HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1 E.T. PLND COMM. 03-17-86..... ~UBLIC HEARING
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~'MBERS
FROM:
COI~IUIlITY OEYELOPI"IENT OEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
EAST TUSTIN PLANNZO ~NITY (TUSTIH RANCH)
(CONTINUEO FROM MARCH 3, 1986)
APPLICANT: THE IRYIllE COMPANY
LOCATION:
THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA AlIA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE
UNINCORPORATED COPU~UNITIES OF I.E~ON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO
THE NEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED AREA
WITHI# THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (HYFORD ROAO) FOR THE CITY OF
IR¥IIIE TO THE EAST
ENYIROIIdENTAL
STAI~IS: A DRAFT ENYIROI~NTAL ~PACT REPORT HAS B~EN PREPARED AND SUBMITTED
FOR THIS PRO&ECT.
RECO~IIENDATION:
The East Tusttn Steering Committee submitted a recommended plan to the Planning
Commission, who in turn approved seven separate resolutions (enclosed),
recommending adoption of the East Tustin Planned Community to the City Council.
In keeping with these actions, the following draft Council Resolutions and
Ordinances will adopt the East Tustin Planned Community:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Resolution 86-28, certify Draft EIR (85-2) as final EIR (85-2).
Resolution 86-29, GPA 86-1a, Land Use Element.
Resolution 86-30, GPA 86-1b, Circulation Element.
Resolution 86-31, GPA 86-2c, Seismic Safety Element.
Ordinance 966, Zone Change 86-2, East Tustin 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.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council public hearing on the East Tustin Planned Community was
continued from the March 3, 2986 meeting to allow for further input related to
certain issues, and to present written responses to the Council from public
testimony. The following information is submitted for Council consideration.
Ctty Council Report
East Tusttn
page two
Publtc Testimony. A written response has been supplted for each of the
publ!c speakers that addressed the City Council. A full response is
provided where a new topic or issue was raised, or where a previous
response requtred further elaboration. For any testimony that has been
addressed fully in the Comments and Responses of E[R 85-2, & r'eference
number 'has been included, Jndicattng the proper response to the question
rat sed.
Schools. The mitigation measure shown tn the school agreement between The
[rvtne Company and Tustin Unified School Dtstrtct and recommended for
inclusion into the specific plan has been revised and resubmitted to the
school board for their consideration. They will be considering this issue
at a special meeting this week, and staff will have a verbal presentation
at the March 17, [9.86 meeting concerning the outcome of this issue.
Community Groups. At this time, staff is currently reviewing certain
aspects of the Specific Plan with residents adjoining the project area.
Some of those concerns have been addressed in a letter dated March 3,
1986, from Jeffrey M. Odermen of Rutan & Tucker. The concerns expressed
in this letter represent issues Mr. Odermen has raised to staff, and they
will be addressed to the' Council in a verbal presentation at the March 17,
1986 meeting. Mr. Oderman is in error concerning his presentation of
issue number five on page two of his letter. Staff has never considered
the removal of these roads from the plan, since they are currently a part
of the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways and the City's Arterial
Plan, and the City is implementing these plans by showing the two roads.
Since the two connections are currently shown on the City's Arterial Plan,
no amendment to the Circulation Element is required. Staff's discussion
with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency staff shows that
they are supportive of a Joint study, but want the two road connections
shown in accordance with ihe County MPAH. They have expressly told City
staff that showing the two connections is the appropriate action on the
part of the'City. Neither of these road connections were mentioned in the
County's response letter to EIR 85-2 (1-31-86), primarily because the City
showed consistency with County master planning by indicating both roads on
the plan.-
La. Colina. The issue of La Colina as an arterial connection to "Future
Road" has been addressed in the supplemental response to comments prepared
from the March 3, 1985 meeting. These possible alternatives have been
presented in response number 1I-5. Staff will have a verbal presentation
regardtng these al ternati yes, al ong wi th any proposed staff
recommendattons.
City Council Report
East Tusttn
page three
East Tusttn Parking Standards. As a result of 'the Pl'anning Commission
action on February [0, 1986, certain policy standards as shown on page
3-46 of the East Tustin Specific Plan were recommended for change.
Specially, the number of policy parking spaces for a two bedroom multiple
family unit was charged from [.8 spaces per unit to 2.0 spaces per unit
and the credit for on-street parking for Medium Low, Medium and Medium
High was reduced to 50% from 100%. The Irvine Company has submitted to
staff some requested amendments to these parking standards. These
include:
a.)
Medium Low, Medutm and Medium High Credit for on-street parking,
50%**. ** 100% will be provided if the guest ratio exceeds .75
spaces per unit.
b.)
Required parktng spaces for Multiple Family: 2 bedroom, ! bath,
1.75 spaces/unit; 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 2.0 spaces per unit.
If the Council chooses to consider these amendmentsj you can request
further information from The Irvine CompanyJ
Senior Planner
EMK:pef
6
7
8
9
10
12
~3
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
~5
~6
~7
RESOLUTION NO. 86-28
A R£SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR) 85-2, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the city of Tustin does. hereby resolve as follows:
I. The City Council 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. Amendments, Zone Change, and Specific Plan
for the East Tustin area. (Collectively referred to hereafter as
the "Project").
That a Drmft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR 85-2) for
the proposed Project has been prepared for the city of Tustin by
Michael Brandman Associates.
Ce
That distribution 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 EIR.
Fe
Ge
He
That the public review period for the Draft EIR ended on January
31, 1986. That incorporated within the EIR are comments of the
public, Planning Commission, staff and other agencies, and
responses thereto.
That the Draft EIR is a program EIR and is subject to the
following provision of the'State Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act: "That subsequent activities shall be
examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an
additional environmental document must be prepared." The City
shall use an initial questionnaire to document the evaluation of
subsequent activities to determine whether the environmental
effects of the activities are covered in the Program 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 Draft EIR including comments and responses has been
reviewed by staff, and represents their independent evaluation
and analysis.
That the Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission
and that they reviewed this document, received public testimony
and considered comments and responses thereto in their review of
the Project involving the East Tustin area, as shown in adopted
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2300.
3
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. 86-28
page two
That the Draft EIR comments, responses, and attachments have
been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have
been incorporated into the Project that eliminate or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
thereof as identified in Draft EIR, comments, responses, and
attachments; and it is determined that any remaining significant
effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been
balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the
Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be
overriding. This statement of overriding considerations and all
environmental effects and mitigating measures are listed in the
attached document, Exhibit "A". Mitigation measures are
specified as conditions in this resolution.
K. That the Draft EIR 85-2, plus comments, responses and
attachments, constitute Final EIR 85-2.
II.
The City Council of the city of Tusttn does hereby certify that Final
EIR 85-2 has been con~leted in co~ltance .with the California
Environmental Quality Act.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn City Council, held on
the day of , 1986.
ATTEST:
FRANK GREINKE, MAYOR
MARY E. WYNN, Cll~f CLERK
EX I-II~IT A
CE~A FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND
STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN
GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIB Guidelines
(Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identified one or
more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or
more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a
brief explanation of the rationale for each finding" (Section 15091).
The finding and statements of faets delineated herein are organized in the following
manner:
Significant Effect - Each finding is prefaced by a brief description of the relevant
significant effect which is identified within EIB 85-2.
Finding - Specific to the significant effect is a finding made pursuant to
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Facts in Support of Finding - Following each finding is a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding.
The .order in which the significant impaets are identified herein follows the order in
which issues are addressed within the DEIR.
The City of Tustin proposes to approve amendments to the Tustin General Plan Land
Use Element, Circulation Element and Seismic Safety Element, as well as a zone
change and a speeific plan for the area referred to as the East Tustin Specific Plan
site. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under CEQA and the
Guidelines, the City of Tustin has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Final EIR 85-2 has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result
of the project proposal. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the final EIR and desires to approve the project with the
following findings and statement of overriding considerations.
FIelDINGS
I~ndform~o~y
Significant Effect - Existing terrain within the study area will be modified as a result
of earthwork and grading operations for the proposed project. Resultant alterations
will be directed towards the creation of developable areas for the construction of
homes and offices; commercial, public and recreational facilities; and other land uses
permitted by the specific plan and associated support facilities (roads, utilities,
drainage control, etc.).
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of, Finding - The project land use plan provides for the lower
intensity uses to be located within hillside portions of the site, thereby lessening the
amount of hillside grading required for the creation of developable areas. Also, the
land use plan provides for a potential regional park, which, if approved, would serve
to substantially reduce landform alteration impacts within the northern portion of
the site. The specific plan provides for the clustering of development within hillside
areas to further'reduce the amount of landform alteration associated with
development. 'Hillside District Guidelines incorporated into the specific plan will
serve to minimize grading and landform alteration impacts and promote the
integration of development design with existing topographical features onsite (see
Mitigation Measures listed in. Attachment 1).
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with
subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature
of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of project design considerations and
mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or
further discretionary actions as set forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Development of the project site under any of the
project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative will result in
impacts to the existing topography of the study area. It is recognized that
alternatives requiring less development than the current proposal provide the
potential for le~ impacts on the existing topography. More specifically, the Existing
General Plan Alternative proposes less development and would require less area
subject to grading if large lots with natural contours/features were utilized
extensively. The Existing General Plan Alternative proposes less development than
· the current proposal (6,960 dwelling units vs. 7,950 dwelling units); however, the type
development allowed under both proposals (the existing general plan and the specific
plan) is the same for the hillside portions of the site (up to 2 alu/acre). Unless the
Existing General Plan Alternative adopted the grading restrictions identified in the
East Tustin Specific Plan, the hillside grading impacts of this alternative would be
greater than those of the current proposaL Other alternatives, including Maximum
Residential and Maximum Commercial Development would also require substantial
grading.
These alternatives were evaluated in the Eli{ and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
feets set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Geol~
Significant Effect - Development within the project site will subject future residents
to the potential for seismic activity. In addition to the potential for regional seismic
activity endemic to Southern California, the E1 Modena Fault which traverses the
northern portion of the site may be considered to be active.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see
Attachment 1) require that additional detailed geotechnical investigations be
conducted to further assess potential geologic hazards, including the potential active
status of the E1 Modena Fault. If the E1 Modena Fault is determined to be classified
as active, structural setbacks from the fault line will be required, and incorporated
into the project design. Also, all structures will be designed in accordance with
seismic design standards and the Uniform Building Code.
As stated above, additional specific mitigation measures may be required in
conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary
actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are
described in Attachment 2.
Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final lgIR.
Facts in SuD[~ort of Finding - Development of the project site under any of the
project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, would subject
future residents to the potential for local and regional seismic activity.
These alternatives Were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Hydrolo~/Water Quality
Significant Effects - Surface runoff and drainage flows will increase from site
development. Conversion of the project site from agricultural uses to urban uses will
alter the existing quality of surface runoff and water percolation.
FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The project proposal includes a drainage/flood control
concept plan intended to provide for the development of a system which adequately
accommodates increased runoff flows. Integrated with this concept plan will be
detailed drainage/hydrology studies prepared at design levels of planning. The
preparation, review and approval of these studies and resultant drainage/flood
control improvements will be coordinated with the City of Tustin and the Orange
County Environmental Management Agency and other local jurisdiction (i.e., City of
Irvine), as appropriate, relative to each agency's jurisdiction for affected
drainage/flood control facilities (see Mitigation Measures in Attachment 1).
Similarly, detailed erosion control measures and pollution control plans will be
developed and implemented as appropriate at detailed levels of planning. Design and
implementation of erosion control plans will be coordinated with the California
.Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Aha Region. Continued participation in
the Upper Newport Bay Sedimentation Control Plan program by the City of Tustin
and The Irvine Company being the project applicants, will facilitate the
incorporation of erosion/pollution control measures into the project design and
operation.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with
subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature
of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set '
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Development of the project site under any of the
project alternatives, with the exception of the N(~ Project Alternative, would result
in increased surface runoff and drainage flows. Although less development is
proposed under the existing general plan alternative, the absence of a golf course,
and development most likely being distributed throughout the project site would
result in the amount of impervious surface being comparable, if not greater than,
that of the current proposal. In such case, the associated runoff impacts of this
alternative would be similar to or greater than the current project's impacts. The
drainage/flood control improvements required for this alternative would be basically
the same as currently proposed, however, the costs for such improvements would be
assigned to a smaller development base. Hydrology impacts associated with other
project alternatives, including Maximum Residential Development and Maximum
Commercial Development, would be eomparuble to those of the current proposal.
Relative to potential erosion/water pollution impacts, all of the alternatives
proposing urban development would have impacts similar in nature. The No Project
Alternative would allow continued operation of agricultural activities within the
project site. Continued agricultural land uses would aisc cause ongoing water quality
impacts resulting in erosion/sedimentation and surface runoff/percolation (i.e.,
pesticides, herbacides, etc.) even under current agricultural Best Management
Practices. Consequently, water q,,Al{ty impacts would not be lessened under this
alternative.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, . unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth .above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Significant Effect - Development of the project site will result in the removal of
much of the existing onsite vegetation and the associated loss of wildlife habitat.
Existing onsite vegetation associations which would be impacted include agricultural;
eucalyptus groves; grassland; coastal sage scrub; riparian brush; and freshwater
marsh. This project, in itself and in conjunction with other past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant cumulative adverse
impact on existing biological resources in the project vicinity.
FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avOid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The. most notable biological resources are located
primarily in the northern portion of the project site. The project land use plans
propose lower intensity land uses in the northern portion of the site which enhances
the potential of retaining existing vegetation/habitat to the extent possible and
feasible. Specific Plan provisions Rllowing the clustering of development further
enhances this potential for retaining biological resources. The Specific Plan provides
for a potential regional park within the site which, if approved, would significantly
reduce the amount of vegatation/habitat removal associated with the project.
Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see Attachment 1) delineate other
measures whioh serve to reduce potential impacts to biological resources. Several of
these measures provide general direction and guidance for the development and
implementation of more specific mitigation measures at detailed levels of planning.
For example, the preservation of existing biological features will be considered in
the future selection and design of neighborhood parks. Although such determinations
would typically be made at more detailed levels of planning, some design/land use
concepts for retaining existing biological resources are included in current project
plans. These include retaining the onsite redwood grove in a neighborhood park, and
increasing the water supply to the onsite freshwater marsh to enhance the biological
and aesthetic value of the local area. As not. ed below, future studies associated with
the project proposal may require additional measures for mitigating potential
impacts. For example, any alterations and/or development proposed in the riparian
areas ad]'acent to the two natural stream channels onsite would first require
obtaining a 1603 permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. The 1603
permit process includes a thorough investigation of potential biological impacts and
the development and implementation of mitigation measures as appropriate.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with
subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature
of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project' or further discretionary actions as set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Additional changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other
public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted
by such other agencies.
Facts in Support of Findings - The determination of specific measures to mitigate
impacts on wetland and riparian areas along the two onsite stream courses will occur
through the 1603 Permit proc. ess, and, if required, the 404 Permit process. These
processes are within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, respectively.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Implementation of any of the urban development
alternatives would require removal of most of the existing onsite vegetation.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the' reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Cultural Resm~rees
S..ignificant Effect - Development of the project site presents the potential for
impacts to five archaeological sites located within the study area. Also, a portion of
The Irvine Company Agricultural Headquarters complex, which may be of historic
significance, is located within an area proposed for urban uses and could be
impacted.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see
Attachment 1) require that additional detailed studies of the archaeological sites and
of the agricultural headquarters complex be conducted to clearly identify the nature
and extent, as well es the significance, of these cultural resources. These studies
will provide the basis for developing and implementing appropriate specific
mitigation measures in accordance with Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources
Code.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final BIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - With the ex_eeption of the No Project Alternative,
development under any of the project alternatfves presents the same potential for
impacts to ~nsite cultural resources.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Land Use
Significant Effect (a) Development of the project site will result in the gradual
conversion of existing agricultural and open space uses onsite to urban uses. This
project, in conjunction, with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects,
will have' a significant cumulative impact on the intensity of land use in the project'
vicinity.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in SuDDort of Finding - The land use plan, regulations and design concepts
incorporated in the specific plan serve to facilitate land use compatibility both
within the project site and adjacent to the project site. Land use and design features
incorporated into the project proposal are intended to be responsive to the existing
residential uses adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Similar to nearby
existing development, the uses proposed along the western portion of the site are
limited to single-family detached residential development with densities
progressively decreasing from south to north. The proposed density ranges are
generally comparable to the existing densities within the subject area.
Ail significant environmental effects th~{ can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lesseneaL by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set
.forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other, considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The conversion of the project site from open space and
agricultural uses would only be avoided under the No Project Alternative. The No
Project Alternative, however, would be inconsistent with the General Plan objective
of developing urban uses within the project site. The Maximum Residential and
Maximum Commercial Alternatives would result in land use intensities comparable
to or greater than those of the current proposal. The Existing General Plan
Alternative provides for a lesser intensity of development than currently proposed.
However, the reduced development associated with this alternative would make the
provision of 150 acres of open space and recreational uses infeasible, and would
increase the per capita share of infrastructure/improvement costs. Development
under the Existing General Plan Alternative would aLRo not provide the commercial
and employment opportunities which are provided by the current proposal. Relative
to the compatibility of proposed uses with existing uses along the western boundary
of the site, the Existing General Plan alternative would not offer much advantage
over the current project proposal. .&long the western border of the site, both
proposals allow up to 2 du/acre in the northern hillside areas; and in the central and
southern portions the allowable density would only be reduced by 1 du/acre under the
existing general plan (5 du/acre vs. 4 alu/acre).
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effeot is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations Attached
hereto.
Significant Effect (b) - Development of the project site will expose future residents
to potential impacts from military flight operations within the corridors, particularly
the Browning Corridor.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The project land use plan includes a 150-acre golf
course beneath the Browning Corridor. This land use concept reduces the extent of
urban development in close proximity to flight operations within the Browning
Corridor, and al.~o provides a relatively safe emergency landing area, should the need
arise.
Also, the Specific Plan incorporates provisions of the Browning Corridor agreement
which is intended to enhance the compatibility of military flight operations with
nearby urban uses.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Project Alternative,
development under any of the project alternatives would expose future residents to
potential impacts from military flight operation, s. Although the Existing General
Plan Alternative proposes less development than the current proposal, the Existing
General Plan Alternative would allow greater proportion of development located
beneath or near the Browning Corridor due to the absence of a large golf course or
open space area.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current propesal for the reasons cited above, as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining unavodable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Relevant Planning Pr~ms
Significant Effect - This project, in itself and in conjunction with past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects, will exceed SCAG growth projections for the
area. As such, the project, both individually and cumulatively, will have a significant
adverse impact on planning programs which are based on the SCAG growth
projections. Specifically, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan is based on
the SCAG 82A Growth Forecasts.
FINDING i - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in SUDDOrt of Finding - Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see
Attachment 1) include the requirement that during the preparation and review of
subdivision maps for the project, measures whieh can provide for reductions in air
pollution emissions (i.e., ridesharing, alternative transportation modes, public transit)
be identified and incorporated into subdivision map conditions, as feasible and
appropriate.
Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the fihal EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Project Aiternative,
development under any of the project alternatives would exceed the SCAG growth
projections, both individ,mlly and cumulatively. Even the Existing General Plan
Alternative which allows'up to 6,950 dwelling units would exceed the SCAG
projection for Tustin which indicates an increase of 5,942 dwelling units in 1985-
2000.
As discussed in Sections 5.0 and 8.0 of the DEIR, the project provides significant
housing resources in proximity to major employment centers. On a regional basis,
this can significantly reduce regional VMT by providing housing for workers who
would otherwise have to commute from Southern Orange County or Riverside County
residential areas. This concentration of housing in close proximity to major
employment centers thus carries out specific SCAG regional development policies
reviewed in other environmental documents (i.e., Il'vine Center EIR). Similarly, the
inclusion of employment and commercial centers in the project proposal allows for a
more ba]aneed plan with potential traffic impacts correspondingly reduced (see De.__[1
Mar vs. San Diego (1982) 183 Cal. App. 898 and 905-905).
Project alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of
the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Resources
S!l[nificant Effect - Implementation of the project proposal will ultimately result in
the elimination of existing agricultural activities and loss of farm]and. This project,
in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will
have a significant cumulative adverse impact on farm]and and agricultural
production in the project vicinity.
FINDING I - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The only projeet alternative or mitigation measure
which would avoid the loss of farmland and elimination of agricultural activities is
that of No Project. However, this alternative is not consistent with the city and
county general plans which designate the site for urban development. Furthermore,
maintaining the project site as farmland with continued agricultural production
activities is not considered to be a long-term viable use of the site. Several factors
currently limit the agricultural polential of the site, including, but not limited to,
the economic lifespan of existing crops and orchards, market demand conditions and
operation costs, particularly water costs. All other project alternatives which were
evaluated in EIR 85-2 would have, basically, the same agricultural impacts as the
current project proposal
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
,,,qx,rta tion/ cireulation
Significant Effect (a) - This project, individually and in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant adverse
impact on traffic and circulation. With the addition of up to 166,077 average daily
trips at buildout, roadways and intersections in the project vicinity will be impacted.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final Eli{.
