HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 79-302
8
10
1!
12
&o
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
2~
25
26
27
28
29
~0
~2
RESOLUTION NO. 79-30
A RESOLTUION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT 78-3 (IRVINE/PETERS CANYON) .
The City 'Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby resolve
as follows: ·
A. The City Council finds and determines'
1. That a draft Environmental Impact Report (78-3) was prepared under
staff direction for the'purpose of evaluating the impact upon the
environment of the prezoning and annexation of the Irvine/Peters
Canyon lands to the City of Tustin and the ultimate development
pursuant to the Planned Community (PC) District regulations.
2. 'That upon completion of the draft Environmental Impact Report
notice was provided and consultations made with public agencies
having jurisdiction by law and with those having knowledge and-
interest in the subject land, as a further evaluation of environ-
mental impacts on the subject property.
That public notice of the completion of the draft Envirorumental
...Impact. Report was given in the Notice of Public Hearing of the Tustin
Planning Agency on April 2, 1979, by publication in the. TUstin_.__ _ New_s~
':- ch 22 1979
O~ ~'.~ r . , ·
· 4. That the Tustin Planning Agency in a duly convened meeting on
April 16, 1979, by Resolution No. 1812, recommended certification
of Environmental Impact Report (78-3).
5. That a public hearing was duly advertised and conducted by the"
City Council for the purpose of receiving further public comment on
the draft Environmental Impact Report (78-3) on May 7, 1979~
6. That an Environmental Impact Report (78-3) has been prepared by
staf_f consisting of:
a. the draft Environmental Impact Report (78-3);
b. public comments and recommendations received on the draft
Environmental Impact Report (78-3);
c. revisions of the draft Environmental Impact Report (78-3) and
responses of the City to significant environmontal points
raised in thc public review and consultation process;
d. a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies com-
menting on the draft Environmental Impact Report (78-3).
7. That the final Environmental Impact Report (78-3) is complete and
sufficient as required by law. .
B. The City Council finds and determines that ultimate development of the
subject property pursuant to Planned Community (PC) District regulations
will have the following significant adverse impacts which are more
fully addressed in Environmental Impact Report (78-3):
1. Urbanization with its growth including elements and adverse con-
comitants of noise, traffic congestion, and potential demands for
public services to include public safety, education, transportation,
and utilities.
2. The loss of agricultural food production of unique character and
2
6
8
9
10
ii
17
18
19
2O
21,
22
23
24
25
26
'27
28
29
3O
31
32
Resolution No. 79-30
page 2. ~
removal of prime agricultural land from an urbanizing area.
3. The loss of open space, sylvan areas, topographical character, and
vegetation.
4. The degradation of air and water quality caused by inhabitation.
5. Increased energy consumption.
6. Potential flood plan hazards.
7. Loss of archaeological resources.
D. The City Council finds and determines that mitigation measures can be
required to minimize and eliminate significant adverse environmental
effects as reviewed in Environmental Impact Report (78-3). The City·
Council hereby finds and determines that the following stipulations and
measures shall be imposed to mitigate and eliminate significant ad-
verse impacts when the subject property is developed pursuant to
Planned Com.munity (PC) District regulations:
1. Open space and parkland trail systems shall be incorporated into
design plans for public benefit and access and a golf course shall
be considered where feasible as a buffering amenity.
2. Phased development will be required to retain agricultural land in.
production as long as the agricultural contract remains in effect
..
and until preparation for development renders production infeasible.
3. The topography of the area shall be preserved by the control of
ridge line developments and hillside scarfing.
4. Compatibility shall be maintained with abutting developments by
restricting densities to that of the adjoining residential areas.
5. Ail other mitigating measures as identified in Environmental Impact
Report (78-3) shall be incorporated into design plans and develop-
ment except as expressly provided otherwise herein.
6. Notwithstanding the aforemenSioned mitigation measures, the City
Council finds and determines that any remaining environmental
impact of development can and should be ameliorated by specifying
detailed mitigation measures at the subdivision and site plan .
,
review stages of the process. To the extent that any environmental
impacts cannot be thereby mitigated, it is hereby resolved that the
social benefits of this planning program are of Overriding signif-
cance.
E. The City Council finds and determines that the mitigation of adverse
effects in air quality is primarily the responsibility of the Air Qualiti"
Management District. The District has been requested by the City to
take measures to mitigate dete.rioration in air quality. To further mitigate
any adverse environmental effects the City Council hereby imposes the
following design criteria when the subject property is developed pur-
suant to Planned Community (PC) District regulations:
1. The design of bicycle trails between residential areas and places
of employment and schools.
2. The incorporation of neighborhood convenience shopping facilities
to reduce shopping related vehicle trips.
4
5
6
8
10
!!
17
18
19
~0
~8
29
30
Resolution No. 79-30
page 3.
3. Consideration of solar water heating to reduce the consumption of
natural gas.
4. The construction of places to live in proximity to emploYmen, t
opportunities.
5. The design oi arterial roads and synchronized signalization to
permit the smooth and uninterrupted flo~w of traffic.
6. The promotion of bus service between residences and places of em-
ployment.
7. The inclusion of appropriate affordable housing plans in subdivision
and design plans.
F. The City Council finds and determines afer review of Environmental
Impact Report (78-3), the comments of interested public agencies and the
co~unity at large, and the .responses of staff thereto, that:
1. The following are proposed alternatives to the project:
a. No project;
b. No annexation to Tustin;
,
A new city;
d. A regional park;
e. Commercial and private recreation development;
f. Agricultural land use in flat lands;.
g. Commercial development;
h. industrial development;
i. Reduced dwelling densities;
2. That the proposed alternative of no project is not· a viable alter-
native in that the owner of the subject property .~annot be de-
prived of developing its land without compen'sation and there are
insufficient public funds available to acquire the property for
public use.
