objectives for theplan originally established by the
City Council three years ago and how well the Specific Plan now
meets those objectives.
550 Newport Center Drive, P.O. Box I, Newport Beach, California 92658-8904 · (714) 720-2000
Page Two
When we began this Joint process, the City Council clearly stated
its directives for the East Tustin area=
to ensure development of a quality community which would
reinforce the desirable image of the city~
to improve the City's tax base and ensure that East
Tustin development was self supporting~
to provide for a circulation system that not only met
the needs of new development but benefitted the existing
community, as well~
to provide a first-class golf course and other
recreation opportunities that could be enjoyed by the
entire community; and
to create a plan that was economically feas.ible to
develop so that these objectives could indeed become
realities, not Just plans·
We believe the plan before you measures up well to these high
standards and in doing so, provides a host of benefits to the
existing community, both City and County residents:
· 18-hole high-quality golf course open to the community.
· 66 acres of neighborhood and co--unity parkland.
A provision for 360 acre Peters Canyon Regional Park and
connecting biking, hiking and equestrian trails. (125
acres of the park will be in East Tustin.)
A mix of retail uses which provide services to the whole
community while generating sufficient revenues to make
the new community pay for itself.
A major circulation system providing additional arterial
capacity and freeway interchanges and overcrossings that
alleviate traffic generated by new development and help
reduce traffic congestion on existing streets.
Improved flood control facilities to implement important
segments of a much needed regional drainage system.'
A compatible interface.with adjacent residents in which
new housing is limited to single-family detached homes
ranging in density from 2 to 5 units per acre.
Reservation of school sites to meet the needs of new
students.
Page Three
Why vary from the General Plan
The question has also been asked, why is the Specific Plan
different from ~he current General Plan. Though most attention
has been focussed on ~he addition of 1,000 units over the
existing General Plan, there are several other important
differences including the addition of a golf course, a regional
park, and the retail and hotel program. The reason for these
changes stems in major part from the Council directed objectives
for the plan.
It also stems from our mutual objective that the plan be
economically feasible to implement so that those objectives can
be met. To be economically feasible to develop, the plan must
provide development opportunities that match market demand, it
must be flexible enough to respond to changing market and
economic forces over time, it must be financeable, and it must
provide adequate financial retu=n to justify our major
commitments to the significant road, flood control, recreational,
park and development standards reflected in the plan.
Looking at the plan as a whole, we believe ~t achieves the City's
objectives, while-also being realistic and feasible from a
developers point of view.
Infrastructure Phasin= and Fiscal
The suggestion has been made by some that in approving this
Specific Plan, the Planning Commission is acting with less than
the traditional a~ount of information regarding infrastructure
phasing and fiscal impact. It has also been suggested that in
approving the Specific Plan, the Commission is abandoning any
further control over infrastructure development and. fiscal
balance in East Tustin. Neither of these concerns are valid.
First, significantly more comprehensive information exists
regarding infrastructure adequacy, capital improvement
requirements and fiscal impact for the build out of the Specific
Plan than the Conission would normally see if it acted
incrementally over time on smaller parts of the area. The fiscal
impact analysis shows that the plan generates a positive revenue
to the City. Capital financing analysis shows that there are
significant ways to fund capital improvements at no cost to
existing residents. The EIR traffic study shows that the
proposed circulation system is adequate to handle traffic
generated.
Page Fou~
Secondly, under the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission still
retains its traditional rights of review. At the time of
s~division map approval, the Planning Commission is empowered by
.City and Stats law to specify exact infrastructure requirements
from the project and consider the fiscal impacts of the actual
development. Under the Specific Plan, the Planning Commission
will also be reviewing Conditional Use Permits for several types
of use, including apartments, cluster development and some types
of retail uses.
Thirdly, the City will gain added assurances through the
Development Agreement process already underway. Recognizing the
importance early on of infrastructure phasing and fiscal balance,
the City Council requested that a Development Agreement be
formulated to govern implementation of the Specific Plan. This
Development Agreement adds to the-traditional powers of the City
to regulate infrastructure phasing and fiscal balance by securing
a comprehensive agreement with t_he developer regarding both
funding responsibilities and phasing.
The Irvine Company has supported the idea of pursuing a
Development Agreement since it was first suggested by the City
Council many months ago. An agreement which identifies mutual
objectives and cements.specific commitments from each party will
greatly facilitate coordinated implementation of the Specific
Plan. The Development Agreement will help assure the City that
its goals will be achieved as planned and assure the developer
that the approved plan can be built.
RespoB~in= to Community Needs
During the hearing process, we have heard some people ask the
Commission not to approve the plan until it is modified to
respond to community concerns. We believe that a tremendous
effort has been made over the three year planning process to
respond to community concerns.
In addition to addressing the specific objectives established by
the City Council, which in our view reflect community concerns,
the plan has undergone many changes:
· A lid of 7950 units was established.
· Densities in Sector 10 were reduced to low.
Restriction of housing type to single family detached
homes in Sectors 1, 4, 5, 8, 9 and the low density area
of Sector 10.
Page Five
And several staff recommended changes -- which we endorse -- are
pending in response to more recent public input:
· Deletion of Racquet Hill.
Requirement for a Development Agreement prior to
Subdivision Map approval·
RequirAment for Specific School facilities and financing
plan prior to final Subdivision Map approval for
residential development.
Additionally, independent of the Specific Plan but in pursuit of
its objectives, The Irvine Company has executed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Tustin Unified School District outlining a
joint program for providing necessary school facilities to meet
the needs created by East Tustin Development. Also, the City
working with the Irvine Company, the City of Orange, and the
County of Orange has concluded a Joint agreement to establish a
360 acre regional park in Peters Canyon, as envisioned by the
Specific Plan.
'We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the joint planning
process for East Tustin. We hope our comments ars of benefit to
you as you review the Specific Plan. We believe this plan meets
both the City's and Company's goals and provides a comprehensive
plan for East Tustin development. We recommend you approve the
proposed plan with modifications recommended by staff on
Racquethill, school facilities, and the development agreement·
ncerely, "fr
Monica Florian
Vice President
Policy Management and Entitlement
MF:ta
January 31, 1986 ..... ,':..:"~
The Honorable Frank'"G~einke,"M~,yor
and City Council Members
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
1986
Thank you for the opportunity to review the East Tustin Specific
Plan draft EIR, Our comments on the document are included
in the enclosed attachment.
Considering the regional significance of the proposed development
and the magnitude of potential impact on the City of Irvine,
we have some concerns regarding the project's implementation.
It is important that the Specific Plan document be accurate
and detailed and that the EIR adequately address all potential
environmental impacts.
I lock forward to your prompt response to our concerns. It
is hoped that our respective staff can get together immediately
to resolve the issues identified. Ail contact for the City
of Irvine should be coordinated through Ed Moore, Principal
Planner of Environmental Services (660-3784).
Sincerely,
C. DAVID BAKER
Mayor
CDB:MR:jh
Attachment
Ed Moore, Principal Planner
Transportation Commission
Planning Commission
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
City of Irvine Comments
1. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
3.1 Landforms/TonoaraDhv
None
:3.2 eolc v
None
3.3 Hvdroloav/Water0ualitv
The City of Tustin, City of Irvine, and The Irvine
Company ate proposing to enter into an agreement for
the development of a Master Plan of Drainage for the
San Diego Creek watershed, which includes Peters 'Canyon
Wash. Any proposed improvements should be compatible
with the proposed master plan.
Due to the downstre.m effect of any increased flows
from the proposed improvements, the City of Irvine
should have ~he opportunity to review drainage
proposals and mitigation measures at the tentative
t~-ac~--map level.
Due to downstream constrictions, an~proposed drainage
improvements should include retention facilities such
~hat there is no increase in flows south of the I-§
Freeway.