Facts in Support of Finding - The East Tustin Specific Plan includes a circulation
plan intended to. provide an adequate cire,,1Ation system for project traffic, and
mitigate impacts on the existing circulation system. Circulation system
improvements proposed as part of the project will serve to lessen project impacts as
well as mitigate cumulative traffic impacts expected to result from area-wide
traffic increases (see Attachment 1). Specifically, the proposed I-5/Jamboree Road
interchange will lessen project impacts on the existing I-5/Red Hill interchange, as
well as lessen cum,_,~Rtive'imp.acts on the interchange. The project's fair share
contribution to the costs of improving Irvine Boulevard from four to six lanes, from
Newport Avenue to Browning, will serve to mitigate project traffic impacts on the
Subject roadway.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with
subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature
of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Additional changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other
public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted
by such other agencies.
Facts in Support of Finding - A number of regional circulation system improvements
which will ultimately influence the nature and extent of East Tustin traffic impacts
are currently being studied. Most notably, the Eastern Transportation Corridor Study
and the Bottleneck Study address regional transportation facilities which are in the
immediate vicinity of the project site. Both studies are currently considering
numerous alternatives relative to future roadway alignments and the utilization
and/or improvement of existing circulation facilities in the project vicinity. The
project plan does reflect efforts to accommodate Bottleneck options as evidenced in
the proposed retention of right-of-way for the Old Myford overcrossing (see
Mitigation Measure 31 of Attachment 1). The ultimate selection and implementation
of preferred alternatives would influence the distribution of project traffic, and
could influence land use patterns within the project site as welL The subject studies
are only in conceptual stages at this time, and the responsibility for the studies lies
primarily with the County of Orange. and the Orange County Transportation
Commission. As such, it is not possible at this time for the City of Tustin to
incorporate changes or alterations into the project which respond directly to these
future regional circulation system improvements.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the.
project alternatives identified in the final BIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Project Alternative, all of
the project alternatives would generate a substantial amount of traffic. Of the
development alternatives, the Existing General Plan Alternative would generate the
least amount of traffiC. This alternative would generate approximately 103,000 daily
trips as compared to the 166,000 daily trips generated by the current proposal.
Traffic from this alternative would still have a significant impact on surrounding
streets and intersections. Cumulative impacts associated with this alternative would
also be significant. Due to this alternative's smaller development base as compared
to the current proposal, impacts relative to the funding of circulation improvements,
both exclusive to the project site and in fair-share contributions to of f site
improvements, would be more adverse. The potential inability of a smaller
development base to fund proposed major circulation improvements such as the
I-5/Jamboree Road interchange would result in greater impacts on existing facilities,
both from project traffic and area-wide traffic, should these improvements not
occur. Other project alternatives, including Maximum Residential Development and
Maximum Commercial Development provide a greater potential for funding traffic
system improvements, but would generate traffic volumes comparable to the current
proposal
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited .above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Significant Effects (b) - The proposed easterly extension of Lower Lake Drive,
Foothill Boulevard and La CoLina will result in a substantial increase in non-project
related through traffic over current leveL~ near the roadway's existing termini.
FINDING 2 - Additional changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect are within the respo.nsibility and jurisdiction of other
public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted
by such other agencies.
Facts in Support of Finding - The easterly extension of Lower Lake Drive, Foothill
Boulevard and La Colina within the study area provides for consistency with the
Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It is assumed that in designating
these roads as commuter level facilities, the County of Orange has undertaken the
necessary planning studies to ensure that such designation is appropriate. The
improvement of these roadways as through streets as dictated by the Orange County
MPAH will increase non-project related through traffic near the existing roadway
termini. The resultant traffic volumes are within the capacities of the roadways'
designations as determined by the County of Orange.
The City of Tustin can and will ma~e efforts to minimize impacts, to the extent
possible, at the proposed westerly connections (i.e., requiring as part of subdivision
review and approval, that the proposed circulation design and roadway alignments
are of a character which discourages through traffic' and serves only neighborhood
traffic). However, the ultimate responsibility for mitigating impacts associated with
implementing the MPAH lies with the County of Orange.
A~r Quality
Significant Effect - This project individually and in conjunction with other past,
present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in an incremental
degradation of air quality.
FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or' incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings - Mitigation measures for the project require that steps
to reduce air pollution emissions be evaluated and integrated in the project as part of
subdivision map review and approval (see Attachment 1).
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Su[~[:~ort of Finding - With the exception of the No Project Alternative, each
of the alternatives considered for the project will result in an incremental
degradation of air quality. The extent of such degradation will depend on the
intensity of development proposed by each alternative.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for 'the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Acoustic Enviroament
Si~mtifieant Effect - Development of the project site will result in short-term
construction noise impacts and a long-term increase in the ambient noise levels in
and around the project site. This project, in itself and in conjunction with other past,
present and foreseeable future projects wLLI have a significant cumulative adverse
impact on roadway noise levels in the area.
FINDING i - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - In the event that construction noise becomes a
significant problem, the city can limit construction hours to normal weekday working
hours. PreLiminary noise barrier recommendations are included in the mitigation
measures for the project (see Attachment 1), and wLll be considered and refined as
necessary, at detailed levels of planning. Also, a condition of approval for the
project requires documenting that development is adequately mitigated from
significant noise impacts.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with
subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature
of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final BIR.
Facts in Support of Findings - Noise impacts to or from the project would only be
avoided under the No Project Alternative. Due to the existing vacant status of the
project site, any of the development alternatives would result in a significant
increase in ambient noise levels in and around the project site.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced 'against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
Si~fifieant Effect - Implementation of the project proposal in itself and in
conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects will result in a
significant increase in the demand for and utilization of public services and
utilities. More specifically, the project proposal will: require the addition of police
and fire protection personnel and facilities; increase demands on library facilities;
require the provision of additional parks and recreation facilities; generate
substantial quantities of solid waste and wastewater; increase the demand for and
consumption of resources such as eleetieity, natural gas and water; increase demands
for public school services; and facilities and increase demands for public transit.
FINDING i - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings - Numerous mitigation measures are or will be as part of
future approvals incorporated into the project to mitigate impacts on public services
and utilities (see Attachment 1). Such mitigations include the provision of
infrastructure concept plans (i.e., water and sewer plans) as part of the Specific
Plan, conservation measures and close coordination with affected ageneies.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with
subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature
of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation 'measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Additional changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other
public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted
by such other agencies.
Facts in Support of Finding -The responsibility for measures to mitigate potential
impacts on schools ultimately lies with the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD).
Such mitigation measures would include the following:
Potential impacts on TUSD facilities can be mitigated through the
provisions of the School Facilities Mitigation Agreement of August 5,
1985, and the mitigation agreement of January 27, 1986. Mitigation
through the latter agreement will cecur by the following:
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 prior to the first tentative
tract map approval, TUSD and TIC agree to cooperate in developing a
separate mitigation agreement covering the development which the
subject of the first tentative tract map which will satisfy the
conditions 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
as necessary.
The following mitigation measures are recommended by the State
Departments of General Services and Education and the State Allocation
Board as feasible measures to be considered by school districts to
minimize school district impacts:
A. Operational Measures
o Reopen and renovate previously closed school district facilities ti
maximize utilization of existing facilities.
o Insure maximum utilization of existing school space through
possible reorganization.
o Implementation of extended day or year schedules.
o Utilizing available neighboring district space.
B. Financing Alternatives
Implementation of developer (SB 201) fees or impact fees to
provide for interim educational facilities, as a result of
overorowding.
o Sale or lease of excess school district property to finance
renovation or new construction of required facilities.
Implementation of the Leroy Green State School lease/purchase
law. The emphasis of the act is to reeonstruct or replace those
existing school buildings which are educationally inadequate or
which do not meet present-day structural safety requirements and
to acquire new school sites and buildings for the purpose of making
them available to local school districts for the pubi]s of the public
school system
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. This act involves the
formation of a community facilities district to finance school
facilities construction through the use of bond monies. This. type
of district must be approved by a majority of the registered voters
living within the Mello-roos district.
FINDING $ - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in SUDDOrt of Findings - With the exception of the No Project Alternative, all
of the project alternatives would result in a demand 'for public services and
utilities. It is recognized, however, that the level of demands will depend on the
development intensity of the project alternatives.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerat{ons attached
hereto.
Si[~nificant Effect - Development at the project site in itself, and in conjunction with
past, present and foreseeable future projects, will alter the visual character and
aesthetic qualities of the area.
FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - The land use plan, development regulations and design
guidelines incorporated in the East Tustin Specific Plan are intended to provide for
'an aesthetically pleasing development and integrate development with the natural,
rural qualities of the area. Development in the northern hillside areas 'will be of a
low intensity and will be subject to hillside district guidelines which are intended to
help maintain the existing character of the area (see Attachment 1). The extension
of the proposed golf course through the central and southern portions at the site is
intended to maintain a significant open space character near areas of higher
intensity lsnd uses. In addition, the provision of extensive landscaping throughout
the site will enhance the aesthetic character of future development.
Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with
subseqi~ent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature
of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in
Attachment 2.
All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in
the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set
forth above.
FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding - With the exception of the No Project Alternative,
development of the project site under any of the other project alternatives would
substantially alter the vistml character of the study area, as well as the current
project proposal. The overall development character of the project site would most
likely be less intense under the Existing General Plan Alternative, as compared to
the current proposal, but would lack the aesthetic benefits of having a 150-acre golf
course integrated with urban development.
These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the
public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the
current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in
Attachment 3.
The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
hereto.
ATTACHMENT 1
L~.~ OF MITIGATION MF_,A,SURES
Landform/Topography
Detailed grading plans (in conformance with established city procedures)
further defining project earthwork requirements, will be developed during
subsequent, more detailed levels of planning (i.e., site plan or tentative
tract map preparation stages) and will be subject to the review and
approval of the city.
All applicable policies of the Hillside District Guidelines in regard to
landform modifications will be applied in order to achieve a design concept
that minimizes grading and landform alteration impacts. (See Section 2.13
and 2.14 of the Specific Plan text for a complete listing of applicable
policies). A partial listing of such concepts include the following:
®. Cluster development to minimize grading impacts and/or retain natural
features,
· Design roadways to conform to existing topography, where feasible;
consider modified road standards to reduce adverse grading impacts.
· Grading should incorporate openslope areas (graded or natural) which
are landscaped and provide an appearance of a natural hillside.
e
Ail graded slopes (cut or fill), including roadsides, should undergo
permanent re-vegetation in a timely manner to minimize chance of
erosion and siltation.
· The natural profile and landform character of the onsite knoll shown on
Exhibit 7 of the DEIR should be maintained.
Geology
The mitigation measures for geologic impacts are principally standardized
engineering recommendations and will encompass the following:
Removal of eolluvium, sIluvium, topsoil, landslide debris and artificial fill
to suitable foundation earth materials will be required prior to placement
of fill in areas where these deposits occur. Specific grading
recommendations for removal depths will be determined as part of future,
more detailed geoteehnieal studies (see No. 3 below).
Further slope stability investigations, as recommended by the geotechnical
consultant, will be conducted pursuant to required future geotechnical
studies for the areas of potential slope instability within the proposed
limits of development. The level of detail will vary with the local
geologic conditions. In most cases, a subsurface geologic investigation will
be required to evaluate critical lithologic and structural geological
interpretations. In general, conclusions pertaining to'slope stability in
these preliminary studies should be clearly presented and supported by
adequate geologic maps, cross-sections, and supporting engineering data.
Technical review for adequacy of all such reports should be accomplished
in accordance with current practice. Reviewing agencies have found that
compliance with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, which regulates
earthwork and grading, is important in the mitigation of slope instability
during {he actual grading pbs~e of development. Should unfavorable slide
conditions be encountered, they may be removed during grading or
stabilized by means of buttressing or reorientation of slope direction.
Detailed geotechnical and soils engineering reports will 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 exeavational
(ripping) difficulties, surficial material removals, cut and fill slopes,
expansive soils, faults and liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of
roadway stream crossinge).
As part of t~e subsequent geoteehnieal studies currently in process,
additional analysis is being conducted to determine the exact status of the
E1 Modena fault. If it is concluded that the fault can be considered to be
active, additional detailed analysis shall be conducted to determine the
exact location and extent of the fault. This investigation will serve to
define the location and width of a structural setback zone for the fault.
All struetures will be designed in accordance with the seismic design
provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to prdmote safety in the event of
an earthquake.
Erosion potential can be reduced by utilizing rapid developing planting
techniques (e.g., hydroseeding), replacement with cohesive soils not
subject to erosion, and construction of terrace drain systems.
Hydrology/Water ~}uality
The East Tustin Specific Plan-Drainage/Flood Control Concept Plan
incorporates improvements designed to alleviate existing onsite
drainage/flooding problems, as well as accommodate increased runoff
flows associated with proposed land uses. Many of the plans for onsite and
offsite drainage improvements are at a conceptual state only, due to the
absence of detailed project data at this time. At more detailed levels of
project planning (e.g., tentative tract map level), detailed drainage/
hydrology studies will address existing onsite drainage flooding problems
and increased runoff flows associated with proposed land uses, and will
incorporate proposed specific mitigation measures addressing these
drainage needs. Said studies shall demonstrate that proposed improve-
ments will ensure that the proposed development will not be subject to
drainage/flooding hazards, and the proposed improvements are integrated
and compatible with adjoining drainage facilities. These studies and
measures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Tustin Public
Works Department. As the overall plan is fhn_~llzed, specific drainage
improvements for Peters Canyon Wash (FO6), E1 Modena-Irvine Channel
(FO'/) and tributary county facilities (FO'/SO2, FO'/P35 and FO'/POS) shall
be subject to review and approval by Orange County Environmental
Management Agency Flood Control District. Also, drainage
improvements proposed at the Santa Ana Freeway shall be subject to
review and approval by Caltrans, as appropriate.
10.
Erosion control measures will be developed and incorporated into final
grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in erosion and
sediment transport during the short-term construction phases. Such
measures could include the timely seeding of graded slopes, scheduling
major grading phases during the non-rainy season and the use of temporary
control measures, e.g., perimeter sandbagging. Said construction erosion
and sediment control plans for minimizing construction erosion will be
submitted to the City of Tustin for review and approval prior to issuance
of grading permits.
11.
Development of appropriate pollution control plans (e.g., a street sweeping
program, periodic storm drain system cleaning and developing landscape
plans which ~ontrol the use of fertilizer and pesticides) will be prepared
and implemented as a condition of subdivision map approval by the
Planning Commission. Long-term erosion 'and sediment control within
proposed development areas will be provided with the installation of
downdrains, terrace drains and brow ditches as necessary, and the
continued maintenance of slope vegetation.
12.
As provided for in the specific plan, developments within the northern
portio~ of the site, and especially in the hillside district areas, should
include open space areas left in a natural state where feasible.
13.
Landscaping guidelines provided in the specific plan should be adhered to
in an effort to preserve notable floral features (e.g., including but not
limited to eucalyptus windrow groves) where feasible; and supplement
remaining vegetation with similar or complementary plant species.
14. Several neighborhood parks are proposed within the specific plan, however,
their exact location has not been determined at this time. Consideration
should be given to selecting locations where notable biological features
can be incorporated into the park site. One example of such preservation
of biological features which is already incorporated into' the project
proposal is the specific plan requirement that the onsite redwood grove be
retained in a neighborhood park or other public right-of-way.
15.
Deed restrictions regulating the operation of motorized off-road vehicles
and limiting trail access into any open space areas should be considered for
protecting open space areas from potentially adverse influences.
16.
If determined to be sound and feasible from a hydrology and engineering
standpoint, increasing the water supply of the freshwater marsh will oceur
in order to increase the extent, health and diversity of this regionally
uncommon habitat. A functional freshwater marsh will enhance the
wildlife and aesthetic value of the local area.
17.
Additional analysis regarding potential impacts to riparian habitat will
occur through the 1603 permit process (Streambed Alteration Agreement--
State Department of Fish and Game). This analysis will include identifying
specific measures intended to minimize impacts on signifioant 'biological
resources. The implementation of such mitigation measures oan serve to
preserve significant or unique riparian habits. In addition to meeting, 1603
permit requirements, this process would also respond to the policy of the
Tustin Conservation-Open Space Element to "identify, designate and
preserve signifioant or unique riparian habitats."
18.
Consideration should be given to leaving specimen-sized eucalyptus trees
in place wherever possible for their value as roosting and perching sites for
birds.
19.
Revegetation should be accomplished on all graded and cut-and-fill areas
where structures or improvements are not eoustrueted. Consideration
should be given to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials, especially
species native to the foothills and coastal plains of Southern California.
Native plant material., should be derived from local stocks.
Cultural Resources
20.
Additional testing of the five recorded archaeological sites located within
the study area will be conducted to determine the areal extent and
significance of the sites. Based on the findings of such testing, specific
mitigation measures will be developed and implemented as appropriate.
Mitigation measures utilized for cultural resources typically include one or
more of the following:
Avoidance/Protection: Avoidance of a cultural resource can be the
most desirable form of mitigation from the perspectives of the devel-
oper, archaeological and Native American communities, however such
mitigation often poses a significant constraint to development plans.
Data Recovery: A second form of mitigation may be the excavation
of a~ large enough subsurface sample to provide an adequate sample of
the resource in question. If an adequate sample exists to characterize
the archaeological site, mitigation, in some cases, is deemed
complete. This data collection phase at some sites may actually be
accomplished as a result of the preliminary test phase if the site is
small,
Excavation/Preservation: A third mitigation of archaeological
resources is a combination of both excavation and partial preservation
of a resource.
21. Should human remains of native American Indians be encountered during
the project, the County Coroner's office will be contacted pursuant to the
procedures set forth in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
m~tori~l Atei~tteeUa~
22. The City of Tustin, County of Orange, and the applicant will evaluate the
historic district documentation to determine: (a) the precise boundary
approved for the district; and (b) the historic significance of structures
located within the district.
23.
24.
Prior to issuance of any building, grading, or demoliton permits, a
comprehensive documentation of the affected structures and area shall be
prepared by a qualified historian.
Prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permits, the local
historic society shall be notified and permitted to remove any artifact or
ephemora that illustrates the historic significance of the area or
structures.
Land Use
25.
Implementation of provisions within the East Tustin Specific Plan which
allow for th~ continuation of agricultural production activities within
portions of the site not subject to immediate development will serve to
delay the ultimate conversion of farmland/open space to urban uses (see
Section 3.8, Agricultural Resources).
26.
Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the
East Tustin Specific Plan will facilitate the orderly development of the
project and mitigate the potential for land use conflicts.
27.
Provisions within the East Tustin Specific Plan allow agricultural
production activities to continue outside of areas of development, which
could serve to incrementally reduce and postpone impacts associated with
the loss of a/~riculture.
28.
Housing program objectives presented in the Tustin Housing Element
include the construction of $00 affordable units (100 Iow income and 500
moderate income) within the East Tustin Specific Plan area by 1988. In
preparing more detailed development plans for the project (i.e., tentative
tract map), the project sponsor should work closeiy with the City of Tustin
in identifying and implementing programs to achieve this objective.
Programs which should be considered in such efforts include:
Bonding programs of the .state and county to enable below market
interest rate construction and long-term financing of residential
development projects.
e
Programs sueh as HUD Seetio~ 235 and California Housing Finance
Agency which provide interest reduetionfoelow-market interest
mortgage loans for the purchase of new homes.
Transportation/Cireu~-tion
Table A provides a summary of the traffic mitigation measures proposed for the
project. A more detailed description of each mitigation measure is presented below.
29.
Development of the East Tustin arterial street system should occur in
accordance to the proposed circulation plan identified in Section 3.10.2,
Impacts. This plan calls for the widening of existing arterials and the
construction of new facilities. The resulting system will. support East
Tustin development and will also provide capacity for other traffic. In
concert with the Jamboree interchange noted below, it will al~o provide
relief to other city streets such as Red Hill Avenue.
30.
An overcrossing of I-5 by Jamboree Road is currently on the Orange
County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Tustin
Arterial Highway Plan. This interchange is proposed as a key mitigation
measure for Eas~ Tustin. The interchange will provide more capacity than
will be used by East Tustin and hence will help relieve potential
deficiencies on the par~l]el Red Hill Avenue arterial corridor.
31.
The discussion in the previous section noted that without through traffie,
the eurrent four-lane section of Irvine Boulevard would be adequate for
City of Tustin traffic (including East Tustin). However, with the exception
of this section, Irvine Boulevard is a major arterial and as such has a
functional role of carrying a certain share of regional traffic. Since East
Tustin contributes to the increase in traffic on this facility, the mitigation
measure is for some fair share contribution for its improvement to six
lanes to be provided by the project.
32.
North-south traffic demands indicate that additional freeway crossings,
such as Browning and Old My-ford may be needed to supplement Red Hill,
Jamboree and Myford. The need for Old Myford will largely depend on the
level of regional capacity that will be provided by the Eastern
Transportation Corridor (ETC) and on the selected bottleneck solutions. To
a lesser extent, it will ml.~o depend on whether the Browning overerossing is
retained in the city's circulation system. Hence, it is recommended as a
mitigation measure that adequate right-of-way for Old Myford to be
reserved north and south of I-5 until a final need determination can be
made. At that time, a suitable fair share finding mechanism can be
devised if the facility is needed, or the right-of-way could revert to other
uses if it is not needed.
33.
