DOCSLIB.ORG

IP 16-198 Peters Canyon Regional Park

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IP 16-198 Peters Canyon Regional Park INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IP 16-198) PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: COUNTY OF ORANGE ORANGE COUNTY PARKS 13042 Old Myford Road Irvine, California, 92602 Prepared by: CHAMBERS GROUP, INC. 5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 750 Santa Ana, California 92707 (949) 261-5414 JUNE 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Peters Canyon Regional Park General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan Orange County, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AND INITIAL STUDY ......................................... 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................ 1 1.2.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Location ............................................................................................................................ 2 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 General Development Plan .............................................................................................. 5 1.3.2 Resource Management Plan ............................................................................................ 9 1.3.3 Construction Staging Areas and Disposal Sites .............................................................. 13 1.3.4 Construction Personnel and Equipment ........................................................................ 14 1.3.5 Implementation Schedule .............................................................................................. 16 1.4 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS........................................................................................ 18 1.4.1 Lead Agency Approval .................................................................................................... 18 1.4.2 Reviewing Agencies ........................................................................................................ 19 1.4.3 Responsible Agencies and Respective Discretionary Actions ........................................ 19 SECTION 2.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ........................................................................... 20 SECTION 3.0 – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....................................................................................... 21 3.1 ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 21 3.2 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS ANALYSIS ..................................................................................... 21 3.3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................ 21 3.3.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .............................................................................. 25 3.3.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 26 3.3.4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 39 3.3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 48 3.3.6 Energy ............................................................................................................................ 52 3.3.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................... 52 3.3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................ 59 3.3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................. 61 3.3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................ 64 3.3.11 Land Use & Planning ...................................................................................................... 70 3.3.12 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................... 71 3.3.13 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 72 3.3.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................. 77 3.3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................ 78 3.3.16 Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 80 3.3.17 Transportation ............................................................................................................... 81 Chambers Group, Inc. ii 2019 20924.02 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Peters Canyon Regional Park General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan Orange County, California 3.3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 88 3.3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 90 3.3.20 Wildfire........................................................................................................................... 93 3.3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 94 SECTION 4.0 – SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................... 98 SECTION 5.0 – REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 103 APPENDICES APPENDIX A – AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX B – PLANT AND WILDLIFE OBSERVED SPECIES LISTS APPENDIX C – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORTS APPENDIX D – PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT APPENDIX E – CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT APPENDIX F – GREENHOUSE GASES APPENDIX G – NOISE APPENDIX H – TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY APPENDIX I – UTILITIES SERVICES FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Chambers Group, Inc. iii 2019 20924.02 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Peters Canyon Regional Park General Development Plan and Resource Management Plan Orange County, California LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Existing and Proposed Trails............................................................................................................ 9 Table 2: Equipment per Construction Activity by Project ........................................................................... 16 Table 3: Construction Schedule and Estimated Number of Workers ......................................................... 16 Table 4: Designations/Classifications for the Project Area ......................................................................... 28 Table 5: Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ................................................................................... 30 Table 6: Regional Thresholds of Significance .............................................................................................. 33 Table 7: Local Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................... 33 Table 8: Construction-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ........................................................ 34 Table 9: Construction-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions .............................................................. 35 Table 10: Operations-Related Regional Criteria Pollutant Emissions ......................................................... 37 Table 11: Operations-Related Local Criteria Pollutant Emissions ............................................................... 38 Table 12: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Project ................................................. 60 Table 13: Existing Noise Level Measurements ............................................................................................ 72 Table 14: Operational On-site Noise Impacts to the Nearest Homes ......................................................... 75 Table 15: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Emissions ................................................................ 76 Table 16: Existing Traffic Conditions Analysis ............................................................................................. 83 Table 17: Level of Service (LOS) by Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) ................................................ 84 Table 18: Significant Impact Criteria for Signalized Intersections .............................................................. 84 Table 19: Significant Impacts for Future Year 2035 .................................................................................... 86 Table 20: Cumulative Projects in the Project Area ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 5.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