3. That the proposed alternative of no annexation to Tustin is a
possible alternative to the projeCt. The land would exist in its
present form until such time as a development plan was presented.
It would then be subject to °approval as a subdivision. Government
would be in the position of being required, to respond to the de-
velopment plans of the land owner rather than having the advantage
of advance planning by the city and accommodation by the prospective
developer.. After development the area could remain in the unincor-
porated area of Orange County which is not structured to provide
urban services. This alternative would be contrary to the Urban De-
velopment Strategy Plan of the State of .California. By proceeding
with the project, adequate planning and urban services would be
guaranteed. This alternative is co.nsequently rejected.
4. That the proposed alternative of a new city is not a viable alternative
in that the area lacks financial feasibility because it is totally
residential in character. Further, a new city would be contrary to
the concept of a balanced community which provides employment op-
portunities for all who reside within the community. This alterna-
tive is consequently rejected.
5. That the proposed alternative of a regional park is a viable and
desirable alternative. Within the framework of the proposed
project there is no conflict with the alternatives of a regional park
in the North portion of the project area. The Orange County Board
of Supervisors has not rejected the potential for a regional park
but lack the financial resources to accomplish the objective and
have solicited the support of the City of Tustin toward this end.
The alternative of a regional park is thus not rejected, but would
2
3
10
1!
Resolution No. 79-30
page 4.
become more realistic as a result of the proposed project.
6. ' That the proposed alternative of the subject property being d~-
veloped for commercial and private recreation purposes is viable.
Such use would cause the character of the land to differ substantially
from the adjoining residential developments. Due to the intention .....
of the City to preserve the land in a condition consistent with ad-
joining residential developments and the overriding concern of the
community to retain such consistency, this alternative is rejected·
7. That the proposed alternative of retaining .flat lands in agricultural
production is viable only if government was willing and able to
acquire the land and lease it back for agricultural production; the
private land owner may otherwise develop the property. This alter-
.native is therefore rejected.
8. That the proposed alternative of c0n%mercial development is not a
viable alternative as the subject property does not have sufficient
supporting populatio~L nor major arterials for public access. This
alternative is therefore rejected.
9. That the proposed alternative of industrial development is not
a viable alternative as it is out of character with the surrounding
area, and the land use element of the general plan. This alternative
is tkerefore rejected.
10. That the proposed alternative of. reduced dwelling densities is not
consistent with the surrounding area. The planned density is con-
sis~ent with residential density patterns, in the City of Tustin.
A requirement of the prezoning ordinance is that the density of
new developments may not exceed that of adjoining developed propert~ ......... :
.~nd that the foothill area will be limited to a density of two (2.)
dwelling units per acre. This alternative is therefore rejected.
!~ !I G. The City Council finds and determines after Consideration of all mi ti-
I ~at'ion measures and alternatives, the project will have an effect on the
19 enviro~_ment, but that the project is justified' for the following reasons:
2O
2!
22
23
2~
1. The prezoning and annexation of the subject property will not have
an adverse impact upon the environment.
2. The annexation of the subject area to the City of Tust~n will per-
mit the expenditures of time, effort and manpower toward the plan-
ning of the ultimate development of the subject lands with concern
for total environment.
3. By ultimate development of the subject land, the process of urban
sprawl within Orange County can be retarded to provide for develop-...
ment in urbanized and adjacent to urbanized areas rather than the
present policies of remote developments causing an economic burden
for transportation, road networks, urban services, and utilities,
which are reflected upon the Costs of the existing residents of
Orange County.
4. The early identification of environmental factors to include physical]..
and social elements, will contribute to the objectives of achieving
a balanced community.
5. Ultimate development provides the opportunity and responsibility
to enable affordable housing within the proximi~,y of places of em-
ployment, thereby reducing energy requirements and accommodating the
housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
25
26
27
28
29
:50
8
10
Resolution No. 79-30
page 5.
6. The planning and development of the subject area will enable the
control and direction of storm water as an amenity rather than a
hazard to the area by providing for collection, percolation, re-
tardation of flow, and irrigation sto~age to the fullest extent
feasible and practicable.
7. Of all possible uses of the land, it is' concluded that the proposed
development of a Planned Community with supporting neighborhood
facilities complies with the intent of the general plan and has the
least negative impact upon the environment by the protection and
preservation of open space and community ~menities.
H. Environmental Impact Report 78-3 for Annexation No. 117 and Prezone 79-1,
to consist of the draft Environmental Impact Report (78-3), public
comments and recommendations received thereon, revisions of the draft
Environmental Impact Report (78-3) and responses to significant environ-
mental points raised in the public £eview and consultation process, a
list of. all. persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on
the draft Environmental Impact Report (78-3), and the transcript of the
public hearing held on May 7, 1979, on draft Environmental Impact Re-
port (78-3), is hereby certified by the City Council of the City of
Tustin an= the staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination.
PASSED AND ADCPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tustin held on the 7th day of May, 1979.
S'tep~n L. Schuster
Mayor
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
~0
52
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
RUTH C. POE, 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.79-30
was duly and regularly introduced, read, passed and adopted at ...............
a regular meeting of-the City Council held on the 7th day of
May , ]979, by the following vote- .
AYES- COUI~CI L.MEN - SCHUSTER,
NOES - COI/NCILMEN: NONE
ABSmNT: COUNCi
SHARP, SALTARELLI, WELSit, KENNEDY
~MEN- NONE
City Clerk,~itY of Tustin, Calif6-fnia
A-5