The East Tustin land use plan places residential uses adjacent to the
e~stin& residential areas bordering F. ast Tustin. The intent is to provide a
continuity between the two areas rather than reinforce the present
border. One of the reasons for proposing two-lane connections from East
Tustin to the existing circulation sTstem is to encourage this ~ontinuity,
peovidip.~ convenient aeeeas into Fast Tustin from the existing residential
areas.
34.
On La Colina, leeal traffic and East Tustin traffic does not create a need
for more than the existing two-lane facility. The degree to which thru
traffic will use this route will depend on how convenient it is to use the
facility. Since the recommended plan leaves La Colina as a local street
every effort should be made to discourage thru traffic. A mitigation
measure, therefore, is to implement a thru traffic deterenee program as a
condition of subdivision map approval.
TABLE A
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
Location
Mitigation Measure
East Tustin Arterial
Street System
Widening:
Irvine Boulevard
Bryan Avenue
Myford Road
(I-5 to Irvine)
(6-lane major)
(4-lane primary)
(6-lane major)
New Highways:
Jamboree Road
Myford Road
(Irvine to Portola)
Myford Road
(North of Portola)
Laguna Road
Portola Parkway
(6-lane major)
(6-lane major)
(4-lane primary)
(4-lane collector)
(4-lane primary)
Jamboree/I-5 Interchange
6-lane overcrossing and full directional
interchange.
Irvine Boulevard, Newport
Avenue to Browning Avenue
Proposed in city Traffic Study to be widened
to 6-lane major arterial. East Tustin to
contribute fair share of cost.
Old Myford Overcrossing of I-5
Potential futurelink - depends on outcome of
]iTC and Bottleneck studies.. East Tustin to
preserve right-of-way until need for the link is
determined.
La Colina
Traffie operations strategies to minimize thru
traffic (if the Bottleneck Study does not select
La Colina as a thru route).
35.
In the review of subdivision maps for the East Tustin Specific Plan the
City of Tustin will review the need and provisions for_ measures
incorporated into the project which serve to mitigate air pollutant
emissions. Such measures which may be appropriate for the proposed
project include:
Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities should be provided within
all projects so as to facilitate and provide direct connections to
project and neighborhood activity modes and to ¢itywide bicycle
trails, and through footpaths for pedestrians.
B. Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting
public transit usage and providing secure bicycle facilities.
C. Provide mass transit accommodations; such as bus turnout lanes, park
and ride areas and bus shelters.
D. Construction activity dust generation shell be reduced through regular
watering as required by the SCAQMD Rule 403.
All projects within the East. Tustin project area should comply with
"reasonable available control measures" of the South Coast AQMP
which include:
· H-4 Flexible Work Schedules (for offices located in the project
area)°
· H-23 Increased Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities.
· H-35 Traffic Signal Synchronization.
® N-4 Energy-Conserving Street Lighting.
Provisions for and the encouragement of ridesharing would reduce air
quality impacts (and transportation/circulation impacts).
*A~J~ Environment
'36.
The prel/minary noise barrier recommendations delineated in Table 30
shall be considered Within the development of more detailed project plans
(i.e., site plan, tentative tract map). Barriers used within the project site
could be berm, wall or a combination berm and wall Walls. should not
contain holes or gaps, and should be constructed of slumpstone or other
masonry material. The noise barrier heights projected may. be reduced
considerably through site design, such as sethaek~ from the roadways,
grade separations and exterior living area orientation. Final noise barrier
heights should be determined when final grading plans are developed that
show lot locations, house setbacks and precise pad elevations.
PRELIMINARY NOISE BARRIER RECOMMF_~DATIONS
Roadway
Bryan Avenue
Irvine Boulevard
' Myford Road
Jamboree Road
Footl~i11 Boulevard
Lower Lake Drive
Barrier Height (feet)
4to 6
5 to8
5to8
5 to8
Oto 5
Oto5
Residential indoor mitigation measures can not be formulated until more
detailed site specific information is available. However, it should be noted
that areas along roadways listed in table above are of concern. TypicaLly
buildings with open windows only provide 12 dBA outdoor and indoor noise
reduction. In. areas where the noise level exceeds 57 CNBL the interior
standard of 45 CNEL will be achieved without additional measures. These
houses will be required to have eloseable windows and mechanical
ventilation must be provided to replace the loss of natural ventilation.
Mechanical ventilation or a "summer switch" system as it is commonly
referred to, allows the use of the heater fan to oireulate the room air with
fresh air. Additionally, buildings upgrades may need to be required, such
as additional glazing or wall construction.
37.
All residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present
and project noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the
project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor
living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable
rooms. Evidence prepared under the supervision of acoustical consultant
that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with
applicable zoning regulations shs]] be submitted as follows:
Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prio~ to the
issuance of grading permits, at the discretion of the city, an
acoustical analysis report shall be submitted to the Tt/stin Community
Development Department for approval. The report shall describe in
detail the exterior noise envronment and preliminary mitigation
measures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise
standards may be included in the report in which case it may also
satisfy "B" below.
Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical analysis r
report describing the acoustical design features of the structures
required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be
submitted to the Tustin Community Development Department for
approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the
sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical
report(s) have been incorporated into the desgn of the project.
Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field
testing in accordance with the Title 25 regulations may be reqired by
the Manager, Building Inspection Division, to verify compliance with
STC and IIC desgn standards.
Publi~ Servi~s and Utilities
· PoUee Protection Se~riees
38.
The project sponsor shall work closely with the police department to
. ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project.
The provision of adequate security precautions includes eonstruetion
phases of the project. -Such security could include construction fences and
private security patrol PoUce sarviees to the development ~ill be
enhanced through the provision of adequate street lighting, clearly marked
street names and building numbers and security hardware.
Fire Protection Services
39.
The project sponsor sh~11 work closely with the Orange County Fire
Department to ensure that adequate fire safety precautions are
implemented in the project. Spec/fie fire protection needs will be
evaluated and provided for at the subdivision level of project processing.
40.
All development in the Hillside Distriot, generally most of the area north
of Racquet Hills Drive, shall be subject to the guidelines established in the
September 1976 Fire Protection Planning Task Force Report adopted by
the Orange County Board of Supervisors and entitled "Fire Hazard
Back,roUnd Report and Recommendations FOr The Reduction of Fire
Hazard At The Natural Open SDaee/Urban Development Interface Orange
County, California." If this report is amended at a later date, the most
current amendments would be utilized, as appropriate.
41. Fire retardant roofing materials, Class A minimum sh~]] be used on
~truetures occurring within the Hillside District.
Parks and Recreation
42.
Development of park and recreation facilities proposed within the East
Tustin Specific Plan area will serve to minimize potential impacts on
existing park and recreation facilities, while serving the recreation needs
of residents of the project area.
43.
The following water conservation measures will be implemented as
required by state law:
o
O
Low-flush toilets (Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code).
Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code,
Title 24, Park 6, Article 1, T20-1406F).
Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California
Energy Commission regulations).
The project also will comply with water conservation provisions of the
appropriate plumbing code.
44. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible.
45.
46.
47.
Wastewater
Use mulch extensively, where feasible, in all landscaped areas. Mulch
applied to top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by
reducing evaporation and soil compaction.
Preserve and protect existing trees where feasible. Established plants are
often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to
establish replacement vegetation.
lnst~ll efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation
and maximize the amount of water which will reach the plant roots. Drip
irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few
methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
48. Water conservation
wouM reduce wastewater flows' from the site.
49.
measures as those recommended in Seetion 3.13.7
Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards
set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
50. The following energy conservation techniques should also be considered:
Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design and orientation,
such as the use of solar water and space heating technologies, should be
considered.
Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new structures
and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling energy .use.
WA11% ceiling, floors, windows and hot water lines should be insulated
to prevent heat loss or gain.
Energy efficient lighting (e.g., high pressure sodium outdoors and
fluorescent indoors) should be used rather than less efficient types of
lighting. Maximum use of natural lighting should be made during
edaylight hours.
51. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult with SCE during the
building design phase for further energy conservation measures.
52. The developers of the project will work closely with $CE on the
development and installation of electrical 'facilities.
53. Facilities will be placed underground wherever feasible.
54. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards
set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative code.
55. Energy Conservation techniques should also be considered:
Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design and orientation,
such as the use of solar water and space heating technologies, should
be considered.
· Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new
structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling
energ7 use.
· Ws~11.%'ceilJng, floors, windows and hot water lines should be insulated
to prevent heat loss or gain.
56. It is recommended that the developer consult the Southern CaHfornia Gas
Company for methods of conservation during buildin~ design phases.
57. The developer will consult with SCG during the design phase to ensure
efficient development and installation of natural gas facilities.
58. The developer will work with Pacific Bell Telephone to ensure adequate
lead Lime for efficient upgrading of facilities prior to construction.
Public ~ortation
59. Setbacks should be kept to the minimum requirements in order to shorten
walking distances from stops to residents for transit riders.
60. Pedestrian and handicapped access should be provided through landscaping,
with accompanying breaks in barrier walls.
61. Passenger amenities, such as waiting areas, sidewalks, shelters and
benches should be provided at each stop.
Aesthetic and V'~al Reso~s
62. In the hillside area measures set forth in the East Tustin Specific Plan,
I-]{ll.~ide District Guidelines will be 'implemented with project
development. The objective of design guidelines is to enhance the visual
harmony between existing landforms and the new development. The
summary below provides those district guidelines directly applicable to
visual resources. The Hillside District Guidelines can be found in their
entirety in Section 3.13 of the East Tustin Specific Plan.
Ae
Consideration should be g/yen to the p~eservation or enhancement of
significant natural features which can be seen from public places.
· Site buildings and alien roadways to maximize public visual
exposure to major natural features such as the north-south Peters
Canyon ricl~eline, the redwood/cedar ~-ove, the knoll and major
tree stands where retained.
On slope areas generally steeper than 25 percent, typical padded
lot solutions should be avoided. Minimize grading by ~arefully
siting buildings and roadways to conform with the natural
topography.
· Structures should be sited so that roof slope follows slope of
natural grade.
Be
Preserve the open space values of the central Peters Canyon ridge by
excluding buildings and overhead utility lines from being developed on
the top of the ridgeline and by careful siting of structures and
landscaping adjacent to the ridgeline,
· Site the top of roof lines and structure so that they occur below
the elevation of the ridgetop.
· Siting of proposed structures and the use of plant materials so that
the maximum concealment of cut slopes is created.
Ce
Where feasible, grading and siting practice should reflect the natural
topography of the land, and minimize Creation of excessively large
level areas by grading.
Where level pads are required, the pads should conform to the
direction of the contours when this type of solution does not
conflict with desirable drainage solutions.
When feasible, where level areas are needed, grading concepts
should provide variety in the steepness of slopes and their
configuration. Where major reeontouring is proposed, especi_~lly in
the lower, more gently sloping hilMides, the concept of contour
~rading should be used to blend the graded slopes with the natural
undulating character of the hillside landform.
63.
D. Grading on hillside areas should soften hard edges left by cut-and-fill
operations where an advers~ visual impact may occur.
Create slopes, either cut or fill that are adjacent to roadways
should be graded in such a way that an undulating appearance in
the graded plane is provided, for a more pleasing visualappearance
to the road.
In the fiatland area, measures included in the Urban Design Guidelines
section of the East Tustin Specific Plan (Section 2.12), should be
implemented with project development. These guidelines include
landscaping directly adjacent to the street right-of-ways.
Addition! Mitigation Measures
64.
"Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Tustin for
the East Tustin Specific Plan (]~TSP) area, the development agreement
shAH be reviewed in light of the ETSP EIR to' assess whether the associated
impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that
additional environmental documentation is required for the development
agreement, said documentationshall be completed prior to the approval of
the agreement."
ATTACHMENT 2
FlYruR]l STUD~
Consistent with the requireme.nts of CEQA and the Guidelines, BIB 85-2 discusses
environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence.
To that end, the-E1R recognizes that certain areas of impact from the proposed
project are unlikely to occur, or if potentially occurring, can be mitigated to a level
of insignificance by imposition of conditions to further levels of project approval
(i.e., subdivision maps, ~radin~ permits, etc.). Moreover it was determined in the
process of pre@arin~ BIR 85-2 that, given the level of specificity of plannir~ for the
project, these impacts could be more comprehensively addressed coincident with the
detail to be required as part of future discretionary actions. The following
constitute the subsequent technical studies that will be needed and prepared
concurrent with further discretionary approvals, as appropriate, with respect to the
East Tustin Specific Plan development.
1. Geology and soil investigations, including additional analysis as to. the
activity status of the FA Modena Fault.
2. Demonstration of the application of contour grading criteria.
3. Erosion and pallution (surface water) control plans.
4. Detailed hydrologic and flood control plans.
5. Archaeological/test-level investigations and final
recommendations..
6. Investigation of the potential historical significance of The Irvine
Company Agricultural Headquarters complex.
7. Detailed site-specific acoustical analyses.
8. Irdrastrueture engineering plans.
mitigation
The City Council therefore finds, based upon all data currently available, that whil~
no significant adverse impacts beyond those discussed in FAR 85-2 are expected to be
discovered as a result of any of these subsequent, focused studies, the requirement
for such studies as a condition to the Bast Tustin' Specific Plan and the reservation of
the power to incorporate any measures required to mitigate any disclosed impacts to
insignificant levels in a timely manner, is itself adequate mitigation for any impacts
disclosed by such subsequent surveys and studies, however unlikely.
ATT&CHMF~T 3
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives to the e~rent project proposal were identified and evaluated in
EIR 85-2 (see Section 6,0 of the DEIR), The following provudes a brief description of
the project alternatives and an explanation of why each one was rejected in favor of
the current project proposal,
Altm'~tie 6.1, No Project would prevent development from occurring onsite and
would effectively preserve the existing agricultural and open space land uses at the
site for a limited number of years. As discussed in the DELE, the continued use of
the site for agvieultural open space uses is not a viable long-term use of the site, nor
is it consistent with the existing general plan which designates the site for urban
uses. As all environmental impacts would be avoided under this alternative, it is
elea~ly considered to be an environmentally superior option to the project. This
alternative was rejected, however, because it fails to provide for the objectives
established for the project, and is eont~ to the goals, objectives and Provisions of
the Tustin General Plan which designate the East Tustin area for uFoan development.
Alternattv~ 6.3, Existin~ General Plan would allow the project site to be developed
under the existing general plan land use designations. Compared to the current
project proposal, the development of uses of a lower intensity would afford the
advantage of less traffic generation which in turn would result in less air pollutant
emissions and roadway noise increases. Although the traffic volumes would be less
under this alternative, the ability to adequately accommodate project traffic would
-l.~o be less, due to a smaller development base associated with this alternative; the
funding of major circ~]l_~tion improvements to serve the project and area wide traffic
would therefore become more difficult. The existing general plan land use
des~ations provide for very little commercial, emplOYment and recreation uses to
support the residential development. Development under this alternative would not
provide for the variety of housing types as does the current proposal and would also
make the currently proposed 150-acre golf course/open space area infeasible. Based
.'primarily on such ]snd use balance considerations, this alternative was rejected in
favor of the current proposal.
Alternative 6.3, Maximum ttesident/m! Devel~ment provides for a greater number of
residential units and less commercial uses than the currently proposed project. The
relative advantages would include less traffic generation especially during peak
travel hours, less mobile source air and noise pollution and a ~'eater contribution in
the number and type of units added to the city's existin~ housing stock. The
disadvantages include greater impacts on public services and utilities especially
public schools, greater demands on limited existing commercial and employment land
uses and the exposure of more dwelling units to existin~ noise sources, particularly
militar~ aircraft noise. As the apparent disadvan~ates exceeded the advantages, this
aiternative was rejected in favor of the current project proposal
Alternatve 6.4, Maximum Commereuai Develeimment provides for more commercial
and less residential development than the current proposal. The primary advantages
of this alternative include greater local employment and shopping opportunities for
project residents and less of a demand on public schools. 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 of development character than that of the local area.
STATEMENT Ol~ OVER~n~[NG CONSIDERATIONS
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines
(Section 15093 of the Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"(a) CEQA r~quires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed
project against is unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects
may be considered "acceptable."
(b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but not at least
substantially mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support
its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This
statement may be necessary if the agency ~lmo makes the finding under Section
15091(aX2) or (a)(3).
(e) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, th~ state-
ment should be included in the record of the project approval and should be
mentioned in the Notice of Determination.~
The Tustin City COuncil proposes to approve amendments to the General Plan Land
Use Element, Circulation Element and Seismic Safety Element, as well as a zone
change and a specific plan for the area referred to as the East Tustin Specific Plan
site. Because the actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, an
EIR has been prepared. The Final EIR (85-2) has identified certain unavoidable
environmental risks of the project. The City Couneil has considered the following
benefits of the proposed project, and has balanced those benefits against the
project's unavoidable environmental effects. The City Council hereby finds that the
following benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects and are
overriding:
1. The East Tustin Spocffie Plan will provide a comprehensive and
coordinated development plan for the 1,740-acre study area.
2. The project responds to the city and county planning programs which
designate the site for urban land uses.
3. The project represents a logical extension of urban services and facilities.
The project provides for residential, commercial, public, employment and
recreational uses of a greater long-term economic viability than that of
the current onsite agricultural uses.
5. The project, upon completion, will result in a net increase in annual
revenues to the city..
6. The project will provide increased housing, employment, shopping and
recreational opportunities within Tustin.
7. The project is complementary to existing and proposed land uses in the
project vicinity and community in general.
8. The project provides for a variety of single-family and multifamily housing
types.
The project provides for major transportation/circulation improvements
which will not only serve the project site but will benefit, area-wide traffic
movement as well.
10. The project will provide the area with a major recreational facility, the
150-acre golf eom'se.
11. Beyond meeting city park requirements, the project provides private
recreational facilities to meet onsite needs.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
21
29.
2.3
2~
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" ATTACHED HERETO)
The City Council of the city of Tustln does hereby resolve as follows:
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.
Be
That a Joint application was filed by the city of Tusttn, and
Mortice 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 Tusttn area,
The following text will be adde~ to the Land Use Element of
the Tustin 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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
281
Resolution No. 86-29
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 recommended 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 7,950 units for the approximate 1,173 acres of land
dedicated to residential uses. 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.
· Portions of the East_Tustin area located in hillside areas and
will maintain a maximUn density not to exceed two dwelling units
per gross acre, in keeping with the goals of the Open Space and
Conservation element. Hillside areas are generally defined as'
having a slope greater than an average 10 percent grade, and the
approximate acreage meeting this criteria, is 440 acres. The
approximate number of dwelling units should be in the range of
880.
The proposal for areas of East Tustin which are on level terrain
and adjacent to existing residential area is to maintain single
family residential detached with a character of development
compatible with existing development. This is constructed to
not mean lot size, but does mean an overall density less than
standard R-! residential density, which is 6.0 dwelling units to
the acre. The range is between 4 to 6 gross dwelling units per
acre, and 5.0 gross dwelling units per acre is recommended. The
approximate acreage of these areas is 166 acres, with a unit
generation of approximately 830 units.
Outside of these requirements, remaining areas devoted to
residential may have residential densities ranging from two
dwelling units per gross acre to 25 dwelling units per gross
acre. The terrain for these areas is level, and the land
carrying capacity could conceivably support the maximum density
proposed. It is the goal of the land use and housing element to
promote a variety of housing types, including single family
residential, and owner occupied housing. Unlike the single
family classification, the term single family residential is
construed to mean the definition Shown in the Housing Element,
which shows single family as either detached, duplex, or
townhouse units. These units can be achieved at density ranges
between 6 to 12 dwelling units per gross acre, or an average of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
2~
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-29-
page three
9.0 dwelling units per gross acre. To attempt a balance between
providing for a variety of housing types, including multiple
family, and owner-occupied single family units, an average of
[I.0 dwelling units per acre is employed. The gross acreage
figure of approximately 567 acres will produce approximately
6,237 units for this area.
Whtle residential untt limitations are tmposed, the location,
designation and density range of residential units will be
determined at such time that the area undergoes speclftc
planning. The location of planned community residential areas
are consistent wtth the goals of the land use element and
Internally consistent wtth other elements of the general plan.
To ensure that density ranges are Internally consistent,
specific planning will allow these densities to be studied
agatnst the goals and objectives of the other elements. To
ensure that the enttre subject area ts considered, one spectftc
plan for the entire area wtll 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,gSO 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 and covers an approximate acreage
of 40 acres. Planned Community Mixed Use can support retail
commercial uses or office/research and development uses and
covers an approximate acreage of 120 acres. The recreational
use shown on the diagram is designated as exclusively for a golf
course and covers an approximate acreage of 150acres.
Public and Institutional uses cover proposed community park
locations, as well as conceptual intermediate and high school
sites. The approximate acreage for these uses is estimated at
gO acres.
The flooding potential for the city of Tustin is shown in the
Open Space and Conservation Element as Exhibit II-C. That
exhibit is hereby incorporated into the Land Use Element by
reference.
Section V, letter d on page 9 is hereby amended to read: To
designate for potential stngle family development, an area
easterly of Browning Avenue.
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 four
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
ftndihgs and facts'related thereto have been comprehensively set
forth in Attachment A to Resolution 86-28 which is incorporated'
herein by this refer[ncr. Conditions have been adopted as part
of this project or wi-ll 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 Tusttn Unified School District requirements.
