Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 86-1268 l0 11 15 16 18 19 £0 £1 ~5 .~ 26 ~? )URKB; 8l WOODRUilII' ,TTORNEYM AT LAW ORANG~ RESOLUTION NO. 86--126 - , A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) 85-2 AS SUPPLEMENTED, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows- A. That in Resolution 86-28 the City Council previously certified as complete the East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2 (EIR 85-2) which addressed the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a + 1,740-acre master planned community (the East Tustin Specific Plan). B. That the proposed development a~reement between the City and the developer, the Irvine Company, would provide a policy mechanism for ±mplementin~ several portions of the East Tustin Specific Plan. C. That an initial study prepared by the City staff for the development a~reement determined that new information is available related to phasin~ of development 'under the East Tustin Specific Plan and this information, which was not 'known at the time EIR 85-2 was certified as complete, could result in the indentification of additional envirOnmental impacts not addressed in EIR 85-2. D. That a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared for the city of Tustin by Michael Brandman Associates. E. That distribution of the SEIR was made to interested public and private a~encies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. F. That a public hearin~ was duly called, noticed and held on the SEIR. G. That the public review period for the SEIR ended on September 26, 1986. That incorporated within the SEIR are comments of the public, Plannin~ Commission, staff and other a~encies, and responses thereto. H. That the SEIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of the city of Tustin. I. That the SEIR including comments and responses has been reviewed by staff, and represents their 10 18 2O Resoluti on No. pa ge two 86-126 independent evaluation and analysis. J® That the SEIR was distributed to the Planning Commission that they.reviewedl this document, received public testimony considered comments and responses thereto in their review of proposed development agreement. and and the K® That EIR 85-2 as revised by the SEIR, including the comments, responses, and attachments have been reviewed and considered, and that mi tigation measures have been incorporated into the Specific Plan Project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in EIR 85-2 as revised by the SEIR, comments, responses, and attachments; and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding. In addition to the Statement 'of Findings and Facts and the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit "Al', the Statement of Overriding Considerations and mitigating measures listed in Exhibit "A" to Resolution 86-28 are hereby incorporated by reference. · L. That the SEIR, plus comments, responses and attachments, constitute Final SEIR 85-2. II. The Ctty Council of the City of Tustin does hereby certify that Final EIR 85-2 as revised by the SEIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. ,.adjo.urned PASSED AND ADOPTED at an'regu)ar meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 22nd day of October , 1986. DONALD J.~LTARELLI Mayor Attest: MARY E. ~f~ NN, (3 Cit¥ Cle CE~A FINDINGB AND BTATEMENT OF FACTB 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 PI~)POSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SI:rECIFIC PLAN The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identified one or more significant effects of the project unless the @ublie agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding" (Section 15091). The City. of Tustin proposes to approve a Development Agreement for the East , Tustin Specific Plan site. Because the proposed action constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, and new information of substantial importance is available which was not available at the time the program FEIR (EIR 85-2) for the study area was prepared, the City of Tustin has prepared a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for FEIR 85-2. The final SEIR has identified certain additional significant effects which may occur as a result of the phased implementation of the project proposal. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in FEIR 85-2 and in the final SEIR and desires to approve the project with the following findings and statement of overriding considerations in addition to the findings and statement of overriding considerations previously adopted for the Specific Plan and FEIR 85-2 and is hereby incorporated by reference. FINDING~ Transportation/Circulation ' Signifieant Effect - The Development Agreement provides for planned roadway improvements in the Specific Plan vicinity whieh would, when eompleted, provide for a circulation system to accommodate project traffic, as well as provide for areawide traffic solutions. Delays in improvement to either the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 interchange or the Myford Road/I-5 interchange could, depending on the delay result in short-term impacts to up to four intersections as discussed in Secti°n 3.1'.-2 of the SEIR. FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the final EIR. Facts in..S..upport of Finding- As a mitigation measure, both the City of Tustin and the developer, The Irvine Company, shall work closely with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration in an effort to avoid any delays in the construction of the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 interchange and the improvement of the Myford Road/I-5 interchange. Such coordination can serve to effectively integrate the phased development of the project site with the lead time requirements of the improvement/construction of the subject interchanges. FINDING 2 - Changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies. Facts in Support of Finding - Responsibility for the construction of the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 and the improvement of Myford Road/I-5 interchanges lies ultimately with the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The proposed development agreement provides for the funding of improvements to the Tustin Ranch Road/I-5 interchange, however, Caltrans action is required for implementation. The Myford Road/I-5 interchange is scheduled for improvement by Caltrans and is currently anticipated to be constructed by 1990. Any delay in the Caltrans schedule is unforeseen at this time. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings - The No Project alternative would forego the early commitment to and timing 'of m~jor interchange improvements. As sueh~ this alternative would only increase ~he likelihood and severity of impacts associated With delays in transporta{i6n System improvements. The Increased Initial Infrastructure Alternative would require that the subject interchange improvement occur prior to the .development of either Phase I or · Phase II of the project. Although this alternative appears logical-having the interchange in place before deve, lopment occur-it is not economically sound. Major infrastructure improvements are largely financed by funds received through assessment districts. Assessment districts, in turn, receive funds from bonds secured by fees levied against residential and commercial land uses. Therefore, prior to the development of Phases I or II, it is unlikely that sufficient funds could be obtained from the undeveloped land to construct major interchange improvements. Also, in possibility of interchange improvement delays, the consideration of increased initial infrastructure as a feasible alternative is further diminished. The Decreased Initial Infrastructure Alternative would modify the Development . Agreement to specify that major infrastructure improvements would be constructed as the need for these improvements is identified, and Tustin would have no assurances from the developer regarding the phasing of such improvements. Similar to the No Project alternative, this alternative would only increase the likelihood and severity of potential impacts associated with interchange improvements not being coordinated with the phased development of the site. These alternatives were evaluated in the SEIR and considered during the course of the public review process.. - Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above, as well as for reasons noted in the SEIR. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. ~HydrologyfWater Quality S~!gnifieant Effect- Implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan will increase runoff due to the development of impervious surfaces. Application of the Development Agreement in the implementation of the Specific Plan would serve to mitigate potential impacts by providing for the phased development/improvement of flood control facilities (e.g., the E1 Modena Channel). The impact of the · Development Agreement would, therefore, be positive and, as such, no additional findings are necessary. Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of project design considerations and mitigation measures identified in FEIR 85-2 and incorporated into the project. Police and Fire Protection Services Signifiea. nt .E..ffeet - Implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan engendecs the need fo~ .additional police and five pco-teetion staff and facilities/equipment. Application of the Development Agreement in the implementation of the Specific Plan would serve to mitigate potential impacts through the developer's pcovision for and funding of new facilities. The impact 'of the Development Agreement would, therefo~e~ be positive ai~d~ as sueh~ no additional findings are neeessacy. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated ot substantially lessened by virtue of P~ojeet design eonsidevations and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR 85-2 and incorporated into the p~ojeet. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS BACKGROUND , ,, The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Section 150911 of the Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project 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 also makes the finding under Section 150891(a)(2) or (a)(3). (e) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included, in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination." . In accordance with the provisions of this statute, the City Council hereby finds that · the following benefits, in addition to those identified at the time of approval of the Specific Plan, outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects and are overriding: 1. The Development Agreement serves an additional mechanism for the effective and efficient implementation of the East Tustin Specific Plan. 2. The Development Agreement provides a program for monitoring and controlling the impacts of the project on the city's fiscal resources and, thus, serves the interest of maintaining city's fiscal integrity. 3. The Development Agreement includes provisions for developer funding of additional fire protection facilities and expansion of civic center facilities. 4. The Development Agreement is the vehicle for the implementation of infrastructure improvements which serve to mitigate development impacts. The Development Agreement provides for an improvement phasing plan whieh helps ensure the timely development of major infrastructure improvements. The Development Agreement p~-ovides for commitments and assurances for dedieations~ improvements and .facilities at which such actions otherwise mil~ht not occur. STATE OF. CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 86-1~6 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council held on Wednesday, the 22nd day of Octo. ber, 1986, by the following vote' ----- AYES · COUNCILPERSONS. Edgar, Hoesterey, Kelly, Kennedy, Saltarelli NOES · COUNCILPERSONS. None ABSENT' COUNCILPERSONS. None MARY' E'. WY~, 'City Q~erk City of Tu~kl~f n, Cali~orni a