HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3807l0
14
20
2!
2,2
23
2.4
25
2,7
28
RESOLUTION NO. 3807
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 01-004 AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT.
· The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows'
A.
That Code Amendment 01-004 is considered a "project" pursuant
to the terms of the California EnvirOnmental Quality Act; and
B,
A draft Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared
for this project and distributed for public review. The draft Initial
Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the code
amendment citywide; and,
C,
The Planning Commission of the City of TuStin has considered
evidence presented by the Community' Development Director and
other interested parties with respect to the subject draft Initial
Study/Negative Declaration.
Ii.
A Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been
completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning
Commission has received and considered the information contained in
the' Negative Declaration prior to recommending approval of the
proposed project and found that it adequately discusses the
environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial
study and comments received during the public hearing process, the
Planning Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect as a
result of the code amendment. In addition, the Planning Commission
finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either
individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section
711.2 of the Fish and Games Code. The Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Final Negative Declaration
for Code Amendment 01-004.
l0
14
l?
20
2.?-
24
25
28
ReSolution No. 3807
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 8th day of October, 2001.
E P IOUS
Chairperson
,,
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution
No. 3807 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of October, 2001.
'ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
INITIAL STUDY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(7]4) 573-3100
Ae
BACKGROUND
Project Title' Code Amendment 01-004 (Sign Removal Cost Recovery)
Lead Agency'
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, Califomia 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person:
Scott Reekstin
Phone: 714/573-3016
Project Location:
Citywide
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Tustin
General Plan Designation:
Not applicable
Zoning Designation'
Not applicable
Project Description'
A Code Amendment to the Tustin City Code to establish an administrative
procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal and disposal of
illegally placed signs on public property or easements.
Surrounding Uses'
North: N/A
South: N/A
East: N/A
West: N/A
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Other
[-'] City of Irvine
[-] City o f Santa Ana
[-] Orange County
EMA
g~
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
['-]Land Use and Planning
[--]Population and Housing
[--']Geological Problems
[--]Water
['-']Air Quality
[-~Transportation & Circulation
[-~Biological Resources
[-'-]Energy and Mineral Resources
[-']Hazards
[--]Noise
[--~Public Services
[--]Utilities and Service
Systems
[-~Aesthetics
["]Cultural Resources
[--]Recreation
[--]Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[-] I find that although the proposed project could have a.significant effect on the environmem, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[--] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[-7] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been'addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
[-'-] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
[--] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparer: Scott Reekstin Title
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
Date
Senior Planner
September 27, 2001
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
De
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Dh'ections
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rapture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is
required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal Standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures. Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, 'and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
EVALUAT.!ON OF ENVIRONMENTAL I., .M. pACT,.S
I. AESTHETICS- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland~ or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY' Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b)' Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
[3
O.
No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special stares species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
establ'ished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
.VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
[3
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident'conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[3
[2]
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
Vlll. HYDROL.....OGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern Of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss}
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[3
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
E]
[23
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES- Would the project:
a). Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state? .
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or'other land use plan?
XI. NOISE-
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local.general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
'c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
.public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels.?
XII. p. OPUL. ATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
[2]
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[3
[2]
[2]
[2]
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain 'acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION-
, ,
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have. an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact.
[2]
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CODE AMENDMENT 01-004, SIGN REMOVAL COST RECOVERY
BACKGROUND
The current provisions of the Tustin City Code allow the City to remove any sign illegally
placed on public property and to recover the costs of removal from the owner of the
si~n. Tho current provisions of tho City Code also provide a procodure, including a
mandatory hearing before the City Council, to establish the costs and charges to be
levied against the owner of the sign.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow the City to remove illegal signs placed
on public property and to recover the costs from the person responsible for the.
placement of such signs. It would establish a presumption that the person who
benefited from the placement of the signs is the person responsible. The proposed
amendment creates an administrative procedure for establishing the costs and charges,
including an appeal process to a hearing officer designated by the City Manager.
There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a result of
the adoption of this code amendment.
1. 'AESTHETICS
Items a through d -"No Impact": The propoSed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The proposed code amendment will not have any effects on
aesthetics in the area including scenic vistas or scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rocks outcropping, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway. The proposed code amendment will not degrade the existing
visual character or quality of the plan area or its surroundings. The amendment will
improve the aesthetic character of. Tustin's streetscapes because the City will be
able to abate illegal Signs and reduce the negative impacts of sign clutter by using
the recovered costs to fund sign enforcement efforts.
Sources:
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required'
None Required
.