4)
The plan shows commercial locations to provide support to
the future population and existing surrounding residential
area~,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Resolution No. 86-29
page five
S)
The plan will expand the employment opportunities within
the city of Tustin by providing for office/research and
development uses in the Mixed Use area.
F. That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2294,
recommending to the City Council that GPA 86-1a be adopted.
The City Council does hereby adopt General Plan Amendment 86-1a,
amending the land use element text and diagram of the Tustin Area
General Plan for properties within the East Tustin Specific Plan
Project area identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held
on the day of , 1986.
Attest:
161 MARY E. WYNN, CIl~f CLERK
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FRANK-GREINKE, MAYOR
,1'
LAND USE DIAGRAM
Tustin Area General Plan
EXHIBrI' A
mw Nm.
1
2
3
4
5
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 86-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-lb, AMENDING THE
CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR
THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE
SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF
TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS
AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;
AND UNINCORPORATED AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE
{MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRYINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT
"A" A1-FACHED HERETO).
The Ci
ty Council of the city of Tusttn does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. 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.
Be
That a joint application was filed by the city of Tusttn, and
Monica Florian on behalf of the Irvine Company requesting
amendment to the Tusttn 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 purpose of
amending the Circulation Element of the Tustin Area General Plan
concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit AD
Specifically, the following changes are to be made:
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-S
Freeway at Jamboree.
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. 86-30
Page two
That pursuant to the California £nvironmental Quality Act Final
EIR 88-2 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
aS-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 tncorporatr
herein by this reference. Conditions have been adopted as pat
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 Shall be
submitted to the County of Orange Environmental Management
Agency in order to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways to
reflect the city's amendments.
That General Plan Amendment No. 86-1b would be in the public
interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the
surrounding property owners based upon the followipg:
The proposed amendments to the circulation system along
with other planned improvements will support East Tusttn
development, will provide capacity for other traffic, and
will also provide traffic relief for other existing cit~
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.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
R~solutton No. 86-30
Page three
Adequate right-of-way areas 'will
East Tustln Speclftc Plan Area
ensurtng availability of land
circulation systems.
be reserved within the
prior to development,
for constructt on of
4. All projects wlthtn the East Tusttn Spectftc Plan area
shall meet att quallty requtrement~ tn compliance with
"reasonable available control measures" of the South Coast
Att Qualtty Management Plan. Such measures tnclude but are
not ltmtted to Increased use of bicycle/pedestrian
facilities and traffic signal synchronization.
5. Noise generated tn association with newly constructed
circulation systems w$ll be mitigated by the use of barrier
walls. Such walls will be berm, wall or a combination of
berm and wall, the final type and configuration of which
will be determined when final grading plans showing lot
locations, .structure setbacks and precise building pad
elevations are developed.
Ge
That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2295,
recommending to the City Council that GPA 86-1b be adopted.
II.
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 Tustin City Council, held on
the day of , 198 .
Attest:
FRANK GREINKE,
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN,
City Clerk
E
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
· Tustin Area General Plan
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. B6-31
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 ANAFREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE.
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS
TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED
AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE
CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,740 ACRES,
COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO).
The City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. 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
Mortice Florian on behalf of the !trine Company requesting
amendment to the Tusttn 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. Spectfical)y, 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 Tustin.
There is much speculation regarding the exact location of
the Norwalk Fault. Its exact location easterly of the
intersection of Commonwealth and Euclid in Fullerton is
unknown, although several locations have been postulated.
!
'2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
Reso.l uti on No. 86-31
Page two
e
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 prqgram 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 geotachntcal analysis, the fault
may not be active at this time (see DEIR 85-2, Appendix
C). Should. additional study reveal that the E1 Modena
Fault is. active, development occurring near the fault could
be exposed to the potential for surface rupture. Such
potential for adverse impact could be reduced by the
establishment of a structural setback zone on either side
of the mapped trace of the fault. Future development could
also be exposed to secondary impacts associated with
seismic activity including: expansive soils, weakened rock
materials which perform poorly in cut slopes, and perched
groundwater which can cause seepage in graded areas
adjacent to faults. However, such impacts can be
controlled by special foundation design or overexcavation,
buttressing or laying back cut slopes, and subdratnage,
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
5
6
?
8
9
10
1'1
12
13
14
~15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23:
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86-31
Page three
De
Chapter 8
Policies
To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to
development in the East Tustin Specific Plan area resulting
from various seismic activities, the following policies are
hereby established as a part of the Seismic Safety Element:
Detailed geotechnical and soils engineering reports
shall be prepared subsequent tO development of
.preliminary design layouts and final grading plans
{e.g., at the tentative tract map preparation
stages). This report will provide further, more
detailed measures for treatment .of excavational
(ripping) difficulties, surficial material removals,
cut and fill slopes, expansive soils, faults ahd
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.
be
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 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 ~roject has
reviewed and considered the information contained in Final EIR
85-2 prior to approval of this project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8~
9
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
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
10
11
12
14
15
17
18
10
20
21
22
23
25
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/COMMUNII~ FACILITIES FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY:
THE SANTA ANA Fl~EEWAY (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
l~E SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF IRVINE
TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY.I,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:
That a proper application {Zone Change No. 86-1) has been filed
upon direction of the City Council and by Monica Florian on
behalf of the Irvine company for the purposes of changing the
zoning designation for the property shown in Exhibit "A"
attached hereto from Planned Community to: Planned
Community/Residential (PCR); Planned Community/Commercial (PCC);
Planned Community/Mixed Use (PCMU); and Planned
Community/community Facilities (PCCF) as delineated on the same
Exhibit A.
B. That a public hearing before the City Council to consider Zone
Change 86-1 was .duly called, noticed and held.
That pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Final
EIR 86-2 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 1509! 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 incorporatedlat 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 in~act 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
Ordinance No. 966
Page two
That a zone change should be granted for the following reasons:
1. This comprehensive zone change would be consistent with
goals and .objectives of the ctty of Tustln calltng for a
balance of residential, commercial, employment, educational
and recreational land uses.
II.
2. This comprehensive zone change will provide a mechanism by
which the East Tustin Specific Plan can be implemented.
As proposed the East Tustin Specific Plan is more
consistent with the Housing Element of the Tustin Area
General Plan than existing zoning in that a variety of
housing types would be permitted and owner occupied housing
will be encouraged.
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 Tustin Area General Plan as amended.
That no development will be allowed within the project area
prior to the adoption of the East Tustin Specific Plan.
That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2299,
recommending to the City Council that Zone Change 86-! be
adopted.
The City Council does hereby approve Zone Change 86:! changing the
zone designation for the property shown in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto from Planned Communtiy to: Planned Community/Residential
(PCR); Planned Community/Commercial (PCC); Planned Community/Mixed
Use (PCMU); and Planned Community/Community Facilities (PCCF) as
delineated on the same Exhibit "A".
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on
the - day of ,
Attest:
FRANK GREINK£,
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN,
City Clerk
ZONING
F..XHI~ A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 86-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN
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 Tustin does hereby resolve as.follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
That a joint 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
Tusttn.
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.
De
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 1509! 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
2~
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 86~-32
Page ~o
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 adopted.
Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications
have been considered.
The.scope and depth of plan analysis are con~nensurate 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.
e
All subjects required in a specific plan by the California
Government Code and applicable city ordinances are
appropriately andladequately covered.
Se
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".
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
Tustin Specific Plan by resolution by the City Council.
II.
The City Council hereby adopts Sections 1.0 and 2.0 of the East
Tustin Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit "B" 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 Tusttn City Council, held on
the day of , 198
Attest:
FRANK GREINKE, MAYOR
MARY E. WYNN, CITY CLERK
Attachaent "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
AS REQUESTED BY TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
0
Page 1-6, Second "bullet" under Seismic Safety. Change fire
retardant to fire resistant roofing, as defined by the
Underwriter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois.
Page 2-16, Change "stucco or woodensiding'" to read "off-white
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
Underwriter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois."
Page 2-19, Add to second "bullet" which begins "Include only
..." "fire resistant plant materials, where feasible."
Page 2-43, Add' to 'Letter C, ,The Planning Commission should
prepare a plan stipulating and regulating the hours when sports
lights can be used."
That 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 Racque~ Hill Drive shall be deleted from the Land Use Map
for the East Tustin 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.
Add 2.14.4 Additional Implementation Policies and Measures.
Potential financing mechanisms to fund major public
infrastructure improvements in East Tustin were examined in the
Report entitled "Financing Concept for the East Tustin Specific
Plan Area", prepared by Anges Mc Donald & Associates and Stanley
R. Hoffman & Associates, dated May, 1985. That Report is
incorporated herein by this reference. Further studies will be
required to determine which financing mechanisms are
appropriate. The City is currently studying the feasibility of
Resolution 86-32
At, tachment "A"
Page t~o
establishing an assess=ent dtstrtct tn a portion of East Tusttn
that ~ould fund certain major public i~provements, (ctrculatJon
and flood control) [hat must be tn place before f~nal approval
of tnttJal development under the Specific Plan. [t ts intended
that the financial and construction of ~nfrastructure
improvements required by the Spectflc Plan ~tll precede
development approvals.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 967
AN' ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN ADOPTING SECTION 3.0 OF THE EAST TUSTIN
SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8) AND EXHIBIT
"C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN.
The City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
That a joint application was filed by the city of Tustin, and
Montca 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.
De
That a comprehensive land use study covering the subject
property was commissioned and completed.
That as a result of the land use study, a Specific Plan was
.prepared in accordance with Sections 65450 through 65457 of the
California Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit "B"
attached, along with Exhibit "C".
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
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.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
27
28
Ordinance Ho. 967
Page two
Ge
He
That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) has been
prepared in conformance with the requirements of the California
[nvironmental Quality Act.
That establishment and implementation of the plan as submitted,
under the circumstances of this case, will not be detrimental to
the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed
use, evidenced by the following findings:
The proposed residential and commercial development is
consistent with the Tustin Area General Plan as amended and
adopted.
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.
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 pla'
as submitted will not be injurious or detrimental to th,
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
2
4
5
?
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
'25
27
28
Ordinance No. 967
page three
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 resi'dential and
commercial development within the East Tusttn Specific Plan
Area. Further, Exhibit "C" is established as the land use plan,
by Ordinance, and shall present the development guide for the
East Tustin Area.
That the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 2298,
recommending to the City Council that Section 3.0 of the East
Tustin Specific Plan be adopted by ordinance by the City
Council.
II.
The City Council hereby adopts Section 3.0 of the East Tustin
Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "C" attached
hereto as the regulatory documents for the East Tustin Area, subject
to the changes enclosed as Attachment "A".
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusttn City Council, held on
the day of , 1986.
ATTEST:
FRANK H. GREINKE, MAYOR
MARY E. WYNN, CITY CLERK
10.
A1-FACHM£NT "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
BY llJSTIN 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 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 3-26, 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'C1. 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'~tth, applicable . ."" . will be issued by the
homeowners association and wil'l be r'eq~ired .... "
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-[9, add letter R. The use of outdoor speakers, buzzers,
music, or other devices with noise amplification outside of the
interior of the structure is strictly forbidden in the entire
planning area, except in the case of special events, and these
will require a temporary use permit.
That no sector plans, tentative tract maps, or building Permits
be issued in the East Tustin Specifi.c 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.
Exhibit "A"
page '~o
13.
Page 3-19 letter O. Change to: Plans for the noise attenuati'on
of units located near arterial highways or freeways or under the
Brpwning Corridor which insure that interior and exterior noise
levels do not exceed the city of Tustin noise ordinance, shall
be submitted for review and approval at the time of builder's
tentative tract consideration for residential development.
14.
Page 3-46. Change: Medium Low and Medium & Medium High 1.
Detached; the credit for guest on-street parking from 100~ to
50%.
15.
Page 3-46. Change: 3. Multiple Family (apartments) 2 bedroom;
from 1.8 required parking spaces to 2.0 required parking spaces.
16.
Council lhereby 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.
17.
Exhibits A-G, as indicate in Section 3.11.5 on page 3-52, are
hereby enclosed and made a part of said section.
FREEWAY "PLANNED COMMUNITY" TRAVEL DIRECTIONAL SIGN
POLICY: ~nail consist of one, two, three or four panels maximum, det3ending upon
the number of communities recluiring identity at that location. Each panel shall
display the name of a planned community or significen! regional land use and a
directional arrow. May be double faced if re~luired. Signs shall be located 13riot to
freeway off ramie. A community shell be identified only on the signs located grior
to the primary access road to the community from the freeway. Signs shall contain
four 13oriels for ae~tl~etic balance even thougt~ some ~3anets may be 13tank.
LOCATION: Only one sign structure shell appear before the entrance to an existing
freeway off ramp. This sign shall be located no le~ than 660 feet and r~o more than
1320 feet from the 13pint at which the al3ron starts, to widen for the off ramp.
LONGEVITY: Each sign panei'~hall have a time limit of 5 years from the date
specified in the text for a 131armed community r~lueSt, sut3ject to renewal by the
ap~ropriete 13ublic_ agency if new homes am still for sale in the community.
SIGN SURFACE AREA: 97.5 ~uare feet per sign panel. Total sign area approxi-.
mataly ~390 ~uare feet.
Signage
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City' of TUstin .
EXHIBIT A
HIGHWAY "PLANNED COMMUNITY" TRAVEL DIRECTIONAL SIGN
POLICY: l'~e sign shall be limited to a maximum of four panels, depending
the number of communities reciuiHng identity at that location. Each panel shatl dis-
play the name of a planned community or significant regional land use and a direc-
tional arrow, only. Each of the panels may be double faced if recluired. Signs shall be
placed only on major and primary roads, and mail contain four panels for aes~etic
belanc~ even though some panels may be blank.
LOCATION: Only one such sign structure shell exist within 1320 feet of a major
intersection in eac~ direction. The sign may be on either the right or left hand side of
the road.
LONGEVITY: Each sign panel shall have a time limit of 5 years, from the date
~ecified in the text for a Otanned community recluest, subjec: to renewal by the
aloprol~riata public agency if neTM homes are s~ill for sale in the community.
SIGN SURFACE AREA: 36.6 square feet per panel. Total sign arsa apl~roximateiy
146.4 square feet.
Signage
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City of Tustin
EXHIBIT B
INTERSECTION PLANNED COMMUNITY DIRECTIONAL 81GN.
POLICY: Shall consist of one, Paso, thre~, four or five i~anets maximum del=ending
Ulcon the number of communities requiring 'identity at a particular intersegtion. Each
panel shall dis~iay the name of a planned community or $igniflcan~ regional land use
and a dir~r, ionai arrow, only. Each of the panels ma,f be doul:~ie faced if recluir~t.
LOCATION: Ideally suited for in~rsecfions w~ich r~luim the motoris~ to make a
coml~iete ~op, and where dir~'l~onat a~s~ance is r~uired for many communities.
Such signs shell be wi~tfin five miles of the communities ttmy identify and shall be
Icx:a~gl along dir~ routes to a I~lanned community.
LONGEVITY: Each sign panel shall have a time limit of S years from the date
$l~ecified in the text for a ptanned community request, subjec~ to renewal by me
al~l~rol~riate I~ubtic agency if new homes are still for sale in the community.
SIGN SURFACE AREA: 4-1/2 square feet per panel. Maximum total area 22.5
SClUam feet.
Signage
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City of Tustin
EXHIBIT
C
REASSURANCE SIGN
POLICY: ~uch signs mall be not mom than five feet in verde, al height or horizontal
leng~ exclusive of ground clearance and mail not exceed a total area of 15 square
feet. May be double faced if racluired.
LOCATION: Such signs mail be located only along dimc~ rou~a~ to the planned.
community or significant regional land use. The~ mail be within five miles of the
community or land use they identify/., and the*/mall be at least one-half mile fi.om
any other reassurance sign identifying the same planned'community or regional
land use.
LONGEVITY: Each sign mail have a time limit of five years, subject to renewal by
the al~grogriata public agency if sl~ll s~ving a public need.
SIGN.SURFACE AREA: 13.5 square feet.
Signage
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City of Tustin
EXHIBIT D
Park
Hom
TRACT 'SUBDIVISION IDENTIFICATION' AND COMMUNITY DIRECTION SIGN
POLICY: Shall not exceed 120 square feet in sign ~urface area. May be used a~ an on-
site (within the boundaries of the planned community) or an off-site sign. Shall disl~la¥
only the name/$ and/or symbols of the daveloper/$ who are c~rrantly building and/or
marketing homes in that community or the name or names of the a-act develol3ment
within that community (maximum of 2) and the name of the planned community and
a directional arrow, and ~he name "lrvine." May be double faced if r~luimd.
LOCATION: To be located before c~iticai inter~cfion$ which in~oduc~ the major
ena'y/ies to a Planned Residential Community.
LONGEVITY: Each sign shall have a time limit of five year~ from the date of i~Jance
of the sign permit. Subject to renewal by-the aporopriate public agency if new homes
. are still for sale in the community.
SIGN SURFACE AREA: 120 square fee~.
Signage
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City of Tustin
EXHIBIT E
COMMUNITY ENTRY SiGN
POLICY: Wherever possible mall N usld u an on-site sign (within the boundaries of
the community). Shall be double faced where' required.
LOCATION: At or near the main anti'y/les to the r~identi&I community.
LONGEVITY: Each sign mall have e time limit of 5 yar~ from the date s;~cified in
the text for the I=lanned community. Subjec~ to renewal by the aoomoriate I~ublic
agency if new homes are still for ~ale in the community.
SIGN SURFACE AREA: 160 square feet.
Signage
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
City of Tustin
EXHIBIT F
FUTURE FACILITY SIGN.
INDLICY: The sign sl~all iclmtify facilities whic~ are planned as ~ of a 131armed
community and are to 13e cons'a'ucted in the immediate future. General symbols,
signed to identify and not to advertise, will rel3msent the same tyl3e of facilities in
eacl~ of the Irvine communities. May be double f'aced if required.
LOCATION: Always installed on the site of the facility and oHenteq to the nearest
sa'eet. One sign to be utilized for eacl~ [~;ea~ fronting on the site.
LONGEVITY: From the time the site has been zoned for the facility until con~dc.
fion and/or leasing is coml=teted.
SIGN SURFACE AREA: 96 square feet maximum (inclUding 4 "rider" 13anels).
Signage
II
EAST ~USTiN SPECIFIC PLAN-
City of Tustin
EXHIBIT' ~
j~mm ~k I r~-~ "?~'-~'w ~ PUBLIC HEARING
NO. 2~
DATE: ~CH 3, 1986
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
HONOIL~BLE MRYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
COMI~JliITY BEYELOPMENT BEPARTMEI~.
EAST TUSTIN PtANNEO COI~IUNITY (TUSTIN RANCH)
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
THE IRVINE COMPANY
THE SUB~IECT AREA IS BOUIlOED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY TO THE SOUTH;
EXISTTNG RESIDENTIAL OEVELOH4ENT IN THE CIIT OF TOSTIN AND THE
UNINCORPORATED COI~I~UNITIES OF IF'M ON HEIGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS TO
THE NEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNTNCORPORATED AREA
~iI'I'HIN THE SPHr:~ OF INFLUENCE LINE (HYFORD ROAD) FOR THE CITY OF
IR¥INE TO THE EAST
ENYIROII~ENTAL
5'i'ATUS: A DRAFT EIi¥IROMMENTN. ~PACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMZTrED
FOR THIS PROJECT.
REC01~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 Tustin Planned Community to the City Council.
In keeping with these actions, the following draft Council Resolutions and
Ordinances will adopt the East Tustin Planned Community:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Resolution 86-28, certify Draft EIR (85-2) as final EIR (85-2).
Resolution 86-29, GPA 86-1a, Land Use Element.
Resolution 86-30, GPA 86-[b, Circulation Element.
Resolution 86-31, GPA 86-1c, Seismic Safety Element.
Ordinance 966, Zone Change 86-1, East Tustin 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 Tustin planning process is 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 six 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.
fCtty Counctl Re~ort
-~ast Tustt n
page two
The Planning Commission held a series of advertised workshops on the plan in the
month of December 1985, and subsequently went to Public Hearing on the project
on January 13, 1986. This meeting was held for public input on issues and was
continued to January 27, 1986. AdditiOnal issues were brought up at the January
27th meeting, and the hearing was continued until February 10, 1986 to allow the
EIR review period to end and for the Co,matssion to read and consider the EI'R
comments and responses. .This information was presented to the Commission at
their February: tOth meeting. The Commission considered these comments and
ultimately adopted Resolutions 2294 through 2300 which recommends 'the adoption
of the East Tustin Planned Community to the City Council. These resolutions
have been enclosed for your review.
DISCUSS I0#:
The East Tustin 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 Commission along with current issues arising out of the
Planning Commission hearings.
the overall East Tusttn process includes four key elements, the Environmental
Impact Report {EIR), General Plan Amendments, Zone Change, and Specific Plan.
The draft EIR was prepared 'for ~the proposed actions (GPA, Zone Change, Specific
Plan) and represents the body of information that describes the environmental
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 action 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 Insttttttonal instead of the overall Planned
Community. The proposed zoning is still contingent on the enactment of the
Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan represents the policies and regulations that will guide
development in the East Tusttn 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 Council Report
East Tustin
page three
Although the specific plan has been developed to a high level of detail, 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 EIR, staff will submit an environmental determination on
each discretionary action to ensure it meets with the requirements' of the
program EIR. If it does not, further environmental work will be required. The
January 27, 1986 Planning Commission staff report details this review 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 Tusttn Plan be conditioned that
no development can take place until the Development Agreement is in
place. In essence, an approval of the East Tustin 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 this staff report. If agreement can be
reached, staff will verbally present recommended changes to the City
Council at its March 3rd meeting.