The drainage studies should include an analysis of the
entire reach of Peters Canyon Wash and to include
Santiago Creek downstream to the San Diego Freeway
(I-405).
The calculated discharges flowing into Peters Canyon
Wash Channel (page.il3, Technical Appendices) did not
take into consideration the time of concentration
differences between the main channel flow and the side
chan~el flows, therefore, side channel flows are
understated.
The Technical Appendices needs an exhibit showing the
location of the facilities referenced (F07, F07P08,
F0?P35, F07S04 and F07S02).
The SIR should discuss =he proposed new Hydrology
Manual being prepared by EMA. Ail drainage studies
should be based on or revised when ~he new manual is
approved.
3.6
The Jurisdictional land use map on page 83 shows land uses
in City of Irvinets sphere of influence correctly.
However, the discussion on page 88 omits the rural and
estate density, and on page 93, omits the rural
classification. (Planning Commission)
Acreage, dwelling unit and population counts vary
~hroughout the report.
o Total dwelling units for the existing general plan are
listed as 6,700 (page 223) and 6,960 (page 11).
O
Approved allowable DU's for the East Tustin Residential-
Project are listed as 1,218 (page 212) and as 1,050
(page 215 and 75).
Population estimates for the project range from 19,053
(page 170) to 19,319 (page 215).
current population of Tustin is listed approximately
9.,000 to high at 49,815 (page 109) (Plaru~ing
Commission).
The unlimited flexibility to transfer DU densities
generates concern that the transporation system is
inadequate. Shifting the dwelling units could have a
significant impact on road design requirements (Planning
Commission).
3.7 Relevant Plannin~
3.8
3.9
The 208 Water Quality Program should be expanded to
discuss local 208 program and Upper Newport Bay.
A=ricultural Resources
None
Socioeconomic~
Page 118 of the EIR indicates ~hat the project proposal
does not include specific provisions for the development
of affordable housing. Page 120 lure_her states that the
T~stin Housing Element includes an objective for t_he
construction of 600 affordable units in East Tustin. Is
this nu~er of units, representing less than 8% of the
total units in t. he project area, an adequate supply of
affordable ~/~its? Will the proposed emplo!rment
opportunities in t. he project area create a demand for more
affordable units?
The specific plan includes 121 acre mixed uses area at the
northwest corner of the Santa Aha Freeway and Myford Road.
The EIR should describe in more detail the types of uses
proposed for this area.
3.10
TransDortation/Circu%at%°~
Tustin General Pla~ versus Proposed East Tustin Specific
Plan
The circulation element of the General Plan analyzed in
this report is incorrec~ because it includes an additional
arterial between the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC)
and Jamboree (Tustin) that is not in the circulation
element of Tustin, Irvine, or the Orange County Master's
Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH)-. This would suggest tha~
the comparison being made is not valid. The assumption of
the second arterial greatly distorts the true
relationships between the two plans and minimizes the true
impact of t_he proposed Specific Plan.
Area of Analysis
The analysis area should be extended eastward from the
Tustin City line to and including Culver. This should
include intersection analyses for the extended area to
show impaots of the proposal on the circulation system in
Irvine.
Intersection Capacity Utilization ¢ICU1 Analysis
The document uses 1.0 as a basis for ICU calculations
rather than 0.9. However, 0.9 should be used as it is the
accepted Orange County standard and it provides for ~he
uncertainties in traffic forecasting. In addition, past
observations of the ICU methodology used in this report
have shown inconsistencies as compared to the generally
accepted prec,:ice. Until specific intersection diagrams
are provided, it is not possible to determine the extent
of such concerns.
Arterial Hiahwav Capacity Analysis
As compared to the Tus=in General Plan Post-2000 ADT
volumes, the Specific Plan ADT volumes put several
arterial highways in Irvine over the capacity threshold.
These include Pothole, Irvine Boulevard, and Bryan.
Further analysis indicates a Level of Service (LOS) "E"
has been used in the traffic analysis., This is a
deviation from the residential standard for the City of
Irvine planning which uses LOS-"D". It is suggested that
the traffic analysis be modified to use LOS "D". The
volumes projected on Red Hill and Myford at I-5 show these
bo~hbeing over capacity even at LOS "E". Of t. he APT
shown, the report has 41,000 of ~he Red Hill vehicles and
31,000 of the Myford vehicles generated by the analysis
area. The V/C is .not a satisfactory service level for any
of these five highways and requires luther mitigation.
Trip GeDeration Rates
There appears to be & major discrepancy between trip
generation s,~mmaries as presented in Table 17 (page 127)
and Tables II-4 and 5 (pages 237-8 of the Technical
Appendices). When compared to data in the Technical
Appendices, the General Plan ADT shown in Table 17 appears
to be in error. Using the land use and trip generation
data found in Appendix A, it is possible to replicate only
Table II-5 and approximate Table II-4. Table II-4
contains apparent errors pertaining to the Residential -
Medium/Low and Community Park entries. In addition, =he
Auto Center rate is 50% of the rate used by Irvine and
documented in the San Diego Traffic Generators Report.
This difference accounts for roughly 7,500 ADT, or a 6%
addition to traffic.
City of Irvine Impact Analysis
The ana-lysis for the impact on the City of Irvine does not
show nor discuss the differences in volumes between the
General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan although the
same is provided for the City of Tustin. Irvine volumes
should be included in Figure IV-1 and IV-2 of the
Technical Appendices.
Miti=ation ~easu~e~
The document lacks adequate mitigation measures to address
capacity problems on Portola, Irvine Boulevard, Bryan,
Myford, and Red Hill. This report indicates the East
Tustin traffic share on t. he Myford/Jamboree Extension is
14%. Partial funding for this facility should also be
included as a mitigation measure based on fair share
allocation.
Eastern TransPortation Corridor
The placement of this facility is of great concern to the
City of Irvine. The conceptual alignment of the ETC
should be consistent with discussions underway between
Tustin and Irvine. Specifically, the City is concerned
that the plan under review would preclude alignments F-1
and G-1 and would reduce the likelihood of the ETC being
the mutual city line.
Bottleneck Study
Due to the location of East Tustin within the Bottleneck
Study area, provisions should be made so that the proposed
Specific Plan does not preclude alternatives currently
under review by the Orange County Transportation
Commission. The report's assumption that the Bottleneck
traffic'demands would be satisfied with an expanded I-S of
12 lanes is flawed since a 12 lane freeway at LOS of "E"
reaches capacity at 240,000 vehicles per day, far less
than the 284,000 vehicles shown in the report for
POST-2000. Since the "Direct Connector" concept would
transverse East Tustin, the proposed Specific Plan should
address the need to reserve a potential corridor until the
Bottleneck issue is resolved. The ssme concern is held
for arterial alternatives through the same area (i.e., La
Colina).
Circulation System Phasin~
With a project of this scope, there is a need during
interim stages of the project, to balance local land use
with the circulation system. A mechanism which relates
development phasing to a circulation improvement strategy
would be an appropriate way to ensure such a balance.
Alt. hough the 1990 time frame is used "for convenience",
this horizon is only four years away and does not provide
much insight to the circulation needs and impacts over the
next 20 years.
Other Comments
o ADT Volume Maps - "Moulton should be labeled "Walnut"
o Exhibit 36/Figure IV-10 - Does not include nor discuss
Red Hill
- "Moulton" should be labeled "Irvine
Center Drive"
- Location of volume on Myford above
Irvine Center Drive is probably not
correct.
o
There is a need to expand in greater detail the traffic
study for ~he project to include analysis of ADT,
Volume/Capacity, and intersection capacity utilization
for the following points in time:
1. Existing conditions (APT, V/C, and ICU
analysis).