    5.4 Hydrology and Water Quality City of Lake Forest Portola Center Project Subsequent Environmental Impact Report 5.4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section analyzes potential project impacts on existing drainage patterns, surface hydrology, and flood control facilities and water quality conditions in the project area. Mitigation measures are recommended to avoid potential impacts or reduce them to a less than significant level. The discussion in this section is based on information and conclusions contained in the following studies: . Hydrology Study for TTM 15353 & 17300 (Hydrology Study), prepared by Hunsaker & Associates Irvine, Inc., dated February 19, 2013; refer to Appendix 11.4, Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for Portola Center Tentative Tract Map No. 15353 Lake Forest, CA (WQMP TTM 15353) prepared by Hunsaker and Associates Irvine, Inc., dated March 18, 2013; refer to Appendix 11.4, Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for Portola Center Tentative Tract Map No. 17300 Lake Forest, CA (WQMP TTM 17300) prepared by Hunsaker and Associates Irvine, Inc., dated March 18, 2013; refer to Appendix 11.4, Hydrology and Water Quality Assessment. 5.4.1 EXISTING SETTING HYDROLOGY AND DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The project site is located within the Aliso Creek and San Diego Creek (also referred to as the Newport Bay) Watersheds. TTM 15353 is located completely within the Aliso Creek Watershed. A majority of TTM 17300 (approximately 98.1 acres) is located within the Aliso Creek Watershed and the remaining area (1.4 acres) is located within the San Diego Creek Watershed. More specifically, the 1.4 acres is in the Serrano Creek drainage area of Watershed F, San Diego Creek Subwatershed.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Orange County, California
    San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Orange County, California Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Southern California Area Office Temecula, California August 2009 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover Photo: San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary, Irvine, California by R.L. Kenyon, courtesy of Sea and Sage Audubon Society http://www.seaandsageaudubon.org/ Environmental Assessment San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System Project (SCH No. 2002021120) Irvine Ranch Water District, Orange County, California Prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C), 16 U.S.C. 470, 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 U.S.C. 138 for the Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA Cooperating Agency) and the Bureau of Reclamation (NEPA Lead Agency) August 2009 Based on information provided by Bonterra Consulting 151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200 Costa Mesa, California 92626 The following people may be contacted for information concerning this document: Cheryl McGovern Doug McPherson Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Reclamation 75 Hawthorne Street, WTR-3 27708 Jefferson Ave.,
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeological Evaluation Report and Recommendation for the Irvine Business Complex, City of Irvine, California
    ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE UPTOWN NEWPORT VILLAGE PROJECT, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: The Planning Center|DC&E 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Authors: Molly Valasik, Sherri Gust and Courtney Richards Principal Investigator: Sherri Gust, Orange County Certified Professional Paleontologist and Archaeologist January 2012 Cogstone Project Number: 2265 Type of Study: Cultural resources assessment Fossil Localities: none Archaeological Sites: none USGS Quadrangle: Tustin 7.5’ photorevised 1981 Area: 25-acres Key Words: Gabrielino, Tongva, Quaternary Older Paralic Deposits 1518 West Taft Avenue Branch Offices cogstone.com Orange, CA 92865 West Sacramento - Morro Bay - Inland Empire – San Diego Office (714) 974-8300 Toll free (888) 497-0700 Uptown Newport Village TABLE OF CONTENTS MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ III INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 PURPOSE OF STUDY .................................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................................... 2 REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C Archaeological Survey Report
    Appendix C Archaeological Survey Report ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT FOR THE PETERS CANYON BIKEWAY EXTENSION PROJECT, TUSTIN AND ORANGE, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA California Department of Transportation, District 12 Federal Project Number: CML-5955(115) Prepared by October, 2020 Monica Strauss, M.A., RPA Date PQS-Principal Investigator Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology Environmental Science Associates 626 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Reviewed by: Jonathan Wright Date PQS-Lead Archaeological Surveyor California Department of Transportation, District 12 1750 East 4th Street, Suite 100 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Approved by: Charles Baker Date Senior Environmental Planner California Department of Transportation, District 12 1750 East 4th Street, Suite 100 Santa Ana, CA 92705 USGS topographic quadrangle: Orange, California APE Acreage: approximately 15.95 acres Resources: Negative Survey Date Completed: October 2020 This page intentionally left blank Summary of Findings Summary of Findings Orange County Public Works (OCPW) proposes to construct a Class I bike line along a 1.15- mile stretch of Jamboree Road from Canyon View to Pioneer Road, and a 1.55-mile-long Class II bike lane on Pioneer Road within the cities of Tustin and Orange, Orange County. The proposed project would connect the existing Peters Canyon Trail to Orange County’s larger bikeway network and would include: the construction of a Class I multi-use bikeway and sidewalk along the west side of Jamboree Road; striping of 8-foot-wide buffered Class II bike lanes on both sides of Pioneer Road; installation of bike path wayfinding signage; and construction of retaining walls with V-ditches, tree removal, landscaping, drainage systems and decorative fence installations, utility relocation, and sidewalk removal along the west side of Jamboree Road.