Corn munity Development Department
City Council Report
East Tustin
page four
At. this tinm, the City Attorney is reviewing the proposed Tustin Unified
agreemnt with The Irvine Company and the condition proposed for inclusion
into the Specific Plan. The Planning Con. lesion 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
neeting.
Director of Community Developnmnt
EI)WARD 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, Con~nts and Responses
East Tustin Specific Plan
Planning Commission Resolutions
Planning Con~nission Staff Reports
Co.m munity Development Depa_rt me__nl .
z
n,
z
U
Z
Z
U
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2300
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2, PLUS
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES, AS FINAL EIR 85-2
The Planning commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. 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 distribution of the. Draft EIR was made to interested public
and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and
evaluation.'
D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the
Draft £IR.
E®
That the public review period for the draft EIR ended on January
31, lg85 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
initta) 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 ftnal 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.
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. 2300
page two
II.
It is therefore resolv&~-that the Draft EIR- 8S-2, the comments and
responses thereto are recommended to the City Council for their
consideration and certification as a final EIR for the actions
involving the East Tustin area.
ADOPTED x~t a reglu~lar~/ne.~l~,,,~lng of the,~Tustin Planntng Co,..ission
PASSED AND /~; day of ~//-, 1986.
held on the ~(~/~'~.~Z2~
i~~R~RETARY
CHAIRMAN
I~A. TIONALE FOB.
PLANNING COMMIBSION I:tECOMM]~IDATION
FOB. CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLA~I- EIR (~5--2)
The environmental documentation process for the East 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. Alteroative plans developed
for the project area were evaluated foe potential imparts using the environmental
baseline document in 1984 and 1985.
In May 1985, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and marled to responsible
public ageneies~ 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 earl/er NOP. The NOP
provided a description of the proposed East Tustin Specific Plan, general
identification of possible environmental imparts and requested that comments
concerning issues that should be addressed in the draft EIR be submitted to the city
by December 1, 1985.
On December 18, 1985, the draft ~ and draft East Tustin Specific Plan were made
available for a 45-day public review period~ which ended on January 31, 1986. The
draft EIR identified the following potential imparts and recommended mitigation
measures for the ETSP:
RATIONAI~ POR
PI~i/tTilN(I COMM~SION RHCOMMI~IDATION
FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
HAWI' TUSTIN SPF, CH~C PLaN Rm (85-~-)
The environmental documentation precess for the P~_st Tustin Specific Plan began in
June 1983, with the initiation of the early planning studies and preparation of the
environments/basel/ne description for the project area. Alternative plans developed
for the project area were evaluated for potential impacts .using the environmental
baseline decument in 1984 and 1985.
In May 1985, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and ms/led to responsible
public agencies, the State Clearinghouse, Ioeal 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 Bast Tustin Specific Plan, general
identification of p _na~ib_ le environmental imparts and requested that comments
concerning issues that should be addressed in the draft EIR be submitted to the city
by December 1, 1985.
On December 18, 1985, the draft ~ and draft Bast Tustin Specific Plan were made
available for a 45-day pubUe review period, which ended on January 31, 1986. The
draft FIE identified the. following potential imparts and recommended mitigation
measures for the ~.TSP:
I)
~1/
~_'_~ .
I/
~a ~>~=~ ~ _ --~
-~=- e.~ ~o~ //
~yMMA~ O~ P~XO.r~O~
Al~tive 6.1, 'No Projeet'-would prevent any development from coeurring
onsite and would effect/rely preserve the existing agrieulturel and open space
land uses at the site foe a Limited number of years. The continued use of the
site foe. agr/eulturat open s~aee uses is not a v/able long-term use of the site,
not it is considered vrlth the ex/sUng geneeal plan which designates the site foe
urban uses. In that ail environmental impacts would be avoided under this
alternative, is is elenrly considered to be an envL-,mmentaLiy superior option to
the peogoaed project. This alternative was rejected, however, because it fA,q_,
to provide foe. the objective estabUshed for the project, and is contrar~ to the
goa~ objectives and peovL~ions of the Tustin C-eneral Plan which designate the
project site foe' urban development.
Altm. native 6.2, Ex/sting General Plan would allow the project site to be
deVeloged undee the ex/sUng geneeal plan land use designations. Comt~ed to
the-eureent project peepnsal, the development of uses of a lower intensity
would affoed the advantages of l~ .traffic, noise and air quality impacts as
well as reduced demands on public services and utilities. Second to the "no
peo~eet~ alternative, this alternative may be considered to be the
environmentally supeeice alternative. However, the ex/sung general plan land
use designatiot~ provide foe vet7 lit'tie commercial, employment and reereat/on
uses to su~moet the residential development a/lowed, thus creating an
"unVnlsqeed- community. -Based on land use balance considerations, this
alteenative was rejected in farce of the cun'ent peopcen~_
Altmlative 6.3, Maximum Ras~denttal Develogme~t provides for a greater
numl~' of eesidential units and less commercial uses than the cuerently
pt'opcsed project. The relative advantages would tnelude less traffic generation
espe~any during ~eak travel hours, less mobile souz~.e air and noise poilution
and a greater contribution tn the number and type of units added to the city~
existing housing stock. The disadvantages include greater impacts on. public
services and uUllties espeetall7 i~ublic 'schools, greater demands on 1/mired
ex/sting commeeeial and em~loyment land uses and the ex~eure of more
dwening traits to ex/sting noise soueee~ P~. ieulael7 m/litAe7 aircraft noise. As
the apparent disadvantages exceeded the advantages, this alternative was
rejected tn favoe of the ~urrent peojeet p~OPosaL
11
Duri~ the ck~ft EIR public review period, two notieod public hearings were held
before the T~stin Planning Commtssioa to receive public testimony regarding the
draft ~ and 8~,eifle. Plan (see comments A-1 theoul~h A-9 and H-1 through H-28 in
the Response to ~omments document fo~ summa~es of comments received at the
hearing). Over five hours of public heartn~ testimony and a total of 26 letters
ineorporettng approximately 300 separate ~omments (inelu. ding o~sl ~omment~) were
reneived oa the draft ~
The City of Tustin has prepared written responses to comments received during the
~L public 'review period. The Planning Commisston has received direct public
testimony, reviewed the ck~ft BlR,and the comments and responses thereto/ in
eo~tdemtion of the pro~os~ actions tnvolvin~ the ~tst Tustin area. This review
process has involved each environmental category and L~sues required by CEQA and
the State BIR ~idelines. In reeo~lliUon of thL~ review, and the compeehensive
evaluation Of e~vtronmental imgaets contained ~n the BII~, the Tustin Plannh~
~ommisstcli reeommends that the City .~ouneil eonsidar the draft BI, comments and
res~x~lses the~to as a final ~ foe thetP review and certification as provided in
Section 15090 of the state EIR guidelh~es.
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
1'2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19.
2O
21
22
23
24:
25
26
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-B) TO THE SOUTH: EXISTING RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITf OF llJSTIN 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
CITf 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 Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Xe
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 ctty of Tusttn, and
Montca Flortan on behalf of The Irvine Company requestin~
amendment to the Tusttn 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
Comrlssion was duly called, noticed and held for the purpose of
amending the Land Use Element text and diagram concernfng the
property identified on the attached Exhibit A.
Specially, the following changes will be made:
Exhtbtt A wlll 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 Tustin Area General Plan. Under General Concerns and
Considerations, letter C. East Tustin Area.
The land use element currently provides for a use
designation known as Planned Community. The P.C. use is a
method to assure the compatibility of land uses with the
character of surrounding developments and provide for a
vehicle to ensure precise development plans are reviewed
and approved prior to development. One of the purposes of
the land use element is to provide for flexibility and
integration of land use for transitional properties by
classification as Planned Community.
1
'3
4
5
6
7
8
9'
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
9.2
Resolution No. 2294
page two
It is the intent ~n-the East Tustin area to utilize Planned
Community as a land use tool in general and specific planning.
The majority of the area is divided into-three Planned Community
designations: P.C. Residential; P.C. Commercial; and P.C. Mixed
Use.
The Planned Community Residential area is anticipated to have a
density range from two dwelling units 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 exce
two dwelling units per gross acre. Portions of East Tusttn ~..
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 7,950 dwelling units. Both the
specific plan, and the. general plan, will be used in lute~
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
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
24,
25,
26¸
Resolutfon No. ~294
page three
That a draft envi-~6~mental impact report (DEIR 85-2) for the
subject general plan amendment has been prepared in conformance
with the California Environmental Quality. Act.
That General Plan Amendment 86-1a would be in the public
interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public or the
surrounding property owners based upon the following:
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
par~ sites in accordance with the Ictty 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)
The plan will expand the employment opportunities within
the city of Tusttn by providing for office/research and
development uses in the Mixed Use area.
II.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that General Plan Amendment 86-1a be approved thereby amending the
land use element text and diagram of the Tustin Area General Plan for
properites within the East Tusttn Specific Plan Project area
identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED' AND A~TED at ~ re, la? meeting th? Tusttn Planning Co,.,lssion
'DONNA ORR, Recording Secretary
,'. [',!:"-'[',"..".: ,
LAND USE DIAGRAM
Tustin Area General Plan
2
3
4
5
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
25
26
27
RESOLUTION NO. 2295
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY .OF TUSTIN,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 86'1b, AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE TUSTIN
AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR T~-'AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA
FREEWAY (I-5) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
l~E CIl~f 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 IRYINE TO THE EAST ENCOMPASSING
APPROXIMA~LY 1,740 ACRES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS EAST TUSTIN (EXHIBIT
"A" AI'rACHED HERETO).
The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. 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 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 Planning
Comrlsston 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
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 Coltna 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 Tusttn
Specific Plan.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9~
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
9.7'
Resolution No. 2295
Page
e
The tnclusion--6T 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 Camtno Real/Laguna Road
from a commuter highway to a secondary highway from Red
Xlll Avenue east to Myford Road.
The inclusion of a full directional interchange on the
Freeway at Jamboree.
De
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 Countyof Orange Environmental Management
Agency in order to amend the Master Plan of Arterial Highways to
reflect the city's amendments.
That General Plan Amendment No. 86-1b would be in the public
interest and not detrimental to the welfare of the public, or the
surrounding property owners based upon the following:
The proposed amendments to the circulation system along
with other planned improvements will support East Tustin
development; will provide capacity for other traffic, and
will also provide traffic relief for other existing city
streets.
Costs of construction of improvements permitted by General
Plan Amendment 86-1b will be provided wholly or- in
fair-share proportion by development projects approved
within the East Tustin Specific Plan Area.
Adequate right-of-way areas will
East Tusttn Specific Plan. Area
ensuring availability of land
circulation systems.
be reserved within the
prior to development,
for construction of
All projects within the East Tustin Specific Plan area
shall meet air quality requirements in compliance with
"reasonable available control measures" of the South Co~
Air Quality Management Plan. Such measures include but a.
not limited to increased use of bicycle/pedestrian
facilities and traffic signal synchronization.
1
3
4
§
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ii
15
16
17
18
19
~0
Ill
25
116
117
Resolution No. 2295
Page three
Noise genera~ 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 ~ype and configuration of which
will be determined when final grading plans showing
locations, Strucf, ure setbacks and precise building pad
elevations a~e developed.
II.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Cfty Council
that General Plan Amendment 86-[b be approved thereby amending the
circulation element of the Tusttn Area General Plan for properties
wtthtn the East Tusttn Spectflc Plan Project A~ea identified on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Recording Secretary
PASSED AND ADOPT~D_/.~t a regu~r peel~lng of the, Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the ,/[/~,A day of '*~.,~g/_.~/ , 198_~.
ChatPman
LEGEND
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
Tustin Area General Plan
~Hmrr A
1
2
3'
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13.
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
.RESOLUTION NO. 2296
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CI?Y COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 86-'1c, AMENDING THE SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT OF.THE
TUSTIN AREA GENERAL PLA~"~R THE AREA BOUNDED BY: THE SANTA ANA
FREEWAY (I-S) 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'FACHED HERETO).
The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That Section 653S8 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..
B.. 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 69398 of the Government Code of
the State of California, a public hearing before the Planning
Commission was duly called, noticed and held for the purposes of
amending the Seismic Safety Element of the Tustin Area General
Plan concerning the property identified on the attached Exhibit
A.. Specifically, the following changes are to be made:
Chapter 3 of the adopted Seismic Safety Element, as it
pertains to the Norwalk and 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,ts 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.
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11,
13
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
23
26
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 su6h 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
Count~ 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 Tusttn. (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 upo-
preltmtna~ findings of'a geotechntcal analysis, the fau
may not be active at this time (see DEIR 85-2, Appendix
C). Should additional study reveal that the E1 Modena
Fault is active, 'development occurring near the fault could
be exposed to the potential for surface rupture. Such
potential for adverse impact could be reduced by the
establishment of a structural setback zone on either side
of the mapped trace of the fault. Future development could
also be exposed to secondary impacts associated with
seismic activity including: expansive soils, weakened rock
materials which perform poorly in cut slopes, and perched
groundwater which can cause seepage in graded areas
adjacent to faulTM. However, such impacts can be
controlled by special foundation design or overexcavatton,
buttressing or laying back cut slopes, and subdrat~age,
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
developmentwithin the East Tusttn Specific Plan Area. The
additional text shall read as followS:
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
26~
Resolution No. 2296
-Page three
Chapter 8
Policies
To minimize the potential for adverse impacts to
development in the £ast Tustin Specific Plan area resulting
from various seismic activities, the following policies are
hereby established as a part of the Seismic Safety £1ement:
a. Detailed geotechntcal and s.oils engineering reports
shall be prepared subsequent to development of
preliminary design layouts and final grading plans
(e.g., at the tentative tract map preparation
stages). This report will provide further, more
detailed measures for treatment of excavational
(ripping) difficulties, surficial material removals,
cut and fill slopes, expansive soils, faults and
liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of
roadway stream crossings). Additionally, a slope
stability analysts which tncludes identification of
beddtngplanes 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 geotechnical analysis shall be conducted to
determine the exact status of the E1 Modena 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.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
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 follbwing:
The proposed amendment provides information not presently
contained within the Seismic Safety Element that further
identifies and appraises potential seismic hazards in the.
East Tu.sttn Area as required by Section 66302(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 ?ustin Area General Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPYEQ.at a reg~J~ar~et~Fng of the Tustin Pl~mnntng Commission,
ORR,
Recording Secretary
Chat rman
Geology
O 1400 BID00 FEET
5
$
?
10
11
15
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
2'7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 2299
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE REZONING FROM PLANNED
COMMUNITY TO PLANNED COMMUNITY/RESIDENTIAL; PLANNED
COMMUNITY/COMMERCIAL; P~i~N'NED COMMUNITY/MIXED USE AND PLANNED
COMMUNITY/COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR THE AREA BOUNOED BY:THE
SANTA AMA FREEWAY (I-$) TO THE SOUTH; EXISTING RESIDENTIAL .
OEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF TUSTIN AND THE UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGHTS ANO COWAN HEIGHTS TO THE WEST;
UNINCORPORATEO ~ANO TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED 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" ATTACHEO HERETO).
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Coneission finds and determines as follows:
That a proper application (Zone Change No. 86-1) has been filed
upon direction of the City Council and by Montca Florian on
behalf-of the Irvine company for the purposes of changing the
zoning designation for the property shown in Exhibit "!
attached hereto from Planned Co,munity to: Plann~
Community/Residential (PCR); Planned Community/Commercial (PCC);
Planned Community/Mixed Use (PCMU); and Planned
Community/Community Factltties' (PCCF) as delineated on the same
Exhibit A.
That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider
Zone Change 86-1 was duly called, noticed and held.
That a draft environmental impact report (DEIR 85-2) 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:
This comprehensive zone change would be consistent with
goals and objectives of the city of Tustln calling for a
balance of residential, commercial, employment, educational
and recreational land uses.
Thts comprehensive zone change will provide a mechanism by
which the East Tusttn Speclftc Plan can be implemented.
As proposed the East Tusttn Specific Plan is mo,
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.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
2O
21
22
23
25
26
27
Resolution No. 2299
Page two
Under existtn~-~oning, residential development would be in
direct conflict with agreements between the ctty 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.
The adoption of this comprehensive zone change would be
consistent with the Tusttn ARea General Plan as amended.
That no development will be allowed within the project area
prior to the adoption of the £ast Tusttn Specific Plan.
II.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Ct t7 Council
approval of Zone Change 85-1 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 £xhtbtt "A".
PASSED AND ADOP~[~at a reg la~me~clng of ~he Tusttn Planning Commission,
held on the ~ day of ~, 198.~..
ffONllA~ORR,
Recordtng Secretary
Chairman
ZONING
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'RESOLUTION NO~ 2297
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
cI'rY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTIOn, BY RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL, SECTIONS
1.0 AND 2.0 OF THE-~A~T TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
(SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8).
The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A. That a Joint application was filed' by the city of Tustin, and
Montca 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
Tustin.
B. That a comprehensive land use study covering the subject
property was commissioned and .completed~
That as a result of the land use study, a Specific Plan was
prepared in accordance:with Sections 65450 through 65457 of the
Calt.fornta Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit
attached.
De
That a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider
the Specific Plan was duly called, noticed and held.
E®
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.
e
The scope and depth of plan analysis are commensurate with
the level of detail contained in the plan and the
specificityof land use entitlement its adoption
authorizes.
e
The various components of the plan as well as t~e plan in
its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public
policy impacts of the proposed development.
1
2
3
5
7
8
9~
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
27
28
Resolution No. 2297
Page two
o
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 developmnt 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
coma~nt on or propose changes to the plan if they so
desired.
II.
That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the pl
as submitted will not be injurious or detrimental to th~
property and: improvements in the neighborhood of the subject
property, nor .to the general welfare of the city of Tustfn, 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 poltcy guidelines by which the project area should be
developed. As such Sections [.0 and 2.0 should be adopted by
Resolution of the City Council, subject to the recommended
.changes enclosed as Attachment
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that
Sections 1.0 and 2.~.of the East Tustin Specific Plan as presented in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto be approved as policy documents and
adopted by a Resolution of the City Council.
PASSED AND ADOPTED,at a reg~lar_~ee$ing o~ the Tustin P~nni
held on the //4~ ~;~ day of
OON~ ORR,
Recording Secretary
ng Commission,
Chairman
Attachment "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED
AMENDMENTS AS' REQUESTEDBY TUSTIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
e
e
e '
Page 1-6, Second ?bullet" under Seismic Safety. Change fire
retardant to fire resistant roofing, as defined by the
Underwriter's Laboratory, Chicago, Illinois.
Page 2-16, Change "stucco or woodenstdtng" tb read "off-white or
earthtone stucco and/or woodensidlng."
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 Planntng Commission recommends that no sector plans,
tentative tract maps, or bulldtng permits be issued.in the East
Tustin 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·
Community Develooment D~an~ ' ~
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1:2,
14
1§
17
18
10
~0
21
RESOLUTION NO. 2298
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
THE ADOPTION, BY ORDINANCE, OF SECTION 3.0 OF THE
EAST TUSTIN SPECIF[~'~LAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8)
AND EXHIBIT "C" AS THE LAND USE PLAN.
The Planning Commission of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
That a joint application was filed by the city 'of Tustin, and
Monfca 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.
Be
Ce
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 th
California Government Code. The plan is detailed in Exhibit "B
attached, along with Exhtbtt."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 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.
Reasonable alternatives to the plan and their implications
have been considered.
The scope and depth of plan analysis are commensurate wit'
the level of detail contained in the plan and. th
specificityof land use entitlement its adoption
authorizes.
The various components of the plan as well as the plan in
its entirety are sensitive to the environmental and public
policy impacts of the proposed development.
1
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. 2298
Page -I:~o
Appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated ~n the
plan to ensure that concerns identified at this level of
planning are resolved as part of the more detailed site
plan review which must be completed before private
development may proceed.
Administration of the plan is thoroughly integrated into
the city's development processing system.
All subjects required in a specific plan by the California
Government Code and applicable city ordinances are
appropriately and adequately covered.
Adequate time and opportunities have been afforded
interested organizations and members of the public .to
comment on or propose changes to the plan if they so
desired.
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 Tustin 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 lend'use plan, by Ordinance,
and' shall present the' development guide for the East Tustin
Area.
II.
The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that
Section 3.0 of the East Tustin Specific Plan as presented in Exhibit
"B" and Exhibit "C" attached hereto 'be approved as the regulatory
documents for the East ?ustt~ Area and that it be adopted by an
Ordinance of the City Council, subject to the recommended changes
enclosed.
PA$SEO AND AOO~.TE~at a regu rt~!~j~e~.ng of the ~stin P~nntng Commission,
held on the//~w//7 day of~, 1~8~.
'DONNA ORR,
Recording Secre~ry
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
ATTACHMENT "A"
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS
AS REQUESI~[D BY lqJST, IN PLANNING COMMISSION
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 ¢ 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 3-26, Section B2, letter CS, 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 Cl."