2. Buildout of existing zoning (ADT, V/C, and ICU
analysis).
3. Buildout existing zoning plus project (ADT,
V/C, and ICU analysis).
4. Buildout of existing general plan (ADT and V/C
analysis).
5. Buildout existing general plan (ADT and A/C
analysis). ~
Diagrams and tables summarizing the V/C and ICU
analysis should be included in the body of the EIR.
Land use assumptions utilized for the traffic analysis
should be based on the City of Irvine General Plan in
the Irvine Planning Area, not on the Orange County
General Plan (page 127-8).
c
The projec~ traffic could significantly impact existing
residential areas in the City of Irvine. Exhibit 36
indicates that the project wiI1 contribute 15% of the
traffic on Harvard Avenue, 13% on Bryan Avenue, 8% on
Irvine Boulevard, 7% on Trabuoo Road, 4% on Culver
Drive, and 4% on Walnut Avenue. However, the EIR does
not address the impacts of this'traffic.
o On Page 235 of the Technical. Appendix, Table 2-2, in
the note at the bottom of the Table, a reference is
made to District 3. Please identify what area i~
included in District 3. (Transportation Commission)
o What happens if the Bryan, Por~ola Parkway, and
Jamboree interchanges with the Easte=n Transportation
Corridor do not occur? The traffic study should
analyze the impact on the circulation system if these
links are not included in the study. Also, the EIR
needs to discuss the spacing and configuration of the~
interchanges necessary to accommodate those three
roadways, as shown on Figure 4-2 of the Technical
Traffic Study, interchanging with the Eastern
Transportation Corridor. (Transportation Commission)
o The Specific Plan should not foreclose any of the
options currently under consideration as part of the
Bottleneck Study. More specifically, the Specific Plan
should make allowances for a direct connection from the
Foothill Corridor to the existing freeway system at a
location north of the Santa Aha FreewaY.
(Transportation Commission)
S .11
on page 19 of the,Summary under t~.e level of significance
after mitigation ~D_~ have a significant
regional air quality,, sho,.~ =- ~ .impact on
consistant wi~h ---~-4~-=~J~-ue cnan~ed t0 ~ have to be
page 246. -..~vv~u=u~m adverse Impacts .statements on
3.12
Acoustical Environment
Th? EIR does not adequately address the impacts of ro
~olse on Irvine. Altho.._~ ....... adway
indicate that some road~-~ ~e~9nlcal Appendix does
zo ~9 xrv~ne were studied, key
roadways adjacent to'residentlal areas, such as
and Culver, were not studied. Harvard
3.13
Public Services and Utilitie~
Page 10 mentions ~hat the County's Master Plan for
Regional Parks shows a regional park in the vicinity of
Peters Canyon..There is no mention of this park in the
Relevant Planning or Public Services and Facilities
Sections. In addition, the DU density for the area should
be adjusted accordingly.
No mention is made of the Open Space corridor along Peters
Canyon Wash.
IRWD Master Plan projections reflect demand for current
general plan which is less than specific plan. If this
need is met here, where will %he shortage surface?
The EIR does not adequately address the mitigation of the
impact on t_he school system. Although the specific plan
allocates acreage for.seven school sites, the more
important aspect of financing these schools is left open
as possible altern~tives with no in-de~t~ ~--~--: ....
,uause areas cz our cl=y s sphere of influence are in the
TUSD and the students wo~ld be lmpacted by school facility
shortages (Planning Co~zssion).
Alternative 6.2, Existing General Plan, is summarily
rejected, based on its creating an "unbalanced,,
co--unity. The EIR goes on to s~ate, "...the public
revenues/cost ratio associated with this alternative could
wel~ be.negative.,, Where is the data supporting this
~onuept~on~ page 4 states that Stanley R. Hoffman
~socl~mes w_~s res~on~le for fiscal impact analysis and
z~nanc~ng, where xs als report?
Thers is a question of adequacy reIative to the
cummulative ~mpact section given a recent cou~ decision
(San Franciscans For Reasonable Growth vs. City/County of
San Francisco). Analysis should include surrounding
projects in Irvine and County which also impact this area
and vice-versa.
Section 1 of the EIR should summarize,
allowable development (acres, sq. ft.,
GP/zoning and proposal for all uses.
in tabular form,
du's) existing
2. THE EIR, AS CIRCULATED, IS INCOMPLETE
A very serious pr?blem with the completeness of the EIR
relates_t~.the ~lsslon of the relevant documents for the
propose= u~scre=~onary actions. The EIR states on page 1
that the EIR is intended to address the potential impacts
of the following proposed discretionary actions: (1)
General Plan Amendment, (2) Zone Change, (3) adoption of
a Specific Plan, and (4) approval of a Development
Agreement. However, none of these documen=s appear in the
EIR or in the Technical Appendices, nor were they
furnished or available as part of the review process.
Section 15147 of the CEQA Guidelines states that while the
EIR should summarize technical data, in this case the
General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, Specific Plan and
Development Agreement, this information should be included
in the technical appendix of the EIR thereby making it
readily available for public examination.
(Note: The draft EIR (10 copies) were received by
the Environmental Services Section the afternoon of
December 18, 1985. A single copy of the specific plan
was received by the Current Planning Section on
January 9, 1986.)
3. TH~ EIR IS INAPPROPRIATELY DESIGNATED AS A PROGRAM EIR.
The designation of a program EIR for the Tustin Specific
Plan, appears to be premature at this time as the ,,
necessary supporting technical studies are not presently
available. Consequently, any conclusions reached
concerning the nature and magnitude of the impacts are
highly speculative making the proposed mitigation measures
of questionable value. Consequently, the validity of the
document as a program EIR is in doubt. As stated on page
1 of the Draft EiR, the program EIR is intended to serve
as t_he sole environmental document for the proposed
SPecific Plan and all the individual projects which are
undertaken pursuant to, and in conformance with, the
proposed Specific Plan. No subsequent environmental
documents are proposed for individual site and building
development plans which conform'to the standards and
guidelines contained in the proposed specific plan.
Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the level
of specificity in the EIR should relate to the degree of
specificity required for the underlying activity. With
this EIR, it is the City of Tustin's intent to prepare no
additional environmental documents during the
implementation of the project. Given the lack of de~ailed
analysis in the EIR, we feel that the use of the existing
draft Program EIR is inappropriate.
A list of technical studies in process or necessary for
adequate evaluation of impacts is contained in Exhibit 1.
Should the City of Tustin desire to continue development
planning prior to completion of these studies, a tiered
EIR would be more appropriate. This class of EIR would
allow concept approval by requiring environmental review
downstream after technical studies have been completed and
detailed plans are available for analysis.
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Technical Studies in Process or
Necessary for Impact Analysis
.6.
7.
8.
Flood Con~rol System Master Plan and Implementation Program
Cities of Irvine and Tustin and the Irvine Company
The Bottleneck Study (Impact of the termination of the
Foothills Corridor at ~he Eastern Transporation Corridor)
Eastern Transportation Corridor alignment
Schedule of Development Program and Infrastructure
installation
Review and'evaluation of Historic District documentation
relative to ~he Irvine Ranch Headquarters
Geologic Study of the Modena Fault
Dedication for Regional Park
Biotic studies of the regional significance of the
Riparian habitat. (1603. permit process} Streambed
Alteration Agreement - State Department of Fish and Game)
Archaeological Studies
EXHIBIT 1
~,ND
A~owm~le
A~ ~d .Use ~8ximum ~n~t~ Units
flinty de~ o~y)
X~'~
LOX
SO M~umo~O~ty Ki~ti~
6~ ~ty ~md~U~ 5 d~me
rmm~y ~ ~y)
~amRy detaefled ~y)
family d~a~ o~y)
2x9
31 ~ ~m~
Ommm~
f~Ry ~ ~Y)
10~
~ 34~
39 ~7
46 ~ity ~tIM 5 du/ae
405
~ '-~--~
~y ~t
C~m~
~ t, S40
121
~
I Total, ILl, owe/Mi numMr of ~t. miRmd tmt~ wl~n a ~ ~ may ~ i~
2 ~ ~ ~m ~mat~ti~ f~ ~ ~tt ~,
~ ~ ~ aM ~a~ in ~ ~ may ~ H~ev~, ~e totat
s~ ~ ~t ~t in t~ s~ ~ ~t t~ i~ ~ into ~ti~ ~.