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a throu.ah c- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
_
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
Sign Removal- Code Amendment- Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 2 of 7
,
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjUnction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The proposed code amendment will have no impacts on any
farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract. The code amendment will not result in conversion of farmland to a
non-agricultural use.
Source:
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required'
None Required
AIR QUALITY
Items a through e- "No Impact"' The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The code amendment will not conflict with or obstruct implementation
of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively
considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient
air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of
people.
Sources:
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and
Regulations
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required'
None Required
.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a through .f....-..'iNo Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated With the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or
animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would
occur as a result of this code amendment.
Source:
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitorin.a Required'
None Required
Sign Removal - Code Amendment- Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 3 of 7
,
.
,
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a through d -"No Impact~i: The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally .placed signs 'on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The code amendment will not adversely .affect any historical
resources or archaeological resources or destroy or disturb a unique
paleontological resource, human remains, or geological feature.
Sources:
Cultural Resources District
Tustin Zoning Code
General Plan
Miti.aation/Monitoring Required,'
_
None Required
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Items a through e -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. As such, the proposed code amendment will not ex-pose people to
potential adverse geologic impacts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking,
landslides, soil erosion, or loss of top soil, nor is the project on unstable or
expansive soil.
Source:
Tustin 'General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required'
None Required
HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ii i i , i i iii ii i i
Items a through h- "No Impact": The proposed code.amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with .the adOption of this code
amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in significant hazards
(i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response
plans, wildland fires, etc.), nor is the project area located within an airport land use
plan or vicinity of a private airstrip.
Sources'
Orange County Fire Authority
Tustin General Plan
Sign Removal- Code Amendment - Initial Study
Attachment ,,I
Page 4 of 7
.
,,
10.
Mitigation/Monitoring ,.Required'
None Required
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ii i11 i
Items a throuqh j -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs, on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The code amendment will not result in any change in the amount or
direction of surface or groundwaters.
Source:
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required'
None Required
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Items a throuah c- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The proposed code amendment will not physically divide an
established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan.
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning' Code
Mitigation/Mon itorinq Required'
None Required
MINERAL RESOURCES
,,, ,, , ,
Items a and b- "No Impact"' The proposed code amendment would establish an
administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in loss of a known
mineral resource or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on the general plan or other applicable land use maps.
,
Source:
, ,
Tustin General Plan
Miti,qation/Monitorinq Required'
None Required
Sign Removal- Code Amendment- Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 5 of 7
11. NOISE
12.
13.
Items a through f- "No. Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property, or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The proposed code amendment will not expose persons to noise
levels in excess of standards established in the general plan, noise code
amendment, or excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase
in the existing ambient noise levels.
Sources'
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/M0nitorin.q Required'
None Required
POPULATION AND HOUSING
!.te..ms. a, b, and c- ".No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. No impact associated with the increase in population and housing
is anticipated.
Source:
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required:
None Required
PUBLIC SERVICES
1,,1111
Item a-" No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish an
administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The proposed code amendment will not create demand for alteration
or addition of government facilities or services (fire and police protection, schools,
parks, etc. On the contrary, cost recovery will off-set staff costs associated with
sign removal thereby reducing the tax burden on Tustin's general taxpayers.
Source'
.....
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required:
None Required
Sign Removal- Code Amendment- Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 6 of 7
14. RECREATION
15.
16.
Items a and b- "No Impact"' The proposed code amendment would establish an
administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this .code
amendment. The code amendment would not increase demand for neighborhood
parks or recreational facilities. Impacts related to any future project would be
identified and evaluated in .conjunction with a specific project.
Sources'
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required:
None Required
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Items a throuqh g -"No Impact"' The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with.the adoption of this code
amendment. No alteration in the traffic generation and circulation patterns within
the project area would be affected by the proposed code amendment. The
proposed code amendment will not result in changes to air traffic patterns,
emergency access, level of service standards, or conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Improved sign
enforcement resulting from cost recovery may serve to improve traffic safety
because potentially distracting signs may be more efficiently removed from public
property.
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required:
None Required
UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a through g - "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment. The adoption of the code amendment will have no impacts to water
treatment, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal.
Source:
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Required'
None Required
Sign Removal- Code Amendment - Initial Study
Attachment A
Page 7 of 7
17.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a throu.g.h, c- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish
an administrative procedure for recovering the costs associated with the removal
and disposal of illegally placed signs on public property or easements. No
physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code
amendment.
There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a
result of the adoption of this code amendment. The code amendment does not
have the potential to' degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, nor produce
significant negative indirect or direct effects on humans.
S:\CDD\Scott\Environmental etc\ neg dec -CA 01-004attachment A.doc