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
cowliance with applicable . . .' ". . will be issued by the
homeowners association and will be required ....
Page 3-35 letter h. Oepartment stores, change to permitted in
General Commercial, letter q. Liquor stores, change to use
permit tn General Commercial.
Page 3~39 Letter 3.7.4.E. Change to read "A certification of
cowliance 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 strictly forbidden in the entire
pi'arming area, except in the case of special events, and these
will require a temporary use permit.
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 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 £ast Tustin Specific Plan.
Page 3-1g, add letter S. ne Tusttn Unified School District and
The Irvtne Company shall enter into the necessary agreements to
enable the school district to obtain financing for the
acquisition, construction and/or use of school facilities
necessary to accommodate, the students generated by the East
Tustln residential development, Ftnal approval of the
residential maps shall be contingent upon this agreement or in
the absence of such an agreement upon the determination of the
City Council.
~age 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 interi'or 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 l~ract consideration for restdenti.al development.
Page 3-46. Change: Medium Low and Medium & Medium High 1.
DetaChed; the ~credit for guest on-street parking from 100% to
$0%.
Page 3-46. Change: 3J Multiple Family (apartments) 2 bedroom;
from 1.8 required parking spaces to 2.0 required parking spaces.
epor to the
Pl nnin Commission
DATE:
FEBRUARY 10, 1986
SUBJECT:
EAST TU~II# PLANNED COle~IITTY (TUSTI# RANCH)
(CONTI#UED PUBLIC HEARI#G FROM 1/27/86)
APPLICANT: ~liE IR¥I#E COMPA#Y AND TIlE CITY OF ~IJSTIN
LOCATION:
THE SUB&ECT AREA IS BOUBI)ED BY THE SANTA AlIA FREEWAY TO THE
SOUTH; .EXIST[#G RES~DENT[AL DEVELOPMENT IN THE C~TY OF TUSTI# AND
THE UNI#CORPORATED COI~U#~TZES OF ImM O# HETGHTS AND COWAN HEIGHTS
TO THE WEST; UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH; AND UNINCORPORATED
AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF Z#FLUENCE LINE (HYFORD ROAD) FOR THE
C[TY OF ~R¥[NE TO THE EAST.
ZO#~#G:
(PC) PL.4JINED (~)N4U#ITY
- EMV IROIIREWTAL
STATUS:
A DRAFT E#YIRONPIENTAL IHPACT REPORT
SUBMITTED FOR THIS PRO,.1ECT:
HAS BEEN* PREPARED AND
RECOII, IENDED ACTION:
Upon the closure of the public hearing, staff recommends the adoption of the
following resolutions in order to allow the East Tusttn Specific Plan to be
considered by the City Council:
1. Resolution No. 2300, EIR 85-2
2. Resolution No, 2294, 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 public hearing for the East Tustin Specific Plan was continued until the
February 10, 1986 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 31, 1986.
DISCUSSION:
All comments received by the January 31 deadline have been reviewed and
responses are enclosed for Commission review. In some c~ses, a response may be
further elaborated on for the City Council, but the responses as currently
submitted provide enough information for Commission consideration and
recommendation of the plan to the Council. These responses provide a framework
for further Council consideration.
feast Tusttn
February 10, 1986
page two
As an advisory body, the Planning Commission does not certify the EIR as a final
document. The Commission will be making a recommendation on the draft EIR, but
ultimately it is the City Council that must review the total record, make
findings and certify the draft EIR as a final EIR..
Enclosed in this staff report are comments from the city of Irvine, which
arrived at the city of Wednesday, February 5, 1986. In accordance with C£QA,
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
Irvine's issues are similar to other comments that have been addressed for
Commission 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 Co,m~,isslon review. The format identifies the
issue, a city staff response, a response from The Zrvine 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 Tustin 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 TUSO 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 Coltna connection into the
proposed "Future Road", the EIR states that no more than two lanes of roadway is
required on La Coltna 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 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.city of Tustin. This condition will
remain in effect until such time that the county of Orange or other
Corn munitv Development IDe. oartm~nf
East Tustin
February 10, 1986
page three
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."
This language has been added in order to minimize thru traffic on Ca Colina 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 comment on several subjects that have been
raised during the hearing process. We offer these comments in
writing in recognition of the Com~ission's desire to focus
attention at the next meeting on Commission discussion and
action.
It is our hope that the Commission will be ~hle 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 community 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 the plan originally established by the
City Council three years ago and how well the Specific Plan now
meets those objectives.
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 feasible 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 community 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 varv from the General Plan
The question has also been asked, why is the Specific Plan
different from the current General Plan. Though most attention
has been focussed on the 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 return to Justify our major
co~itments to the significant road, flood control, recreational,
park and development standards reflected in the plan.
Looking at the plan as a whole, we believe it achieves the City's
objectives, while-also being realistic and feasible from a
developers, point of view.
Infrastructure Phasina and Fiscal Impact
The suggestion has been made by some that in approving this
Specific Plan, the Planning Commission is acting with less than
the traditional amount 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 Commission 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 Four
Secondly, under t-he Specific Plan, the Planning Commission still
retains its traditional rights of review. At the time of
subdivision map approval, the Planning Commission is empowered by
.city and State 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 the 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.
R~sDondin= 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·
Requirement 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 co~ents are 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·
~incerely, ,i/~/
Mortice Florian
Vice President
Policy Management and 'Entitlement
MF:ta
January 31, 1986 '-
The Honorable Frank'"G~einke,.:$~,yor
and City Council Members
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR
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 look forward to your prompt response to our concerns. It
is hoped that our respective staff can get together immediately
to resolve the issues identified. All 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
cc:
Ed Moore, Principal Planner
Transportation Commission'
Planning Commission
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT EIR
City of Irvins Comments
1. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
3.1 Landforms/ToDo=raD~¥
Nons
3.2
None
3.3 Hvdroloav/Water 0ualit¥
- The City of Tustin, City of Irvins, and The Irvine
Company ars proposing to sntsr into an agresment for
~hs dsvslopmsnt of a Mastsr Plan of Drainage for the
San Disgo Crsek watershsd, which includes Peters Canyon
Wash. A~y propossd improvements should be compatible
wi~h ths proposed master plan.
- Dus to =he downstream effect of any increased flows
from ths proposed ~provements, the City of Irvine
should hays ths opportunity to review drainage
proposals and mitigation msasures at the tentative
t~z~c~-map lsvel.
Dus to downs~rsam constrictions,, an~'proposed drainags
improv-~ents should includs rstention facilities such
that thers is no incrsass in flows south of the I-$
Frssway.
- The drainags studies should include an ana%ysis of the
entire reach of Petsrs Canyon Wash and to ~nclude
Santiago Cresk downstream to the San Diego Freeway
(I-405).
Ths calculatsd dischargss flowing into Psters Canyon
Wash Channel (pegs.il3, Technical Appsndices) did not
taks into considsration the time of concentration
diffsr~ncss bet-wsen the main channel flow and the side
channsl flows, thersfors, sids channsl flows are
undsrstated.
Ths Technical Appendicss nssds an exhibit showing the
location of the facilities referenced (F07, F07P08,
F07P35, F07S04 and F07S02).
The EIR should discuss =he proposed new Hydrology
Manual being prepared by EHA. Ail drainage studies
should be based on or revised when the new manual is
approved.
3.6
The Jurisdictional land use map on page 83 shows land uses
in City of Irvine*s sphere of influence correctly.
However, =he discussion on page 88 omits =he rural and
estate density, and on page 93, omits ~he rural
classification. (Planning Commission)
Acreage, dwelling u~it and population counts vary
~oughout ~he report.
o Total dwelling units for =he existing general plan are
listed as 6,700 (page 22~) and 6,960 (page 11).
Approved allowable DU's for =he 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) (Planning
Commission).
The unlimited flexibility to transfer DU densities
generates concern =hat =he transporation system is
inade~/ate. Shifting =he dwelling units could have a
significant impact on road design requirements (Planning
Commission).
3.7
3.8
Relevant PlannSng
The 208 Water Quality Program should be expanded to
discuss local 208 program and Upper Newport Bay.
A=ricultural Resources
None
3.9
Socioeconomics
Page 118 of the EIR indicates that the project proposal
does not include specific provisions for the development
of affordable housing. Page 120 further states that the
Tustin Housing Element includes an objective for the
construction of 600 affordable units in East Tustin. Is
this number of units, representing less than 8% of the
total units in the project area, an adequate supply of
affordable units? Will the proposed employment
opportunities in the project area create a demand for more
affordable units?
The specific plan includes 121 acre mixed uses area at the
nore_hwest 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
Transportation/Circulation
Tustin General Plan versus Proposed East Tust~n Spec%ftc
The circulation element of the General Plan analyzed in
this report is incorrect 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 (MPA2{)-. This would suggest that
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 the 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 impacts of the proposal on the circulation system in
Irvine.
~ntersection Camacitv Utilization ¢IC~ 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 the
uncertainties in traffic forecasting. In addition, past
observations of the ICU methodology used in this report
have shown inconsistencies as compared to ehe generally
accepted practice. Until specific intersection diagrams
are provided, it is not possible to determine the extent
of such concerns.
Arterial Hiahwav Camacitv Analysis
As compared to the Tustin General Plan Post-2000 ADT·
volumes, the Specific Plan APT 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 t. he 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
both being over capacity even at LOS "E". Of the ADT
shown, the report has 41,000 of the Red Hill vehicles and'
31,000 of the Myford vehicles generated by the analysis
area. The V/C is not a satisfactory sez-~ice level for any
of these five highways and requires luther mitigation.
Trim 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, the
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 Immact Analysis
The analysis 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.
Mitiaation Measures
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 the Myford/Jamboree Extension is
14%. Partial funding for this facility should also be
included as a mitigation measure based on fair share
allocation.
Eastern TransDortatio~ Coz-ridor
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 t_he 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-5 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 repor~ 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 same conce=n is held
for arterial alternatives through the same area (i.e., La
Colina).
Circulation System Phasina
With a project of t. his 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 t. he 199~ 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 Comment~
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 exl0and in greater detail the traffic
study for t_he project to include analysis of ADT,
Volume/Capacity, and intersection capacity utilization
for t. he 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 (APT and V/C
analysis).
5. Buildout existing general plan (ADT and A/C
analysis).
Diagrams and tables s,~arizing 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).
O
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 Trabu¢o 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 is
included in District 3. (Transportation ~omm~ssion)
o What happens if the Bryan, Portola Parkway, and
Jamboree interchanges with the Eastern Transportation
Corridor do no= 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 acco%modate those three
roadways, as shown on Figure 4-2 of %he 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.
S .11
On page 19 of.the Summary under the lave ' '
after mitigation ,,-~- = ....... 1.of significance
.... ? _ .~ n~v~ a sl~l~lcant im act on
f~n~l 9ir.quality. should he chan-e~ -- 2~ ....
~n~As=an= with Unavoid.~. .... ~ - ~ w--AAA ~ave ~o be
page 246. ~%= ~uverse Impacts statements on
3.12
Acoustical Environment
Th~ EIR does not adequately address the impacts of
~ol~e on Irvine. Ai,~-..-~ 6= ..... roadway
---~w~ ~ Technical Appendix does
Indicate that some roadways i9 Il-vine were studied, key
roadways adjacent to residential areas, such as Harvard
and Culver, were not studled.
3.13
Public Services and Utilitie~
age 10 mentions that the County,s Master Pla~ for
egional Par~s shows a regional park in the vlcin%ty of
Peters Canyon..There is no mention of this park zn the
~ele~ant Planning.or Public Services and Facilities
~ections. 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 the school system. Although the specific plan
allocates acreage for.seve~ school sites, the more
important aspect of ~inanc~ng these schools is l~ft open
~s possible alternatives with no in-depth analysis. This
is a matter of serious concern to the City of Irvlne,
because areas of our City's sphere of influence are in the
T~SD and the students would be lmpacted by school facility
shortages (Planning Commission).
-Alternative 6.2, Existing General Plan, is summarily
rejected, based on its creating an "unbalanced,,
community. The EIR goes ?n to s~ate, "...the public
revenues/cost.ratio associated with this alternative could
well be negative.,, Where ls the data supporting this
contention? page 4 states that Stanley R. Hoffman
Associates was responsible for fiscal impact analysis and
financlng. Where xs his'report?
There is a question of adequacy reIative to the
cummulative impact section given a recent court decision
~,,~==.~uuAm=~;.. Analysls should include surrounding
Pro3ec=s in ~rv~ne and County which also ~--~-~ ~ .....
Section 1 of the EIR should summarize, in tabular form,
allowable development (acres, sq. ft., du's) existing
GP/zonlng and proposal for all uses.
2. THE EIR, AS CIRCULATED, IS INCOMPLETE
A very serious problem with the completeness of the EIR
relates_t~.the ~ission of the relevant documents for the
propose= =~scre=lonary actions. The EIR states on page 1
that the EIR $s 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 documents 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 receiPed by
the Environmental Services Section the afternoon of
December 18, 1985. A single copy of the specific plan
was received by t_he Current Planning Section on
January 9, 1986.)
3. THE 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 ~he 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 the 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. Nc 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 C~QA Guidelines states that the level
of specificity in the EIR should relate to the degree of
specificity required for t_he 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 detailed
analysis in. the EIR, we feel that t_he 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 t-he 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 Control 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 the Eastern Transporation Corridor)
Eastern Transportation Corridor alignment
Schedule of Development Program and Infrastructure
installation
Review and evaluation of Historic District documentation
relative to the Irvine Ranch Headquarters
Geologic Study of the Modena Fault
Dedication for Regional Park
Biotic studies of the regional significance of the
Riparian habitat. (1603_De=~t process} S=reambed
Alteration Agreement - State Department of Fish and Game)
Archaeological Studies
EXHIBIT 1
i T~tI eiloweMe nvmW of ps.nit, sd
~ ~ ~ a~ ~ in ~ ~ may ~ H~ev~, ~e total
3 T~ ~aMu ~1~ mumm s~
s~ ~e ~t ~t tn t~ ~ ~ ~t ~ e~,~ ~ into r~tl~ ~e.
School FacilitJes Agreement ts entered into as of January 27, 1965,
and between ?he Irwin· Company {?IC) · Njchtgan corporation; ·nd the
?ustin Unified School District (TUSD) · public unified school district.
Rectt·ls :
TIC proposes to develop property in the East Tusttn s~ecific Plan
(ETSP) ·re· shown as Exhibit A and within tbs ~urtsdJctton of TUSD.
TUSD and TIC desire to maintain the quality of school facilities
throughout the TUSD. Iris of mutual benefit to TIC and TUSD that
the reputation of excellence in education and facilities continue;
and that the E?SP ·re· 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. TUSD and TIC desire to establish s method of financing school
.? facilities necessary to serve the student population generated by
development.
E. T~C and TUSD acknowledge smd agree'that school facilities plan~ and
mitigation agreement or agreements are necessary ·nd should be based
upon sound demographic data, consideration of s number of financing
options~ studies of current facilities, and pro~ected development
phasing.
Agreement
consideration of the shove premises and the following terms smd
cond~tions~ T~C and TUSD agree &~ follows:
A~reemen~ to Provide Necessar~ Facilities
&. TUSD and TIC will provide for necessary school facilities in
time to meet the demands created by ~he development as outlined
herein. '
Atreement to Seek Fundtn~
a. TIC smd TUSD acknowledge that at the current time state fundin~
may not be ·vail·bls to fund school facilities when they ·re
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 S~·te funding.
TUSD and TIC will cooperate in prep·ring spplications for gr&n~
funding from the Sts~e of California, TIC will; at its cost
retain consultants satisfactory to TUSD ss necessary to essts~
with grant applications. TDSD will provide appropriate
expertise from the educational perspective.
Co
?USD and ?lC agree to explore other sources of revenue to
the refurbishment of existing schools, acquisition of land
construction of facilities if State funding is not available.
Financial alternatives including but not limited to
lease-purchase agreements, Kello-Roos community facilities
districts, and builder fees shall be considered.:~
A~reement to Prepare School Facilities Plan
?USD agrees to prepare a school facilities plafl (School
Facilities Plan or Plan) to house students generated by
residential development which shall be an exhibit to the
~tttgatton Agreement~ aa that term ia defined in Section 5a
beloww or agreements as necessary. The Plan shall be based on
assumptions of growth in existing schools as well as projected
growth in the ETSP area. ~he Plan shall also be based on the
use of existing facilities as ~ell as new facilities to house
the student population generated by development. The School
Facilities Plan shall consider those matters set forth on
Exhibit B attached hereto.
do
TUSD and ?~C will work together developing demographic and other
data to be used for the development of the School Facilitles
Plan and grant applications. These data will include~ but not
be limited tow facility capacities'w fiscal data concerning
capital outlay~ deferred maintenance and leasing p~ograms.
TIC will provide to. TUSD information on planned residential
product types and related development phasing schedules for use
by ?USD in preparing the School Facilities Plan and grant
appl t cat i oas.
,,
TUSD and TIC 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
developedw TUSD will consult with TIC regarding the design of
facilities financed by any assessment or fee. ~Ic shall have
the opportuni.ty to revte~ mad comment upon plans foe such
facilities; ho~ever~ final design responsibility and decisions
?USD and TIC agree to the student generation rates set forth in
Exhibit C attached hereto as initial assumptions for school
facility planning. TIC and TUSD agree to further refine student
generation rates to be used in development of the School
Facilities Plan. TIC and TUSD acknowledge that certain
assumptions ~a¥ change due to unforaeen circumstances. When
this occurs the generation rates will be adjusted accordingly by
TIC and ?USD.
Regarding those facilities for which state funding is
specifically sought or develof,er financed~ ?U$9 agrees to
maintain compliance with the State building program in terms of
archttectual guideltnesw cost and student loading factors.
~age ?h~ee
In the development of the School Facilities P]an~ ?%¢ and ?USD
agree to consider a mix of perm&nenL~ modular, and portable
facilities as well as refurbishment of existing facilities while
maintaining existing ?USD stands:ds of quality, to meet the
student housing needs. :
Reservation of sites
&.
TIC and TUSD agree that eight school sites shall be reserved in
the E?SP 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
Agreement, or agreements as necessary and reviewed annually.
?lC and TUSD ~utually 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 TlC, ~he Hitigatton Agreement will also address
the provision of additional sites if necessary, The method of
acquiring school sites and f&cil~ties, includ~n9 but not limited
to ~easing~ lease purchases~ or other public or private
mechanisms will be agreed upon by T~C and TUSD in the
Agreement or agreements as necessary.
TIC and ?USD agree ~hat if school facilities funded by ?~ serve
areas or students beyond the demands of the ETSP area TIC
receive credit for purposes of satisfying student housing
requirements for future ~I¢ residential development. The
of determining that credit will be established in the
Agreement or agreements es necessary·
$. KitJ~atJon A~reement
TIC and TUSD will cooperate in the expeditious completion of a
mtttga%ion agreement which shall provide for housing of students
generated by the ETSP area (Mitigation Agreement). Should this
Mitigation Agreemen~ not be completed prio~. ~o the first
~entattve ~ract ~ap approval~ ?USD and ?lC agree ~o cooperate in
developing a ,separate mitigation agreement covering ~he
development which is ~he subject of the first tentative ~rac~
~ap which will.satisfy the condition as outlined in 5c below·
Should the Mitigation Agreement not cover all areas of the ETSP,
TIC and ~USD will cooperate to develop subsequent ~tttgatton
agreements as necessary.
'age Four
TIC and TUSD agree that a condition be included in the ETSP by
the City of Tuattn that final residential maps shall not be
approved by the City until such time as ?USD and TIC have
entered into the necessary aqreements to enable TUSD to obtain
financtn9 for the acqutstton, construction o! use of the
necessary achool facilities to accommodate students 9enerated by
residential development of that map. TUSD agrees' that its
approval will not be unreasonably withheld. ..
TUSTIN UNIFIED GCMO0~ DISTRICT
T~tle: Clerkr ]~99;d of
January 27, 1986
By:
Ti tie: '~ f'1~"~ ~ ~
Title:
13:IXBXT A
· edbe,.
%
LAND USE PLAN
£xhJb~t B
She Schoo~ Facilities Plan will include but not be limited to the
[ollowing:
ESTP Area Schools
Assumptions of student growth Including.new dwelling units,
utilization of transportation programs, student generation
factors, projected increases in student population;
School capacities, including permanent and temporaryj
Size of schools, square footage allowances
Construction costs per square foot and total construction costs;
School facilities required;
Estimated schedule for school construction.
Existing Schools
Identification and evaluation of' current facility utilization
including existing and surplus
Identification and evaluation of current facility capacity~
Identification end evaluation of existing conditions sad needed
improvements of current and surplus school
Cost estimates to make improvements of existing facilities~
Projections of student growth or decline~
Identification of existing schools with potential for use by
students gene,~ated by the new development~
Identification and value of properties that are underutilized
end could potentially provide capital resources.