.,~ts School Facilities Agreement is entered fats ss of January 27, 1986,
by sad between ?he lrvine Company (71C) & Michigan corporation, sad the
?ustin Unified School District (?USD) & public unified school district.
Recttals :
?IC proposes to develop property in the East Tustin s~ectfic Plan
(E?SP) area shown as Exhibit A and within the ~urtsd~ctton of TUSDo
?USD and TIC desire to maintain the quality of school facilities
throughout the ~IJSD. It is of mutual benefit to TIC and ?USD that
the reputation of excellence in education and facilities continue,
and that the E?SP area develop into a highly successful community for
adults and children.
C. TIC acknowledges that providing TUSD early information regarding the
'development is necessary to facilitate TUSD decision-making process.
D. ?USD and TIC desire to establish a method of financing school
.? facilities necessary to serve the student population generated by
development.
E. TIC and TUSD acknowledge and agree'that school facilities plan~ sad
mitigation agreement or agreements are necessary and should be based
upon sound demographic data, consideration of a number of financing
options, studies of current facilities, and pro~ected development
phasing.
Agreement
In consideration of the above premises and the following terms and
conditions, TIC and TUSD agree a~' follows:
A~reement to Provide Necessar~ Facilities
TUSD and. TIC will provide for necessary school facilities in
time to meet the demands created by the development as outlined
herein.
A~reement to Seek ?undtn~
TIC and TUSD acknowledge that at the current time state funding
may not be available to fund school facilities when they are
needed for pro~ected growth, however, all sources of revenue
including state funding will be explored to fund the acquisition
of land and facilities. Notwithstanding the present uncertainty
regarding State funding, TUSD will pursue State funding.
be
TUSD and TIC will cooper&re in preparing &pplJcstions for grant
funding from the State of California, TIC wtll~ at its cost
retain consultants satisfactory to TUSD as necessary to assist
with grant applications. TUSD will provide appropriate
expertise from the educational perspective.
Page
c. TUSD and TIC agree to explore other sources of revenue to func
the refurbishment of existing schools~ acquisition of land and
construction of facilitSes if State funding is not available.
Financial <ernatives including but not limited to
lease-purchase agreements, Mall.oR.os community facilities
districts, and builder fees shall be considered.:
A~reement....to Prepare School Facilities Plan
a. TUSD agrees to prepare a school facilities plan (School
Facilities Plan or Plan) to house students generated by
residential development which shall be an exhibit to the
Mitigation Agreement, as that term is defined in Section 5a
below~ or agreements as necessary. ?he Plan shall be based on
assumptions of growth in existing schools as well as pro~ected
growth in the ETSP area. The Plan shall also be based on the
use of existing facilities as well as new facilities to house
the student popul&tton generated by development. The School
Facilities Plan shall consider those matters set forth on
Exhibit S attached hereto.
TUSD and ?lC will work together developing demographic and other
data to be used for the development of the School Facilities
Plan and grant applications. These data will include, but not
be limited to, facility capacities, fiscal data concerning
capital outlay, deferred maintenance and leasing programs.
Co
?lC will provide to.?USD information on planned residential
product types and related development phasing schedules for use
by ?USD in preparing the School Facilities Plan and grant
&ppltcattons.
?USD and ?lC agree to review the School Facilities Plan at least
annually for the housing of students generated by the ETSP area
development. After the School Facilities Plan has been
developed, TUSD will consult with .TIC regarding the design of
facilities financed by any assessment or fee. TIC shall have
the opportuni.ty to revie~ and comment upon plans for such
facilittes~ however, final design responsibility and decisions
will rennin vtth TUSD.
?USD and TIC agree to the student generation rates set forth Jn
Exhibit ¢ attached hereto as initial assumptions for school
facility planning. TIC and TUSD agree to further refine stude~
generation rates to be used in development of the School
Facilities Plan. TIC and TUSD acknowledge that certain
assumptions may change due to unforseen circumstances. When
this occurs the generation rates will be adjusted accordingly by
TIC and ?USD.
Regarding those facilities for which state funding is
specifically sougt:t or developer financed, ?USD agrees to
maintain complisnce ~tth the State building program in terms of
srchJtectu&l guidelines, cost smd student loading factors.
.?
~ge Three
9. In the development of the School Facilities Plan, TIC end TUSD
agree to consider a mix of permanent, modular, and portable
facilities as well as refurbishment of existing facilities vhtle
maintaining existing TUSD standards of quality, to meet the
student housing needs. :
Reservation of sites
&.
TIC and TUSD agree that eight school sites shall be reserved in
the ETSP as shown on Exhibit A. The number, location and size
of school sites sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed
student population shall be agreed upon in the Mitigation
Agreement, or agreements ss necessary and reviewed annually. If
TIC and TUSD mutually agree that any of the reserved sites are
unnecessary as determined by the School Facilities Plan, such
sites shall be released to TIC for disposition or use as
determined by TIC. The Mitigation Agreement will also address
the provision of additional sites if necessary. The method of
acquiring school sites and facilities, including but not limited
to leasing, lease purchases, or other public or private
mechanisms will be agreed upon by TIC and TUSD in the Mitigation
Agreement or agreements ss necessary°
TIC and TUSD agree that if school facilities funded by TIE serve
'areas or students beyond the demands of the ETSP ares TIC shall
receive credit for purposes of satisfying student housing
requirements foe future TIC residential development. The metho6
of determining that credit will be estsblished in the' Mitigation
Agreement or agreements as necessary.
S. ~Jti~atJon A~re'ement
TIC and TUSD will cooperate in the expeditious completion of a
mitigation agreement which shall provide for housing of students
generated by the ETSP area (Mitigation Agreement). Should this
Mitigation Agreement not be completed prio£ to the first
tentative tract map approvalt TUSD and TIC agree to cooperate in
developing a ~epar&te mitigation sgreement covering the
development which is the Sub~ect of the first tentative tract
map which will satisfy the condition as outlined in 5c below.
Should the Mitigation Agreement not cover all areas of the ETSP,
TIC and TUSD will cooperate to develop subsequent mitigation
agreements ss necessary.
)age Four
c, TIC and TUSD sgree that · condition be Included in the B?SP by
the City of Tusttn that final residential maps shall not be
approved by the City-until such tine es TUSD and TIC have
entered into the necessary agreements to enable ?USD to obtain
financing for the ·equtstton~ construction or use o! the
necessary ·shoo! facilities to accommodate students generated by
residential development of that map. TUSD agrees: that its
&pprovnl wiX! not be unreasonably withheld, -
TUiTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Clerk. Board ~
January 27, 1986
Tttl~
B:I:R~BXT ·
· :d. r.'.: :_..
LAND USE PLAN
~ITY OF I'I~N
Exhil:):J ~ B
~'he School F~ctlittes Plan will include but not be limited to the
:.ollowJ ng:
~STP Area Schools
- AssUmptions of student growth including new dwelling units,
utilization of transportation programs,-student generation
factors, projected increases Jn student popul&tion~
- School capacities, including permanent and temporary~
- Size of schoolsw square footage allowances
- Construction costs per square foot and total construction cos~s~
- School facilities requtred~
- Estimated schedule for school construction.
.f-
Existing Schools
Identification and evaluation of current facility utilization
including existing and surplus schools!
Identification and evaluat'lon of current facility capac~ty~
Identification and evaluation of existing conditions and needed
improvements of current ~nd surplus school facilities~
Cost estimates to make i~provementa of existing facilities;
projections of student growth or decltnej
Identification of existing schools with potential for use by
students generated by the new developmentj
Identification and value of properties that are underutilized
and could potentially provide capital resources.
S~nSlo fm~y Detached
· .so-·.ss o.o0-o, zs o.zs-o.~s
· ..*·.so o.os-o.,o.os*o.:o
O. lO-O.6O o.o~o.1:0.03-0.:0O. ltoO.72
UE~ ScboX my operoto ss · K-8 och~, iud b.ed upou tb ropr.en~.~ou k~
~e l~ue ~8u7 iht onXy l,~0 dveXXXus m~to ~XI ko developed ruder
tb SpecLf/c ff~u, tb totaX u~er of addLtL~aX ochooXo o~d be: :
luce~td~atez 1
I~Sh Scboo~z I
frou hrbr ·ud Covert for T~D
Repor to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 3
DATE:
SUBdECT:
APPLICANTS:
LOCATIO#:
ZONTNG:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
dANUARY 27, 1986
EAST THSTIN PLANNED COI~4UNZTY (TUSTZN RANCH)
(Continued publtc heaMng from 1/13/86)
DRAFT ENYZRONMENTAL ]]4PACT REPORT NO. 85-2
GENERAL PLAN N4ENOMENT 86-1A, B, C
ZONE CHANGE 86-1
SPECTFTC PLAN NO. 8, EAST THSTXN SPECTFTC PLAN
THE ZNV~NE COMPANY AND THE CZTY OF TUSTZN
THE SUBJECT AREA TS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY TO THE
$Olfl];EXISTI#G RESIDENTIAL DEYELOPRENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND
THE U#XNCORPORATED COPIqUNITXES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND CO#AN HEIGHTS
TO THE ia'ST;UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED
AREA lirrHlM THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE
. CITY OF XNVZNE TO THE EAST.
(PC) PLANNED COMPflJNrrY
A DRAFT ENVIROBIENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND
SUBMX~ITD FOR THIS PROdECT.
REC0~IENDED ACTXON:
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, £IR 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 1ts first publlc heartng regarding the East Tusttn
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 tt as a part of this staff
report.
Planning Commfsston
East Tustin
page ~o
DZSCUSSZON:
Answers to vartous wrttten questions or fnqutrtes have been enclosed, and have
been broken down to etther the draft Environmental [mpact Report or Spectftc
Plan text. Responses were gtven to those questions that had sufficient detail
or focus to'allow staff' to analyze and prepare a valid response. Comments
dtrected to the draft £nvtronmentsl [mpact Report can still be sent to the city
unttl January 3[, [986, at whtch potnt the revtow pertod wtll expire. Comments
can sttll be expressed beyond thts deadline as a part of the Ctty Council public
heartng process.
Some Commissioners submitted comments regarding the content of the Specific
Plan, wtth recommendations for change. Some of these comments have been
incorporated tnto the draft resolutions for the Spectftc Plan with a
recommendation to either tnclude or replace porttons of the Spectflc Plan.
Additional comments wt11 be presented to the Commission as a part of staff's
presentation at the January 27th meettng. The mechanism to finance public
facilities and infrastructure in the East Tusttn plan w~11 be reviewed.
Additionally, staff should have more tnformetton regarding the status of Racquet
Htll Road, and some preliminary comments regarding phasing of improvements and
ftscal balance.
Severe1 comments presented by both the Commission and the public questioned the
limitation and revtew processes of the Planned Community. Although covered tn
the attachments, staff feels some regulatory portions should be covered In this
staff report. These tnclude:
1. What limitations are imposed on the number of residential units:
a)
There ts a maxtmum cetitng of 7,950 units for the total East Tusttn
area. Wtth the exception of untts transferred from Tentative Tract
12345, thts number ts an absolute maxtmum.
b) There ts a maxtmum number of untts for each sector.
c)
Each land use dtstrtct sets a maxtmum number of dwelltng untts per
acre. As shown on pages 2-23, 3-22, and 3-29, the maximum number of
d~e111ng untts per acre ts estsbltshed.
d)
Units may be transferred from sector to sector tn keeping with Section
3.4.3. of the Spectftc Plan (pg. 3-11). Thts transfer does not
tncrease the untt cap of 7,950 unfts, any transfer of units tnto a
sector must be decreased tn another sector.
Community Development Department
Planntng Commission
East Tusttn
page three
2. Further regulatory aspects:
Se
a)
b)
c)
Htllstde Otstrlct Guidelines, Spectal guidelines destgned to regulate
development tn hillsides, tncludes preservation of rtdgeltnes,
vegetation, dralnage, and land form.
Sector Policies, each sector has establfshed poltctes related to
spectftc requirements, such as vegetation (Eucalyptus .groves, Redwood
grove), dratnage (Peters Canyon and E1Modena), golf course, etc.
Section 3.0 establishes specific setback, hetght, denstty restrictions
and allowable uses for residential district. Spectal restrictions
apply to areas adjacent to extsttng residential.
Htllstde areas, Sectors l, 2, 4, and 5 Htllstde areas located tn these
sectors are 11mtted to Estate denstty, a maxJmum of t~o dwelling untts per
gross acre. Although Sectton 3.0 may allow lots as small as 8,000 square
feet, the denstty 11mtt cannot exceed thts 2 du maxtmum. There must be
either.larger lota or common open space tn order to achteve the.density
limitation. The 8,000 square foot lot allows flexlbtllty tn a htllstde
situation, and cannot be used to allow a greater denstty than allowed.
Revtew Process: Subsequent to thts Planned Community process, the Planntng
Commission wtll be receJvtng development plans and subdivision maps at
several separate stages unttl the bulldout'of the East Tustln area. These
tnclude:
a)
Sector Processing, tntttal plans for an entire sector wtll be
submitted to the Planntng Commission. Thts Includes:
l) Intttal subdtvl, ston map for the enttre sector, which ts a
discretionary 1rem by Commission.
2) Sector Plan; tncludes circulation, gradlng, drainage, geology,
tratl destgn, and median and parkway landscape. A
non-discretionary revtew by Commission.
As part of the subdivision map, the Plannlng Commission must make a
ftndtng that the map and sector plan are tn conformance wtth pollctes
tn Sectton 2.0, and the means to Implement these poltctes has been
fdenttfted.
b)
Oevelopmant Plan Processing
Individual projects wtthtn a sector that has an approved sector plan
and subdivision map. Thts Includes:
May have another subdivision map to further dtvtde land use
areas.
Corn munity Development Department
Planning Commt sston
East Tustt n
page four
z)
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
£K:.do
attach:
Answer sheets
Resolutions
Staff report Jan. 13, 1986
Community Development Department
i J
To-Comments of
1113186 Planning Commission Hearing
EAST TUSTIN
Job No. 3NI02.0~
I. Will this Specific Plen propo~i 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 as a
percentage than the existing city. Any apartments that are proposed within the
Specific Plan are subject to a canditianal 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 can be controlled.