T~SD Studout GouaratSou Lataa ·
for Last Tuactn Specific ~eu Area
S~ul%o %aBA%T beached
Mu%B~fauA%% (Apce)
· .aa-·.so ·.os-·.z· ·.os-·.z· 0.38-o.8
Ucc School Bay opmrece am a K-I achaea, and be·ed upou th rmprammucmt~ou by
1'ne XrvLne Coupeu7 tht ouXy 1,000 dwoXXLuIuLcI~XX be deve~opod ~der
lUte~-BedLaBe:
· Letter dated loveuber 2&, ltaS
frou ~&rbr iud Covert for TUS~
Report to the
Planning Commission
ITEM NO. 3
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICAlrrs:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENV IRONNEMTAL
STATUS:
~ANUARY 27, '1986
EASTTHST~N PLANNED COHHUNITY (TUSTIN RANCH)
(Continued publtc hearing from 1/13/86)
DRAFT ENVIRONPlEMTAL IMPACT REPORT ~0. 85-2
GENERAL PLAN ANENI:MENT 86-1A, B, C
ZONE ~ANGE 86-1
$PECXFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST TUSTXN SPECXFIC PLAN
THE IRYINE COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN
THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNOED BY THE SANTA AlIA FRE£1~AY TO THE
SOUTII;EXlSTIE RESIDENTIAL 0[YELOP#ERT IN THE CITY OF TUSTXN AND
THE UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES OF LEMON HEIGRTS AND COYAN HEIGHTS
TO THE NEST;UMXNCORPORATED LAND TO THE NORTH;AND UNINCORPORATED
AREA IJITIIIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: LINE (I~fFORD ROAD) FOR THE
CITY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST.
(PC) PLANNED CO~NTTY
A DRAFTENVIROI~E:EI'AL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND
SUBNITIT:DFOR THIS PROJECT.
RECl]I~IENDEO ACTION:
Upon the closure of the public hearing, staff recommends the adoption of the
following resolutions in order to allow the East Tustin Specific Plan to be
considered by the City Council:
1. Resolution No. 2300, EIR 85-2
2. Resolution No. 2293, GPA 86-1a.
3. Resolution No. 2295, GPA, 86-1b.
4. Resolution No. 2296, GPA 86-1c.
5. Resolution No. 2299, lC 86-1
6. Resolution No. 2297, Specific Plan No. 8
7. Resolution No. 2298, Specific Plan No. 8
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held its first public hearing regarding the East Tustln
Specific Plan on 0anuary 13, 1986, at which time staff and consultants presented
a comprehensive report on this plan. After this presentation, the public
hearing was opened for public and Commission input. Since many speakers
requested a response to their comment, staff and the consultant team have
attempted to answer each of the inquiries and enclose it as a part of this staff
report.
Planning Commission
East Tustin
page t~o
DISCUSSION:
Answers to various written questions or inquiries have been enclosed, and have
been broken down to either the draft Environmental Impact Report or Specific
Plan text. Responses were given to those questions that had sufficient detail
or focus to allow staff' to analyze and prepare a valid response. Comments
directed to the draft Environments1 Impact Report can still be sent to the city
until January 31, 1986, at which point the review period will expire. Comments
can still be expressed beyond this deadline as a part of the City Council public
hearing process.
Some Commissioners submitted comments regarding the content of the Specific
Plan, with recommendations for change. Some of these comments have been
incorporated into the draft resolutions for the Specific Plan with a
recommendation to either tnclude or replace portions of the. Specific Plan.
Additional comments will be presented to the Commission as a part of staff's
presentation at the January 27th meettng. The mechanism to ftnance public
fact]ittes and Infrastructure tn the East Tusttn plan wtll be reviewed.
Additionally, staff should have more information regarding the status of Racquet
Htll Road, and some prellwlnary comments regarding phasing of improvements and
ftscal balance.
Several comments presented by both the Commission and the publtc questioned the
limitation and review processes of the Planned Community. Although covered in
the attachments, staff feels some regulatory portions should be covered in this
staff report. These include:
What limitations are imposed on the number of residential units:
a)
There is a maximum ceiling of 7,950 units for the total East Tustin
area. With the exception of units transferred from Tentative Tract
12345, this number is an absolute maximum.
b) There is a maximum number of units for each sector.
c)
Each land use district sets a maximum number of dwelling units per
acre. As shown on pages 2-23, 3-22, and 3-29, the maximum number of
dwelling units per acre is established.
d)
Units may be transferred from sector to sector in keeping with Section
3.4.3. of the Specific Plan (pg. 3-11). This transfer does not
increase the unit cap of 7,g$0 units, any transfer of units into a
sector must be decreased in another sector.
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
East. Tusttn'
page three
2. Further ~egulatory aspects:
a)
Hillside District Guidelines, Speclal guidelines designed to regulate
development in hillsides, includes preservation of rtdgelines,
vegetation, drainage, and land form.
b)
Sector Policies, each sector has established policies related to
specific requirements, such as vegetation (Eucalyptus .groves, Redwood
grove), drainage (Peters Canyon and E1Modena), golf course, etc.
c)
Section 3.0 establishes specific setback, height, density restrictions
and allowable uses for residential district. Special restrictions
apply to areas adjacent to existing residential.
Hillside areas, Sectors 1, 2, 4, and 5 Hillside areas located in these
sectors are limited to Estate density, a maximum of two dwelling units per
gross acre. Although Section 3.0 may allow lots as small as 8,000 square
feet, the density limit cannot exceed this 2 du maximum. There must be
either larger lots or common open space in order to achieve the.density
limitation. The 8,000 square foot lot allows flexibility in a hillside
situation, and cannot be used to allow a g~eater density than allowed.
Review Process: Subsequent to this Planned Community process, the Planning
Commission will be receiving development plans and subdivision maps at
several separate stages until the buildout'of the East Tusttn area. These
include:
a)
Sector Processing, initial plans for an entire sector will be
submitted to the Planning Commission. This includes:
1) Initial subdivision map for the entire sector, which is a
discretionary item by Commission.
2) Sector Plan; includes circulation, grading, drainage, geology,
trail design, and median and parkway landscape. A
non-discretionary review by Commission.
As part of the subdivision map, the Planning Commission must make a
finding that the map and sector plan are in conformance with policies
in Section 2.0, and th· means to implement these policies has been
identified.
b) Development Plan Processing
Individual projects within a sector that has an approved sector plan
and subdivision map. This includes:
1) May have another subdivision map to further divide land use
areas.
eom munity Development Department
Plannfng Com;t sston
East Tustt n
page four
2) Could be a dtscretfonary project, such as CUP for apart;ents, or
the project could be non-discretionary, such as destgn revte~ for
a stng]e famtly home project.
Applicants must submtt a stte plan, e;evattons, signing,' and ]andscape
p~ans. The PTanntng Comtsston may ask for further Information as
dee;ed necessary.
The program £[R requtres that at each discretionary step (subdivision
;aps, CUP's) staff w~;] examine the program to determine whether the
actton ts covered In the £[R or addtttona] environmental documents
must be prepared.
Senlor Planner
£K:do
attach:
Answer sheets
Resolutions
Staff report Jan. 13, 1986
Community Development Department ' '
Response-To-Comments of
1113/86 Planning Commission Hearing
EAST TUSTIN
Jab No. 3NI02.04
I. Will this Specific Plan proposal correct this existing imbalance of renter to owner
availability? (F.C.A.)
It is expected that the Specific Plan will have significantly less renter units as a
percentage than the existing city. Any apartments that are propased within the
Specific Plan are subject to a conditional use permit and must be approved by the
Planning Commission through a public hearing process which provides a vehicle
through which the percentage of rental units can be controlled.
How are residential land use acreages adjusted to allow for the actual community
oncl public neighborhood park acreages that will be required? (Refer to page 2-12 in
Specific Dim) (Kathy Well)
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 population establish either more or less parkland is
required from that which is shown on the Specific Plan, then this difference in acre-
age will either be added to or taken away from the land use designation that
immediately surrounds the Park as shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Map. Such
an adjustment in acreage may result in an increase or decrease in-units for that land
use area, however, such a change will still have to correspond with the controls that
are stipulated in the Specific Plan. The controls includes (I) the distribution of the
number of dwelling units permitted within a sector; (2) the maximum number of
dwelling units permitted for the overall plon~ and (3) the maximum density within a
land use area. Changes. could include shifting locations or acreage of public
neighborhood porks 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 far community parks on the Land Use
Plan nar con such changes decrease individual parks below the minimum site size
standards established in the city's pork ordinance.
3. What are the policies regulating the sectors? (Ran White)
There are a series of policies which apply to the various sectors within the Specific
Plan. Develoment dnust 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 Review, and Design Review. The specific policies are iden-
tiffed far each sector within Section 2. I./~.3. The policies are intended to provide
guidance for the development within each sector in order to n_s_,ure 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 reqbire-
ments. Policies for Sectors I~ 2~ 0,~ and $ are-also directly tied to the Hillside Dis-
trict Cuidelines in Section 2.13 which decl wi.th landform modification and natural
feature protection within the hillside areas. The policies regarding density transfer
are explained in the answer to Question #$.
What is the development package that will be provided to the Planning Commis-
sion? (Ran White.(md F.C.A.)
Per the development regulations in Section 3.0 the Planning Commission is to review
the Sector Plans~ including plans for the Hillside District, Subdivision Maps with
individual "Development Projects"~ Conceptual Site Plans for the Commercial areas,
and general design proposals determined significant enough by Community Develop-
ment Staff to warrant Planning Commission Review.
Further, all development projects shall be subject to Planning Commission review as
either a non-discretionary project if permitted by right in the specific land use area
ar discretionary project (public hearing) if subject to a conditional use permit.
Planning Department should not approve any increase in dwelling units; all requests
should come to the Planning 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 maximum~ density categories
within the sector serve that function. Each time a unit transfer is made, the Statis-
tical Analysis will be revised to show how all 7;950 units are allocated to sectors.
This system was deemed to be more useful than the practice of allocating a range of
units to e~ch sector.
~ d~e density tratsfer occur axl how is it accounted for? (Ron White, Kathy
Well, (md 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 os credit for the loss. The amount of proposed
transfers will be reviewed and determined when individual tentative subdivision
maps or site plans are submitted for projects within each sector. If a transfer to a
sector is proposed and if the transfer is 15 percent or less than the total units
assigned to the secfor~ then such a transfer will be approved by the Director of
Community Development. If the proposed transfer is greater than IS percent, then
the transfer must be approved by the Planning Commission (see also #5 above).
All increases to be allowed must result in conformity with the criteria'established on
pages 3-11 and 3-12, Section 3.0,.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 1230,5 or by amending the Specific Plan.
All proposed unit transfers will be accounted for in a revision to the East Tustin Sta-
tistical Analysis.' Upon approval of a unit transfer the Director of Community
Development will amend the Statistical Analysis found on page 3-13 to reflect the
new allocation of units to each sector caused by those transfers.
Is the wording on Page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph 4 inaccurate? (Kathy
Well)
Yes, the wording on page 3-12 of the Specific Plan, paragraph /~ is inaccurate and
should be changed to the following-. "Any revision to increase the number of
dwelling units by 15 percent or less in any sector shall be approved by the Director
of Community Development."
8. What is ~ by inclining'acess roads on page 2-20? (Kathy Well)
Any access roads climbing slopes are to vary in gradient so as not to create a con-
stant monotonous incline.
What happens to development surrounding the geologic faults?
As determined by the Alquist-Priolo Act, no structures will be permitted within $0-
feet of the center[ine of an active fault. As part of the Sector Review Process, a
detailed geologic investigation is required to determine fault activity and precise
location. As detailed project development plans are proposed for each sector the
land uses will be specifically sited relative to active faults. It is not anticipated
that the ective fault will have any impacts on density within the sector.
10o How do existing densities match proposed Specific Plon densities along the edge of
the Specific Plon Area? (Ran White)
Along the western edge of the project the existing densities vary. Between Bryan
and Irvine the density is approximately 4.5 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.~,7 du/ac. (This does
not include one large lot just south of Lower Lake Drive which hos a density of .23
alu/ac.). From Lower Lake north the density is approximately 1.40 du/ac.
I I. How are proposed 8,(~X) square feet (5 du/ac.) lots compatible with the area adjacent
to Red Hill Ridge where lots are Z3,000 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 adjacent to ondoverlooks existing residential lots in
the flatland area along Browning where the density is higher and the lots are
smaller. Sector 8 is also in the flatlond area. The development proposed for this
area is compatible with the existing 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 3.7J~-D. Isn't this a typo that should change residential
to commercial? (KathyWeil)
13.
Yes -- the text should be changed to read commercial not residential.
Unlike the existing General Plan, there is no mmdmum density for gross project
ecres as ~n ebsolu~.e ceiling. Therefore, wh=t ~re the mQximurn ceilings or limite-
tigris an density propesed for the plon? (F.C.A.)
The proposed Specific Plan hos the following limitations which affect density;
a. It establishes a total ceiling of 7,950 units;
b. It distributes the number of units within each sector;
c. It establishes specific residential density maximums for each land use area
throughout the plan;
d. It establishes specific development policies for the various sectors and specific
development standards and controls for each land use type in order to assure
that development is compatible with existing adjacent uses and is compatible
internally within the plan area.
The combination of the above provides for a much greater level of control than is
provided by the existing General Plan. To insure that the plan goals and objectives
are achieved.
I~. Why is there no number designation f~r the t~ble an pege 3-2?? (Kathy Well)
None of the tables in Section 3.0 have numeric designations os they are considered
part of the text of the regulations.
Why was the number of allowable housing units raised from 8,000 to 9,000 dwelling
mit?
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 example, the prop.osed units ensure
that the costs of major public improvements, such os 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 Tustin and serves larger regional needs in addition to local needs. The
proposed units also help to make new open space, such as the golf course, passible.
16. Why, if you multiply'each the total acr_n~_~ of residential category by its gr_-~___~ density
do the total number of units inthe plon add to I 1,517. whereas the maximum ceiling
is Sq:q:mSed to be 7,950? (J~hn McCcrthy)
The maximum allowable units the Specific Plan will be permitted 'to generate is
7,DS0. The density categories ~e designated by a maximum number of units. The
proposed development projects can generate a number of units less than or equal to
that maximum. Because there is a ceiling on the number of units for the whole site
area, we established on average density for each category, enabling the plan to
encompass the maximum allowable 7,~?50 units. When this density average was
determined, we used it to establish the distribution of units among sectors, which
totals 7,~50 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 as 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.~,. There is no Table
2..5.
18. if clensi~ trc~sfers between sectors are proposed in the development review process
why, in all cases, are they not subject to review by the Planning Commission?
(J.
A transfer, if less than 15 percent above the designation in any sector was proposed,
would not signicantly alter the basic character of development nor would it alter the
basic intrastructure requirements for any sector. Therefore, it is proposed that
increases of less than 15 percent would be approved by the Director of Community
Development, so long as the increases met the criteria established on pages 3-11 and
3-12, Section 3.~.3, paragraph 3a, b, and c.
19. In the estate area why is the average lot size stated as I0,000 square feet when at 2
d.u./ac, lots should be I/2-acre ar 21,780 square 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 os 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 far the 'estate areas is a minimum average size. Due to hillside slope
areas, variation in terrain and preservation of natural features the sizes of the lots
will vary. There may be lots os Iow os 8,000 square feet and lots that are greater
than I/2-acre 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.
If on increase is approved in the allowable number of units in one sector, then a like
dearease will be required from another sector to conform to the maximum allowable
units of 7,950 as stated on page 7. (John McArthy)
Yes. This would be accomplished by the method of density transfer described in
Sections 2. I and 3.z~.3 of the Specific Plan.
21. In the Specific Plon why are there discrepancies far fl~e total project acreage
between the Specific Plon ond EIR? (F.C.A.)
The discrepancies regarding site acreage are a result of changing data. These
figures are close approximations. The site is currently comprised of. approximately
1,7o,0 acres. The Phase I Area consists of approximately 170 acres and the Myford
interchange is planned to cover approximately 20-acres. Together this totals
approximately I,~30-acres that were annexed to the City. The I,~?88-acres
addressed on page 83 of the EIR, is a figure from a 2-1/2 year old study; the new
figures are more accurate. The 1,820-acres addressed on page I of the Specific Plan
is a typographical error, it should read as 1,7~,0-acres.
22. Given the flexibility to chcmge Sector bounck=ries, clemity transtar unknowns, the
Browning corridor stipulation, the unknown size and location for the regiar,31 p~rk,
croci others, then why ~-en't all sector pl~s subject to review by the Plmning Com-
mission? (F.C.A.)
All Sector plans are subject to review by the Planning Commission ~s established on
pages 3-15 and 3-16, Section 3.5, p~ragraph C, "Sector Plan Processing." Any
changes in boundar, ies or other changes are all subject to the controls and limitations
thczt 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.
23. When specific sector site plans are proposed with permanent sector boun(fl3ries why
aren't the m(zximum dwelling units for the sector established crt that time? (F.C.A.)
Sectors are bounded by fixed property lines established by the Specific Plan area
boundary, arterial roads and defineable physical features of the land. Adjustments
to those boundaries would occur through specific detailed alignments of the arterial
roads. These adjustments would be minor in nature. Such adjustments will not
affect the maximum number of units allowed in the Sector, the Sector Land Use
Area Densities, Sector Policies nor the Development Standards.
2~. Why haven't church sites been provided for in this plan? (M. Brooks ced Io Trc~/)
The Specific Plan Regulations allow churches to .occur in all of the residential land
use areas ~s well ~s in the neighborhood and general commercial I~nd use areas sub-
ject to a conditional use permit. Zoning of property typically and appropriately
plans for locations of broader categories of land use such os residential, commercial
and industrial. Zoning does not typically regulate site specific locations for the
v~riety of the many types of uses that might occur within the city. Individual uses
are noi-,~ally identified ~s specific uses which are permitted within certain zoning
c~tegories, or in the case of East Tustin Specific Plan, a land use are~. Individual
uses such os church organizations normally find locations and acquire sites based on
their own indiviclual needs and requirements such c~ number of facilities, size, Ioca-
tional preference and cost of land. To predetermine and regulate specific sites for
all of this individual uses that mw occur within the plan would not be practical nor
will it guarantee tl~t the individual needs and requirements of these organizations
will be met. An important consideration in planning for these uses is to provide the
brcadest 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 churches to occur within almost all of the land use areas.
25. Irvine (md Orm~je developments should IXe/for circulation improvements in Tustin
which benefit them, e.g. N-S (rtoriai. (John McCcrthy)
New developments in E~t Tustin, ~s well ~ major new developments in most other
cities, fund roads to serve their traffic. In addition, they fund a part of the regional
circulation system which provide traffic capacity to residents from other cities.
However, there is no exact accounting system to balance the contribution to the
regional system among cities.
In the case of the N-S arterial~ it is anticipated that Tustin~ Orange and Irvine
development will all contribute to construction. For that portion abuting the lrvine-
Tustin boundary~ the costs will be shared 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.
26. PI~ far noise ul lenuatian of units located within the Browning Corridor should be
required in the Specific Plc~; (~athy Weil)
Noise levels in the Browning Corridor do not exceed the City of Tustin noise
ordinance or any established noise standards.
BD 2/16n3~
R]~PON~ TO COMM]~FTS
1.
On Page 117 of the ]rr~ the phase II of the ~t Tus~- development of 1,050
home~ appeaes not to be considered in the overall figures. (John J. M~arthy)
It is assumed that this comment is referring to Phase I of the East Tustin
development area which consists of 1,050 dwelling units and was processed as a
seperate project in 1985, The population and housing figures for the Phase I
development are not included with the discussion on page .117 of the East Tustin
Specific Plan t/IR because this section pertains only to the Specific Plan. However,
the population and housing characteristics of Phase I are included in Section 4.0,
"Cumulative Impacts," of the EIR.
W'fll mi,~eaft noise levels aetuany be tested to deteemi~e any impacts altec
e~e~,uetio~? At what point in the e~proval ~ do we ~ that the
development under the eoeridoe is suffie/e~tly prote~ted? Are the noise level
readin~ ~me event~ or ~unulative? How ~ above the ~mnd w/n the
The City of Tustin currently does not require aircraft noise levels to be tested after
Development under the corridor is eonsidared to be sufficiently protected when
indoor noise levels do not exceed 45 CNEL and outdoor noise levels do not exceed
65 CNBL (These standards are consistent with the noise guidelines of the Marine
Corps Air Station, Department of Aeronautics, and Federal Aviation
Administration.) As discussed on page 154 of the EIR, the Bast Tustin area is
definitely outside the 65 CNF. L impact are for helicopter operations.
The helicopter noise leveis delineated within the hst Tustin Specific Plan EIB
reflect cumulative noise levels based on the daily average number of flights.
The guidelines of the Air Inst,llation Compatible Use Zone Study (AICUZ) indicates
that outbound aircrafts are to maint~i, a minimum altitude of 2,000 feet above sea
level and the inbound airerafts maintain a minimum altitude of 2,500 feet above sea
level. However, under special circumstanees such as heavy fog or heavy rain,
inbound aircrafts may be permitted to reduce their elevations to 1,500 feet above
Fievations within the study area range from approximately 715 feet above sea level
in the northeast corner to 75 feet above sea level where the El Modena Channel
crosses under the Santa Aha Freeway. Therefore, outbound helicopters would be
permitted to fly approximately 1,285 to 1,925 feet above the project site depending
on the topography while inbound aircrafts would be permitted to fly approximately
1,785 to 2,425 feet above the project area.