How are residential land use acreages adjusted to allow for the actual community
and public neighborhood park acreages that will be required? (Refer to page 2-12 in
Specific Plan) (Kathy Weil)
The acreage of community and neighborhood public parks will be determined when
the tract maps are submitted for approval of each sector. If the actual number of
units and their corresponding papulcrtian 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 sector; (2) the maximum number of
dwelling units permitted for the overall plan; 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 parks 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? (iRon White)
There are a series of policies which apply to the various sectors within the Specific
Plan. Develoment rhust be consistent with these policies. This consistency will 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 I~evJew, and Design Review. The specific policies are iden-
tiffed for each sector within Section 2. I./~.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
the sector's natural physical characteristics, and specific sector processing require-
ments. Policies for Sectors 1, 2, 6,, and 5 are also directly tied to the Hillside Dis-
trict Guidelines in Section 2.13 which deal wi-th landform modification and natural
feature protection within the hillside areas. The policies regarding density transfer
are explained in the answer to Question ~'tS.
What is the development package that will be provided to the Planning Commis-
sian? (Ran White-c~d 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, ali development projects shall be subject to Planning Commission review as
either a nan-discretionary project if permitted by right in the specific land use area
or discretionary project (public hearing) if subject to a conditional use permit.
Plenning Delxaiment should not approve any incrense in dwelling units; all requests
should come to the Plenning 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 are intended to be a means
to account far all allowable units and to ensure that the maximum of 7,950 is not
exceeded. Thus, the sector units are not a regulatory maximuml 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~'~50 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 ~ how is it accounted far? (Ren White, Kathy
Well, c~d 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 far 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 ~'t5 above).
All increases to be allowed must result in conformity with the criteria'established on
pages 3-11 and 3-12, Section 3.6,.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 1236,5 or by amending the Specific Plan.
e
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.
Is the wording on Page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph 4 inaccurate? (Kathy
Wall)
Yes, the wording on page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph b, is inaccurate and
should be changed to the following: "An,/ revision to increase the number of
dwelling units by I$ percent or less in any sector shall be approved by the Director
of Community Development."
8. What is meant by inclining ~ 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 develol~nent surrounding the geologic faults?
As determined by the Alquist-Priolo Act, no structures will be permitted within $0-
feet of the centerline of on active fault. As part of the Sector Review Process, a
detailed geologic i'nvesfigation 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.
I0. 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 Irvine the density is approximately b,.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/ac. Between Foothill and Lower Lake Drive the density is I.b,7 du/ac. (This does
not include one large lot just south of Lower Lake Drive which has a density of .23
alu/ac.). From Lower Lake north the density is approximately I.b,0 du/ac.
I I. How ~'e proposed 8~(~0 square feet (.5 du/ac.) lots compatible with the ~a'ea adjacent
fo Red Hill Ridge where lots ~e 23,000 square feet.(2 du/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 ed]acent 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 flatland area. The development proposed for this
area is compatible with the existing flatland development as it includes only Single
Family Detached (SFD) units with similar setback restrictions and height limitations.
12.
There is reference to noise abatement procedures applying to all residential proper-
ties an page 3-3~, paragraph 3.TJI-D. Isn't this a typo that should c{mmu~e residential
to commercial? (KathyWeil)
Yes -- the text should be changed to read commercial not residential.
Unlike the existing General PIm, there is no maximum density for gross project
acres as m absolute ceiling. The~ofore, whut ore the maximum ceilings or limita-
ti(ms on density proposed far 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 Ceneral Plan. To insure that the plan goals and objectives
are achieved.
I~. Why is there no number designation far the table an page 3-2~?. (Kathy Well)
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. For exc,-nple, the proposed units ensure
that the costs of major public improvements, such as roads, a freeway interchange,
flood control channels, etc., can be reasonably bom by the new development. In
most cases, such major infrastructure is needed regardless of the number of units
built in East Tusfin 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 aer_,~__~ of residential category by its gross density
do the total number of units in,the plan add to I 1,517. whereas the maximum ceiling
is supposed to be 7,950? (John McCarthy)
The maximum allowable units the Specific Plan will be permitted 'to generate is
7,D50. The density categories ore designated by a maximum number of units. The
proposed development projects can generate a number of units less than or equal t°
that maximum. Because there is a ceiling on the number of units for the whale site
area, we established an average density for each category, enabling, the plan to
encompass the maximum allowable 7,950 units. When this density average was
determined, we used it to establish the distribution of units among sectors, which
totals 7~g50 units. The proposed project 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 os described
in the Specific Plan.
17. Where is Table 2.5? (J. McCcrthy)
This is a typographical error, it should be referred to os Table 2.fl,. There is no Table
2-$°
18. If density transfers between sectors are proposed in the (k, velopm~nt review process
whys in all cases, are they not subject to review by the Planning C~mmission?
(J. McO'.'tby)
A transfer, if less than J5 percent above the designation in any sector was proposed,
would not signicantly alter the basic character of development nor would it alter the
basic infrastructure requirements far 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.~.3, paragraph 3a, b, and c.
19. In the estate area why is the ~vernge lot size stated es lO,000 SClu~re feet when at 2
d.u./om lots should be I/2-acre or 21,780 squ~re feet? (John McCcrthy)
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 mo,/ be lots os Iow as 8,000 square feet and lots that are greater
than I/2-ocre in size due to these various factors. The minimum average 10,000 net
square footage is established os an overall average control for the estate density
areas.
· 20. If an inareese is ~roved in the ~llowoble number of units in one sec'tar, then a like
decreese will be required from onothe~ sector to conform to the maximum allowable
units of 7,950 es stated on page 7. (John McArthy)
Yes. This would be accomplished by the method of density transfer described in
Sections 2. I and 3./~.3 of the Specific Plan.
21. In the Specific Plan why are there discrepancies far the total project ~creage
between the Specific Plan ~d EIR? (F.C.A.)
The discrepancies regarding site acreage are a result of changing data. These
~imJres are close aooroximations. The site is currently comprised of approximately
1"~7=~0 acres. The Ph' 'ase 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 I,~88-acres
addressed on page 83 of the Ella:, is a figure from a 2-I/2 year old study; the new
figures are more accurate. The 1,820-ocres addressed on page I of the Specific Plan
is a typographical error, it should read as I,T6,0-acres.
3e
Given the flexibility to change Sector bounclories, density tromfer unknowns, the
Browning CO~Tidor stipulation, the unknown size ~ location for the regiorml p~k,
and others, then why aren't all sector plans subject fo review by the Planning darn-
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 ar 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 plans are proposed with permanent sector boundaries why
aren't the maximum d~elling units for the sector established at th~ time? (F.C.~.)
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.
2~. 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 os well as in the neighborhood and general commercial land use areas sub-
ject to a conditional use peri,it. Zoning of property typically and appropriately
plans far 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 w. hich 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 anti Orange developments should pay for circulation improvements in Tustin
which benefit them, e.g. N-S crtoriai. (John McCcrthy)
New developments in East Tustin, as well os 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 amang cities.
In the case of the N-S arterial~ it is anticipoted that Tustin~ Orange and Irvine
development will all contribute to construction. For that portion abuting the Irvine-
Tustin boundary, the costs will be shored equally. In the canyon portion of Tustin,
Irvine will have no direct access to the N-S arterial. Orange development will con-
struct the entire roadway through its area.
Ple~s for noise ullenuat|en of units located within the Browning Corridor should be
required in the Specific PIm. (Kathy Well)
Noise levels in the Browning Corridor do not exceed the City of Tustin noise
ordinance ar any established noise standards.
BD 2/I ~n3~.
EAST TUSTIN
RJ~PONSES TO COMMENT~
L
On Psge 117 of the .RFR the phase li of the ]~ft Ttmtin development of 1,050
homes appears not to be considered in the oversll i'~m~. (John J. MeC. urthy)
It is sssumed that this comment is referrin~ to Phase I of the ~t Tustin
development area which consists of 1,050 dwellir~ units and was processed as a
seperate project in 1985. The population and housin~ figures for the Phase I
development are not included with the discussion on Da~e .117 of the P4~t Tustin
Specific Plan FIR because this section pertains only to the Specific Plan. However,
the population and housin~ characteristics of Phase I are ineluded in Section 4.0,
nCumulative Impacts,~ of the FIR.
development under the eol~idoe is sufficiently protected? Are the noise level
reedinp "cue event" or cum,n-rive? How high above the ground will the
The City of Tustin currently does not require aircraft noise levels to be tested after
Development under the eo~idor is considered to be sufficiently protected when
indoor noise levels do not exceed 45 CNF. L 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
Adminisi~ation.) As discussed on pa~e 154 of the FIR, the East Tustin area is
definitely outside the 65 CNBL impact are for helieopter operations.
The helicopter noise levels delineated within the East Tustin Specific Plan
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 speeiel circumstances such as heavy f~ or heavy ~ain,
inbound aircrafts may be permitted to reduea their elevations to 1,500 feet above
Elevations within the study area farce from approximately 715 feet above sea level
in the northeast corner to 75 feet above sea level where the El Modena Channel
ornssas under the Santa Ana 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.
B~tus~ ti2 ET3P project ~ place further bur~ o~ existi~ ~ faefliti~
(p~g~ 16~), ~itig~tim m~ should be requir~ (FAC)
The additional use of existing library facilities does not necessarily constitute a
si~mifieant impact. The County of Orange is responsible for library facilities and
services within the City of Tustin, and was provided copies of the Draft FIR for the
projeet. The discussion of library impacts has been or will be reviewed by the
County and specific mitigation measures may be recommended as appropriate.
Inadequate compliance with CICA GuicU,-~lnes to furnish the public and offie~]-~
with complete doeumentatic~
Over 80 copies of the ElR and technical appendices were distributed to a~eneies,
local officials and the ~eneral public durin~ the week of December 18, 1985. This
distribution included forwerdin~ copies of the m~t and appendices to loeel
homeowners associations, via certified mail Also, copies were forwarded to local
libraries and are available for public review. Similarly, eopies are available for
public review at Tustin City Hall. Additional copies of the EIB and appendices were
forwarded to local libraries on January 14, 1986 to further facilitate public review.
CBQA does no__~.t ~luire that doeumantation associated with an EIB (i.e., a specif, ie
plRa) be circulated elon~ with the ~ durin~ the public review period. However,
copies of the East Tnstin Specific Plan were made available for public review at
Tustin City Hsll~ and were forwarded to local officials, at the time of the Draft EIB
distribution.
Se
How does the fact that drainage/flooding mitigafiom will not be ~
unta4 later in the epp~oval ~ affect the l~a]~ty and t~lity o~ ~ 1/!~?
The pro,am ~TR for the East Tustin Specific Plan provides mitigation measures
based on the level of project planning eurrentiy being considered. The mitigation
measure on page 52 of the EIR acknowledges that at future more preeise levels of
p~qning, detailed hydrology/draina~ studies will be prepared and will serve to
mitigate the potential for flooding hazards. The mitigation measure in the program
~TR is not intended to prealude 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.
As stated in Section 3.13.2 of the DEIR, development in the I~111.qide 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 watee supply 'to the onsite fr~s~hwatee marsh present a
l~atar potaatial fcc health and safety ha--n-ds than eme~ntly es/sts? (Kathy
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.
imuffleieat specific de~n ~) be a Specific ~1.n_ Theeefoee ina~ropriate
desigaatim as a 1' r.m with no ,,tNwqueat vub]Je review. IBob ] reak)
The level of det~f] required for a speeifie plan is at the discretion of the affected
jurisdietion. A specific plan serves as a guide for development, and is intended to
provide for the systematic implemention of general plan policies. A program
evaluates the overall impacts of a series of interrelated actions which Comprise a
"project", as in the case 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 Bsst TUstin Specific PlAn ~ is a Prcqram ~ defined on p~e 1 ss
~ntel~ded to serve ss the sole e~vh, munental doemnent for the propesed
specific L~-n_ No onvironmontal impart report or negative declaration need be
filed [au~mnt to Division 13 fee any s~bsequent individual site and bufldi~
[x.c~xx~t si~eeifle pzA,,_,, C~or~i~, ]~'tmme~t~l qe~lit7 Act (C~,q~
Gu~delinss require a minimum of 45 da~ review. The PCA respectfully
requests that this [cN~riod be extended a minimum of 90 days from today snd
that additiomll sets of the three volumes be made available at the public
librer~ ss a real otgpcrtmfity for review and eommont.
Section 15165 of the Guidelines also states that: There 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 sbA]l pr.epare a
single program ~ for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168.
As noted in section 1516'8 of the CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR is an El~t which
may be prepared in a series of actions that can be characterized as one la~e project
and are related either: geographically; es 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 end having generally similar environmental
effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Although a p~o~ram BI11 may be
appropriate for projects meeting only one of the criteria noted above, the "project"
as addressed in the East Tustin S~ecific Plan Ell1 basically reflects all of the
criteria.
The advants~e of a pro,ram BI~, as described in the Guidelines, is that is allows a
more comprehensive analysis of the Overall impacts aasoeiated with a series of
actions than would otherwise not occur with individeual F_~s for eaeh project
action. A pro, ram EIR does not, however, preclude subsequent individual activities
within a project from the requirement for additional environmental analysis, if
appropriate. As speeifieR]ly stated in Section 15168(e) of the GuideHnesl
nSubsequent antivtties in the program must be examined in light of the program
to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If a
later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program 1=.1'R, a new
Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either and ~IR or a Negative
Declaration.' As such, CEQA specifically provides for additional environmental
analysis and subsequent puiblie review following a program EIR, if and as
appropriate.
CEQA Guidelines stipulate a minimum 30 days review period for all Rll~s, a minimum
45 day review period for projects involving state agencies and a maximum review
period of 90 days for alt P~IRs. The length of the review period, aside from meeting
minimum requirements, is at the discretion of the lead agency. The City of Tustin
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
and appendices were forwarded to local libraries on January 14, 19863 and additional
copies have been provided to interested parties, including local' homeowners
associations. It should be noted that this additional distribution fonows the extensive
original distribution which occurred in December 1985 (see response to comment no.
4).
10.
The 1tm reflects ineomlisteneies and subje~ti~it~ i~.~peogriate foe a research
doeumenL Example: Air qualit7 ~ma~ have a significant im~et Oil eeg~ollal
qualit~ (l~ge 19) but it is also stated of Air ~/vality, ~ojeet implemeatatica
~ ~mllt in the gemeatice of air poll~nt~..that ~11 eoutribute to the
ellmnl~tive degra~tioll of the ambieat air quality~ (page 246). Seeond
example: It is stated that ETSP is aestheti~ny eomistent ~with existing and
planned reminding land usea,~ but fee the ~me City of lrvine Gene~l Plan
~ea it ~vld be hilly sgeeulative~ (page ~12) to try to nssees eam,~]m~ive
impacts. Neve~dml~e% the transpcetatica data lndieates a 50 ~ increase
in poplxlatiea 89d TO pelq~slt inefealse ill teaffie volume with this Gene~l PIRn
develepmeat Just east of the ETSP Peojeet~ (~CA)
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 fart 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 faet 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 aeeompanying change in
visual/aesthetic character is anticipated in the existing local general plans, and is
therefore not eousidared to be significant. The statement on page 212 of the
refers to the speculative nature of attempting to identify speeifie uses east of the
project, at a similar level of deatfl to the projects listed in Table 40. The two
subject disc~_J~ions (page 212 and page 220) deal with completely different leveis 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 eum~_qative assessment would
be speeulative. 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 projeetions and
may not actually be specific to the subject area.
11.