Beem~m t~ ETSP project w~l pla~ furthe~ bu~m c~ ~ l~brary fae~ties
167), mitigatica should ¢ AC)
The additional use of existing library facilities does not necessarily constitute a
significant impact. The County of Orange is responsible for library facilities and
services within the City of Tustin, and was provided eopies of the Draft FIR for the
project. The diseuasion of library impacts b_~s been or will be reviewed by the
County and specific mitigation measures may be recommended as appropriate.
Inadequate compliance with CEQA Guidelines to furnish the public and offiei~l~
with complete documentation.
Over 80 copies of the BIR and technical appendices were distributed to agencies,
local offieiais and the general public during the week of December 18, 1985. This
distribution included forwarding copies of the EIR and appendices to local
homeowners associations, via certified mail Also, eopias were forwarded to local
libraries and are available for public review. Similarly, copies are available for
public review at Tustin City HA!!. Additional copies of the EIR and appendices were
forwarded to local libraries on January 14, 1986 to further facilitate public review.
CEi~A does no.~t require that doeumentation associated with an FIR (i.e., a specific
plan) be circulated along with the I~R during the public review period. However,
copies of the Bast Tustin Specific Plan were made available for public review at
Tustin City HsII: and were foewarded to local offie/~].% at the time of the Draft EIR
distribution.
How does the fact that d~e/fl~ mitigatimu win not be addressed
m~tJl later in the approval proe~_~_ affect the le~Hty and f'vmHty of this
W,'ll the mitigations be just as binding? ~ithout those studies/f'mdings, how
complete is this E]R? (Kathy Weft)
The program E]R for the East Tustin Specific Plan provides mitigation measures
based on the level of project planning currently being considered. The mitigation
measure on page 52 of the ~_ acknowledges that at future more precise levels of
planning, detailed hydrology/drainage studies will be prepared and will serve to
mitigate the potential for flooding hazards. The mitigation measure in the program
E]R is not intended to preclude the project from future environmental review to
ensure that such studies and accompanying mitigation does occur. (See response to
comment No. 9._). This approach is in accordance with the letter and intent of CEQA.
Cmsicle~atim~ simuld also be given to using f'n~dstant plants in ~ natural
As stated in Section 3.13.2 of the DE]R, development in the Hillside District sheJl 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 in~ the water supply to the omite frps_hwatee marsh present a
grmltee potential fcc health and safety lm=-~vds than eureently exists? (Kathy
Weft)
Such potential health and safety hazards as well as measures to mitigate such
potential hazards are issues which would be assessed in detail at more precise levels
of project planning.
8.
Imuffieie~t specific detail to be a Speeifle ~lan: Thet~o~e i~pgeooriate
designatica as a ~ Rm with no sulmequent [mblie review. (Bob Break)
The level of detm{1 required for a specific plan is at the discretion of the affected
jurisdiction. A specific plan serves as a guide for development, and is intended to
provide for the systematic implemention of general plan policies. A program FIR
evaluates the overall impacts of a series of interrelated actions which comprise a
'prejeet', as in the case of a specific plan (see additional discussion below). As such
it is appropriate to catagorize the East Tustin Specific Plan FIR as a program EIR.
The East Tuatln Specific Plan ulu is a Peogram EIR dei~med on pege 1 as
Wmtended to serve as the sole environmental document fee the proposed
specific plan. No environm~ impact report or negative declaration need be
filed Dursmmt to Divisim 13 for any subsequent individual site and bufldi~
pmpmed specific plan." C~e~nia Environment~ ~ality Act (CEQA)
Olxidelill~ ~ a minimum of 45 da~ review. The ~CA r~a~tflllly
requea~ that this period be extended a minimum of ~0 da~w from today and
that /Kk~t~oIM~l ~ of th~ thr~ VOlUm~ b~ m_~fle available at the pubUe
~ as a real oppce~m~ty for review and comment.
Section 15165 of the Guidelines Al.o states that: ~here indivic~ml 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 shah pr.epare a
single program ~R for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168.
As noted in S~tion 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a program FIR is an ErR which
may be prepared in a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project
and are' related either: geographicAl]y; as logical parts in the chain of contemplated
actions; in connection with issuance of rules regulations, plans, or other general
criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or as individual activities
carried out under the same authority and having generally similar environmental
effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. Although a program FIR may be
appropriate for projects meeting only one of the criteria noted above, the "prejeet"
as addressed in the East Tustin Specific Plan ErR basieAily reflects all of the
criteria.
The advantage of a program ErR, as described in the Guidelines, is that is allows a
more comprehensive analysis of the overAn impacts associated with a series of
actions than would otherwise not occur with individeual FIRs for each project
action. A program ErR does not, however, preclude subsequent individual activities
within a project from the requirement for additional environmental analysis, if
appropriate. As speeifieAny stated in Seetion 15168(0) of the Guidelines;
"Subsequent aetivities in the pro.am must be examined in light of the program EIR
'to determine whether au additional environmental document must be prepared. If a
later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new
Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either and FAE 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.
CF~A Guidelines stipulate a minimum 30 days review period for sll EIRs, a minimum
45 day review period for projects involving state agencies and a maximum review
period of 90 days for all ErRs. The length of the review period, aside from meeting
minimum requirements, is at the discretion of the lead agency. The City of Tustin is
the lead agency for the East Tustin Specific Plan project and considers a 45 day
review period to be appropriate foe the subject EIR. Additional copies of the
and appendices were forwarded to local Hbrari~ on January 14, 1986; and additional
copies have been provided to interested parties, inaluding local homeowners
associations. It should be noted that this additional distribution follows the extensive
original distribution which occurred in December 1985 (see response to comment no.
4).
10.
The ~m reflects ineomisteneies and subjectivity insVp~te foe a research
doeumeat, l/xample: Air quality ~may have a significant impaet on regional
qualit~ (/rage 19) but it is also stated of Air Quality, ~Projeet implementation
mT1 fl~mlt in the geneeatic~ of air ponutants_that m~l eo~trilmte to the
cumulative dege~hticn of the ambient air quality~ (p~ge 246). Second
~ample: It is stated that ET~P is aesthetically eons/stent ~with o_~.~ting and
planned sun'enmiing ]~d uses,~ but foe the same City of Irvine Ge~aral Plan
~ it ~would be highly ~)ee~fl~tive~ (p~ge 212) to try to ~ cumulative
impacts. Nevertlmlm, the h'anspoetaflon data indicates a 50 peeeent increase
in po~,l~fica and ?0 per,mt increase in traffic volume with this General Plan
d~veinpment just enst of the ETSP P~ojeet. (FCA)
With respect to the first example, it is hereby noted that the subject statement on
page 19 of the DP. IR is incorrect, and should reflect the fact that the project will
have a siKnifieant impact on regional air quality.
Regarding the second point, the discussion of cumulative impacts on aesthetic
resources which ocours on page 220 of the DEIR refers to the fact that development
of the project site and surrounding arees will change the visual character from open
space to urban uses. This change in land use and accompanying change in
visual/aesthetic character is anticipated in the existing local general plaus, and is
therefore not considered to be significant. The statement on page 212 of the 2T~t
refers to the speculative nature of attempting to identify specific uses east of the
project, at a similar level of deatil to the projects listed in Table 40. The two
subject discussions (page 212 and page 220) deal with completely different levels of
analysis, are not analogous.
Part of the intent of the cumulative impacts analysis is to q,,~ntify 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 ease of the projects
identified in Table 40. Although the general nature of uses east of the project site is
known, a clear understanding of the actual uses to occur would be very difficult at
this time, especially considering that this area will not even begin development for
several years. For this reason, it was considered that a cumulative A~essment would
be speculative. As for the traffic and population data which is cited for the area
east of the project site, this data is based on city and county regional projections and
may not aet,,~lly be specific to the subject area.
11.
The avt~roved snowable dwellh~ foe the East Testin Residential Project ~re
listed as 1218 ~. 212) and as 1050 (p. 215 and 75). ~hieh f'l~mre was used foe
eum,fl~tive hnpaet study? Gestated po~,lmtion figures foe the project range
from 19,053 (p. 170) to 19,319 (p. 215) and ~urrent po~-~-fion of Tustin at
4o,815 1o9) is Ustod 9,000 too ( 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 page 170 is based on population factors delineaqted in the City's park
ordinance which are specific to housing density categories (also shown on pa~e 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 9uest parking? (Kathy Weil)
Parking requirements are determined according to the district (i.e.,
low, medium-low, etc.) and will not be affected by private or public
street designation. If private street standards eliminate required parking,
it will need to be provided elsewhere in the development.
PARKING REQUIREMENTS
A two-bedroom apartment should have two spaces required. (Kathy Weil}
The Specific Plan requirement of 1.8 spaces, plus .25 guest spaces,
for a two-bedroom apartment is consistent with the Phase I - Residential.
Adequacy of parking is as much a function of good site planning as it
is of the number of spaces. All multiple family developments in East
Tustin will require a conditional use permit as part of the approval
process. The planning commission will have an opportunity to evaluate
the parking solution for each development at that time.
- 2 -
GOLF COURSE
How does the plan assure that the golf course will remain open to the
public? (Kathy Weil)
The Specific Plan states on Page 2 - 37 that the golf course will be
privately owned and managed but be open to the public. As.a privately
owned and managed course, it is not a municipal course and thus the
liability will not be the city's.
SET-BACKS
The .medium density attached residential front set-back should be modified
to be consistent with the Phase I Residential standards. (Kathy Weil)
The medium density front set-back standards are consistent with or greater
than the Phase I Residential standards.
DEFINITIONS
How is lot width defined if there is no garage in front?
(Kathy Weil)
The definition as written applies to cul-de-sac or unevenly shaped lots.
The intent is to assure that there is an acceptable width at that point
where a structure is built. It is recommended that the definition of
lot width be modified to read:
"The width at the front of the lot measured at the set-back of the
building."
FIRE HAZARD GUIDELINES
Change "fire retardant" to '"fire resistant" and add after class "A"
minimum~ "as rated by the Underwriter's Lab~ 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 comments, 1/22/86
SOURCE:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE:
SOURCE:
SUBJECTS:
RESPONSES:
SOURCE:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE:
SOURCE:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE:
Tustin Gold Key Association Letter, Jan. 10, 1986
Bryan Avenue
The East Tustin Specific Plan does not propose any change to
Bryan Avenue.
FCA, comment #4 '
North-south route, La 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
~A'ea.
3. Neighborhood continu/ty provides more flexibility for the
school district.
4. Traffic is diverted from other streets such as Newport
Avenue, Red Hill, Browning, and Irvine Blvd.
EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Response to written comments, 1/22/86
Page Two
SOURCE:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE:
SOURCE:
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE:
FCA
Lack of Compliance with MPAH
Plan does comply with City and County Arterial Highway Plans.
Inclusion of collector roads such as Racquet Hill connection does
not imply non-conformance, since collector roads are not normally
included on the MPAH.
FCA
ETC Alignment
The generalized conceptual alignment shown in the traffic study
conforms with the current MPAH as modified by the Memorandum
of Understanding between the Cities of Tustin and Irvine. If
the eventual corridor alignment differs significantly from this, it
will not affect the East Tustin Specific Plan.
EAST. TUSTIN'SPECIFIC PLAN
RESPONSE TO ISSUES AND QUESTIONS
JANUARY 21, 1986
The following are responses to questions generated by the Tustin Planning
Commission as outlined in the attached letter dated January 17, 1986.
Will all construction in the East Tustin Development be on City
sewers? (John J. McCarthy1.
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
fre uenc flood? Kath Well
Regional flood control facilities, those owned and operated by the
Orange County Flood Control District including the E1Modena Channel,
will be designed to convey the discharge from a lO0-year storm. Local
facilities, those facilities operated by the City of Tustin which
typically are found on the interior of the residential subdivisions,
will be designed to carry discharges from 10-year and 25-year storms
depending on their location in the watershed. This level of flood
protection is typical of that required of developments throughout
Orange County.
Does the Orange County Flood Control District have money for upstream
improvements? /John J. McCarthyI
The Orange County Flood Control District has currently allocated
funds for the design of a portion of the E1 Modena-Irvine Channel
from Bryan Avenue to the Redhill-La Colima Channel during the
calendar year 1986. These efforts will also include design of the
Redhill Channel (Fl3) and La Colima-Redhill Channel (FO7SO1) from the
E1 Modena Channel to Irvine Boulevard. No funds are currently
allocated for construction of these facilities.
When will the box culvert crossing of Bryan Avenue be constructed?
(John J. McCarthy/
The construction of the box culvert bridge crossing of Bryan Avenue
will commence upon completion of the bypass channel and tie-in
facilities, which is scheduled for mid-February, 1986. It is
anticipated that the bridge will take approximately two to three
months to construct.
BELLEWICK CO~JNITY ASSOCIATION
Post 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 Well;
On behalf of the Board of Governors of the Bellewick Community Association,
I wish to inform you of our Board's approval and support of the Proposed
Land Use Plan of the East Tustin Specific Pla~.
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 community.
Sincerely,
Gerald Feldman
Chairman, Board of Governors
Bellewick Community Association
cc: Members of Tustin City Council
Members of Tustin Planning Commission
Chairman, The Irvine Company
Repor
Plannin Commission
NO. S
DATE:
SUBdECT:
APPLICANTS:
LOCATION:
ZONING:'
E~VlRONHENTAL
STATUS:
dANUARY 13, 1986
EAST TUSTIN PLANNED COIIqUNITY (TUSTIN RANCH)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ~PACT REPORT NO. 85-2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 86-1A, B, C
ZONE CHANGE 86-1
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 8, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
THE IRYINE COIdlPANY AND THE CITY OF TUSTIN
THE SUBJECT AREA IS BOUNDED BY THE SANTA ANA FREEI~AY TO THE
SOUTH;EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BEVELOPHENT IN THE CITY OF' TUSTIN AND
THE UNINCORPORATED Co~lquNI'rlES (Ilr LE#ON HEIGHTS AND CO#AN HEIGHTS
TO THE NEST;UNINCORPORATED LAND TO THE IIORTN;AND UNINCORPORATED
AREA WITHIN THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE LINE (MYFORD .ROAD) FOR THE
.C1TY OF IRVINE TO THE EAST.
(PC) PLANNFJ) CoPIqUNITY
A ORAFT ENYIRONI~NTAL I~PACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPAREO AND
SUI~IITTED FOR THIS PRIX1ECT.
REC(]IIIENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends the following actions:
1. Accept staff report presentation.
2. Accept project manager and consultant presentation.
3. Conduct the publtc hearing and receive publtc testimony.
4. Continue the subject applications to the Commission's next meeting on
January 27, 1986, thereby allowing staff and project consultants adequate
time to research and answer questions raised by the Commission and
community.
BACKGROUND:
The area known as. East Tustln geographically located east of Browning Avenue and
north of I-$ was annexed to the city in the late 1970's. The property is owned
by The*Irvine Company and while annexed under agricultural preserve status was
originally planned and zoned to be developed for residential and support
commercial, public and service facilities.
Planning Commission
East Tusttn
,~age t~o
Since the agricultural preserve status on the majority of Property expired in
1984 and January, 1986, the property owner has requested permission, to commence
development. Responding to The Irvine Company request, it is the city's
intention that East Tustin be planned from its inception and not permitted to
develop in a piecemeal unplanned fashion. To implement this policy, a
public-private partnership was for~ed by establ.lshment of a Steering Committee
to direct preparation of the East Tustin plan. The East Tustin Steering
Committee was for~ed in March 1983 and originally comprised of the following
members: Don Saltarelli, Councilmen; Richard Edgar, Councilman; Jim Sharp,
Planning Comwission Chairman; Bill Huston, City Manager; Don Lamm, Director of
Community Development; Monica Plorian, Vice President, The Irvtne Company; Rick
Cermack, Director, The Irvtne Company; and, Coralee Newn~n, Manager, The Irvine
Company.
The Steering Committee retained a consultant team under direction of Larry Webb,
J.L. Webb Planning, project manager,'and monitored ongoing preparation of the
land plan and support documents. The city Community Development staff provided
a secondary overview of the. consultant team and (mplemented Steering Committee
direction.
After 2-1/2 years of preparation, a concept land use plan was brought forth to
~he public in a "Town Hall Meeting" on March 27, 1985. Responding where
possible to community concerns, the land use plan has been modified over that
viewed at the Town Hall Meeting. Secondly, the specific plan text has now been
prepared along with the necessary draft Environmental Impact. Report and its
support technical studies. Lastly, a development agreement contractually
binding Irvtne Company commitments and city approvals, while not submitted at
this time, will ultimately be presented to the Planning Commission and Council
for consideration.
During the month of Dece~er, 1985, Planning Commission study sessions were
conducted to review the background and substance of the East Tustin plan. The
purpose of the Commission's meeting on January 13th is to receive staff,
consultant and public testimony and eventually formulate a Pecommended position
to the City Council.
While 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, 1986.
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 86-1 A, B, and C which proposes
amendments to the Land Use, Circulation and Seismic Safety Elements. These
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
East Tusttn
page three
amendments are necessary to ensure consistancy between the city's General Plan
and ultimate zoning and development of the property.
Secondly, Zone Change 86-1 is proposed incorporating minor changes to the'
property zoning from its present designation of (PC) Planned Community to
Planned Community-Residential, Commercial, Community Facilities and Mixed Use.
The Zone Change is simply a refinement of the present Planned Community zoning.
Specific Plan No. 8 is the actual land use regulatory document containing policy
statements of the city in Section 2 of said document and zoning development
standards in Section 3. It is this plan that more definitively indicates types
and density of residential development and approximate locations of community
parks, schools, an 18 hole golf' course, support commercial shopping centers and
office complexes. Lastly, draft EIR 85-2 provides the environmental analysis
for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Specific Plan applications.
Due to the extensive detail presented in the specific plan and environmental
documents, a comprehensive presentation will be made at the Commission's meeting
on January 13th. Staff and consultants will be prepared to address the
Commission's questions at that time.
Hopefully to address as many advance questions as possible, members of the
consultant team and Steering Committee met with co,,miuntty groups that expressed
interest in the project. Meetings were conducted with the Foothill Community
Association of North Tustin, the North Tustin Municipal Advisory Council, the
Tustin Chamber of Commerce Legislative Committee, the Belwick Homeowners
Association and additional meetings are planned with other homeowner
associations adjoining the East Tusttn area.
In addition, 340 public hearing notices were mailed tnaccordance 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.
CONCLUSZONS:
Development of East Tustln will obviously impact surrounding communities in both
Tustin and the County area of north Tustin. However, the subject area has had
an urban designation status since 1973, and the expiration of the agricultural
preserve would mean the ultimate conversion of the land to urban uses in
accordance with a master plan. Reacting to this fate, the city/Steering
Committee has strived to produce a plan with the proper balance of land uses and
one whose fiscal impact will not be detrimental to 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
Community Development Department '
Planning Commission
East Tustin
page four
schools and commercial shopping centers to provide convenient services to those
new residents of our community. The majority of heavier commercial and
employment based businesses (research and development) are located adjoining the
[-5 freeway. This balanced plan, therefore, provides both local employment and
a variety of housing opportunities from rental apartments to estate size homes
in the foothills.
The East Tustin plan represents countless hours of staff, property owner
and consultant time over the past three years. While it cannot address every
single concern raised by the community, hopefully it is the best and most
practical alternative. Therefore, the East Tusttn Steering Committee recommends
adoption of this plan by both the Planning Commission and City Council subject
to substantial mitigation measures and contractual obligations between' the city
and The Irvine Con, any.
Director of Community Development
Senior Planner
DDL:do
attach:
land use map
Project summary
public hearing notice
DEIR with appendices
ETSP
Community Development Depariment J
CON~U~TAJ, rrs
LAND USE PLAN
PROdECT gJI~IARY
The proposed land use plan encompasses approximately ~,740. acres of level and
hilly terrain. Over 70 percent of the-site is relatively flat (0 to 5 percent
slope) or 1,218 acres, with the remaining 522 acres made up of hillside terrain
with slopes ranging from 5 to over 30 percent slope. Level portions are
situated in the southern acres, with hilly terrain 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 Irvine sphere of influence northerly of
lrvine Boulevard. At this time, the area is completely undeveloped, primarily
supporting agricultural uses.
The statistical summary of the proposed plan includes:
Land Use Dest~lnation
Acreage
Residential
Estate (up to 2 du/ac)
Low (upto 5 du/ac)
Medium Low (up to 10 du/ac)
Medium (up to 18 du/ac)
Medium-High (up to 25 du/ac)
415
287
239
178
Open Space
Public Neighborhood Parks*
Community Parks
GO]fmCourse
14
37
150
Commercial/Business
Neighborhood Commercial
General Commercial
Mixed Use
10
31
121
Institutional
Elementary Schools*
Intermediate Schools
High School
58
15
4O
Other Uses
Roads (arterial and major only**)
101
Certain park and school site acreages have not been established.
Such acreage will be taken from residential land use area.
** Acreage for all roads other than arterial and major roads, has
been included in the acreage for the surrounding land uses.
The proposed plan would permit a maximum of 7,950 dwelling units divided among
twelve separate sectors. Ten of the sectors permit residential development, and
each is divided into land use types with a maximum density allowable for each
type. Additionally, each sector is given a total number of dwelling units,
although units may be transferred from sector to sector, subject to certain
criteria. With the exception of units transferred by Tentative Tract 12345, the
maximum number of dwelling units for the 'specific plan area can not exceed 7,g50
units.