The approved -nowable dwellings fee the ]bmr Tustin Residential Project are
listed as 1218 (p. 9.12) and as 1050 (p. 215 and 75). WTdeh flguro was used fee
eum-lAtive impact study? Gelleeated pO~fl~tiOll f"lgtte~ fOl~ the project range
from 19,05a (p. 170) to 19,319 (p. 215) and current population of Tustin at
49,815 (p. 109) is listed 9,000 too high. (la'AC)
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 pa~e 170 is based on population factors delineaqted in the City~ park
ordinance which are specific to housin~ 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
those residents living in developments with homeowner associations.
PRIVATE STREETS
Do the private street standards eliminate guest 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
p~ocess. 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 Well)
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 Well)
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 recoi,,,,ended 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~ Chicago~ IL." (Kathy Well}
It is recommended that the above change be made as suggested.
MCE:wb
1/22/86
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Response to written commen~s, 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 Co]ina, 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 o
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
con£o~rns with the current MPAH as modified by the Memorandum
of Understanding between the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. If
the eventual corridor alignment differs sign/ficantly from this, it
will not affect the East Tustin Specific Plan.
EAST'TUSTINISPECIFIC 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 Weil1
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 lO-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 (F07SO1) from the
E1 Modena Channel to Irvine Boulevard. No funds are currently
allocated for construction of these facilities.
When will the box culvert crossin9 of Bryan Avenue be constructed?
(John J. McCarthyI
The construction of the box culvert bridge crossing of Bryan Avenue
will commence upon completion of th~ 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.
BELLE~CK CO~IUNITY ASSOCIATION
Poet Office Box 861
Tustin, California 92681
Ms.'Kathy Well
Chairman
City of Tustin Planning Commission
City Center
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92680
December 24, 1985
Dear Commissioner Weil;
On behalf of the Board of Governors of the Be'llewick 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 comparability of the
East Tustin development with the existing neighborhoods and co~amunity.
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
Repor the
Plannin Commission
ITEM NO. 5
DATE:
SUBdECT:
APPLICANTS:
LOCATION:
ZONINg:'
ENYIRONIqENTAL
STATUS:
~ANUARY 13, 1986
EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COFBtUNI"TY (TUSTZN RANCH)
DRAFT ENYIROIO4ENTAL IHPACT REPORT HO. 85-2
GENERAL PLAN AI4ENOf4ENT 86-1A, B, C
ZONE CflANGE 86-1
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST THSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
THE IRYZNE COHPANY AND THE CITY OF TUSTTN
THE SUBdECT AREA TS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEt~AY TO THE
SOUTH;EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEYELOPHERT ZN THE CITY OF' TUSTIN AND
THE UNINCORPORATED COI~UNITTES OF L.DION HEIGHTS AND CO#AN HEZGHTS
TO THE NEST;UNINCORPORATED LJUID TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED
AREA I~ITHZN THE SPHERE OF TNFLUENCE LINE (RYFORD .ROAD) FOR THE
:crrY OF' IRYINE TO THE EAST.
(PC) PLANNED (:OlmU#ITY
A DRAFT ENYIRONI~NTAL II, PACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND
SUBI4TI'rED FOR THIS PRO~IECT.
RECOIIqENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the folio~tng acttons:
1. Accept staff report presentation.
2. Accept project manager and consuTtant presentation.
3. Conduct the publtc heartng and receive publtc testimony.
4. Conttnue the subject applications ~o the Commission's next meettng on
January 27, 1986, thereby allo~tng s~aff and project consultants adequate
ttme to research and answer questions ratsed by the CommJsston and
community.
BACKGROUND:
The area known as. East Tusttn geographically located east of Bro~ntng Avenue and
north of I-5 was annexed to the ctty In the late 1970's. The property ts o~ned
by The'[trine Company and whtle annexed under agricultural preserve status was
originally planned and zoned to be developed for restdentJal and support
commercial, publlc and servtce factlttles.
~'~Planntng Commission
East Tusttn
page ~o
Since the agricultural preserve status on the majority of property expired in
lg84 and January, 1986, the property owner has requested permission to commence
development. Responding to The Irvine Company request, it is the city's
intention that East Tusttn be planned from its inception and not permitted to
develop in a piecemeal unplanned fashion. To implement this policy, a
public-private partnership was formed by estebllshment of a Steering Committee
to direct preparation of the East Tusttn plan. The East Tustin Steering
Committee was formed in March lg83 and originally comprised of the following
members: Don Saltarellt, Councilman; Richard Edgar, Councilman; Jim Sharp,
Planning Comndsst6n Chairman; Bill Huston, City Manager; Don Lamm, Director of
Community Development; Montca ;lortan, Vice President, The Irvine Co.any; Rick
Cermack, Director, The Irvtne Company; and, Coralee Newman, Manager, The 1trine
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, 19B5. 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, w111 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 Tusttn plan. The
purpose of the Commission's meeting on January 13th is to receive staff,
consultent and publtc testimony and eventually formulate a ~ecommended position
to the City Counctl.
Whlle draft EIR ~85-2 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, ~986.
PLAN ANALYSIS:
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
hearing notice outlining General Plan Amendment 86-! A, B, and C which proposes
mendments to the Land Use, Circulation and Seismic Safety Elements. These
CommunityDevelopment Department
Planning Commission
East Tusttn
page three
amendments are necessary to ensure conststancy 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 1ts present designation of (PC) Planned Community to
Planned Community-Residential, Commercial, Community Facilities and Mtxed 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 mot 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
Tusttn Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee, the Belwtck 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 Tusttn will obviously impact surrounding communities in both
Tustin .and the County area of north Tusttn. 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 Tustin.
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
Corn munity Development Department
Pl annl ng Commission
East, Tust,t n
page four
schools and commercial shopping centers to provide convenient services to t,hose
ne~ residents of our community. The majority of heavier commercial and
employment based businesses (research and development) are locat,ed adjoining the
T-5 free~ay. Th~s balanced plan, therefore, provtdes both local employment, and
a vartety of housing opportunities from rental apart~nents to estate stze homes
t n the footht 11 s.
The East Tusttn plan represents countless hours of staff, property owner
and consul:ant time over the past three years, t4htle it cannot address every
single concern raised by the community, hopefully Jt ts the best and most
practical alternative. Therefore, the East Tusttn Steering Committee recommends
adoption of this plan by both the Planning Commission and Ctty Council subject,
to substantial mitigation measures and contractual obligations between' the ctty
and The [rvtne Company.
Director of Community Development
Sentor Planner
OOL:do
attach:
land use map
project summary
publlc hearing nottce
OE[R wtth appendices
ETSP
Community Development Department
~F
LAND USE PLAN
PRO~]ECT SUlMARY
The proposed land use plan encompasses approximately 1,740 acres of level and
htlly terratn. Over 70 percent of the stta is relatively flat (0 to 5 percent
slope) or 1,218 acres, wlth the remaining 522 acres made up of htllstde terrain
with slopes ranging from 5 to over 30 percent slope. Level portions are
situated in the southern acres, with hilly l~rrain in the northern acres. The
east and west branch of the Peters Canyon Wash extend from the northern reaches
of the area, exiting into the City of Irvlne sphere of influence northerly of
Irvtne Boulevard. At this time, the area is completely undeveloped, primarily
supporting agricultural uses.
The stettsttcal summary of the proposed plan includes:
Land .U. se Designation
Residential
Estate (up to 2 du/ac)
Low (upto 5 du/ac)
Medtum Low (up to 10 du/ac)
Medtum (up to 18 du/ac)
Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac)
Open
Space
Publtc Neighborhood Parks*
Community Parks
Golf.Course
Acreage
415
287
50
239
178
14
37
150
Commrctal/Bustness
getghborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Mixed Use
10
31
121
Institutional
£1emantery 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 wtll 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.