    [Show full text]
  • PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan
    PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan July 2019 Peters Canyon Regional Park – View of Multi-UseTrail PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan APPROVED September 2019 Orange County Board of Supervisors Andrew Do Michelle Steel Donald P. Wagner First District Second District Third District Doug Chaffee Lisa A. Bartlett Fourth District Fifth District County of Orange OC Community Resources Dylan Wright Director OC Parks Stacy Blackwood Director Scott Thomas Tuan Richardson Planning & Design Project Manager Manager Peters Canyon Regional Park – View of Upper Peters Canyon Reservoir PETERS CANYON REGIONAL PARK General Development Plan July 2019 Prepared for OC Parks Headquarters Irvine Ranch Historic Park 13042 Old Myford Road Irvine, CA 92602 www.ocparks.com Prepared by Peters Canyon Regional Park – View of Multi-Use Trail Acknowledgments OC Parks Commission David Hanson Joe Muller John Koos Duy Nguyen Warren Kusumoto Michael Posey Justin McCusker Project Team OC Parks Stacy Blackwood, Director Environmental Review and CEQA Documentation Bill Reiter, Park District Manager Chambers Group, Inc. Scott Thomas, Manager, Planning and Design Lisa Louie, Senior Project Manager / Biologist Tuan Richardson, Project Manager, Planning and Design Meghan Gibson, Senior Environmental Planner / Katrina Chase, Project Assistant, Planning and Design Project Manager Steve Jax, Senior Park Ranger Eunice Bagwan, Assistant Environmental Planner Jim Simkins, Supervising Park Ranger Greg Tonkovich, Air and Noise Analyst Jacky Cordero, Operations
    [Show full text]
  • Bayside Shopping Center
    BAYSIDE SHOPPING CENTER 1000 - 1090 Bayside Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Cross Streets: Bayside Dr. & Jamboree Rd. DEMOGRAPHICS: 3 MILE RADIUS Gross Leasable Area: 64,353 sf Population: 95,800 Average Household Income: $147,357 Median Age: 43 MARKET PROFILE MAJOR TENANTS: • Situated at the entrance to Balboa Island, a popular OC destination for Bayside Restaurant year-round tourists, and Newport Harbor, the largest recreational boat Pavilions harbor on the U.S. west coast Rite Aid • Serves the affluent neighborhoods of Lido Isle, Balboa Island, and Promontory Point Sapori Ristorante Italiano • Less than one mile away is Newport Center®, the heart of Newport Beach Union Bank and home to hotels, apartment communities, the Newport Beach Civic Center, and over 2.5 million sf of office space For leasing information call Irvine Company 949.720.2535 ShopIrvineCompany.com 18'-2" 8'-6" 1 17'-8" 41' 42'-10" 94'-3" BAYSIDE 9' 21'-5" RESTAURANT 29' 21'-10" 900 19'-6" JAMBOREE ROAD 108' 15'-2" 8,000 SF 51'-5" 69'-8" 18'-7" 12'-6" BAYSIDE SHOPPING CENTER 34'-6" 4' 16'-4" 26'-6" 15'-2" 13'-9" 33'-8" 46' 12' 18'-6" 12'-6" 22'-8" 15'-2" 12'-6" 22'-2" 17'-3" Newport Beach, California RITE-AID 12'-8" 20'-2" 3'-4" 60' 1048 1032A 1024 1028 1040 1080 650 SF 1056 1072 1064 1016 900 SF SAPORI 1,200 SF 1,055 SF 1,500 SF 1,320 SF 1,080 SF 2,742 SF PAVILIONS 1,500 SF NEWPORT NAILS 58'-6" JUST ALTERATIONS THE UPS STORE 139' 8,986 SF THE WAFFLE AFFAIR BAYSIDE CLEANERS PIZZERIA BY SAPORI CLUB DETOX CLUB 35'-4" 106'-5" 1000 RESTAURANTE ITALIANO UNION BANK CAROL KLEIN
    [Show full text]
  • Orange County Vegetation Mapping Update Phase II
    Orange County Vegetation Mapping Update Phase II FINAL VEGETATION MAPPING REPORT April 2015 Aerial Information Systems, Inc. Redlands, California Acknowledgements Mapping vegetation in Orange County, California was one of the most challenging efforts in our long history at Aerial Information Systems. The project would not have been possible without the funding and project management provided by the Nature Reserve of Orange County (NROC). We are grateful for the opportunity to work with Milan Mitrovich, NROC project manager, who provided all the logistic planning and field coordination, in addition to his time in the field. We are also indebted to Todd Keeler- Wolf and Anne Klein, of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife who provided us their expertise and many invaluable hours in the field. We would also like to thank Jennifer Buck-Diaz, Julie Evens, Sara Taylor, Daniel Hastings and Jamie Ratchford of the California Native Plant Society, who provided the accuracy assessment of our vegetation database and mapping product, we appreciate all of their efforts. There were many more people and organizations that helped make this a successful project, and to all we are grateful. However, special thanks to Zach Principe of The Nature Conservancy, Cara Allen from the California Department of Fish & Wildlife, Will Miller from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Jutta Burger & Megan Lulow from the Irvine Ranch Conservancy, and Laura Cohen and Barbara Norton from the Orange County Parks Department for their support in the field. We are also grateful for a highly detailed map, by Rachael Woodfield from Merkel & Associates, which we incorporated into our final product, in addition to Peter Bowler who helped us with the marshlands on the University of California, Irvine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irvine Ranch History Irvine Ranch Gives Way to Urban Development
    The Irvine Ranch History Irvine, California The Irvine Historical Society is dedicated to preserving the rich heritage of the Irvine Ranch, once one of the largest private ranches in the United States Irvine Ranch Gives Way to Urban Development At the beginning of the Second World War, the Irvine Ranch operated as one of the largest and most productive farming businesses in California. By the end of the war, urban pressure to develop was in full swing in northern Orange County. To the central and south county, the privately held farms continued to keep the developers away. Myford Irvine Takes Reins James Irvine, Sr.'s unexpected death in 1947 left the presidency of The Irvine Company to his only remaining child, Myford Plum Irvine. Myford was ill-suited for the job, and his short eleven-and one-half -year tenure led the ranch away from his father's agrarian pursuits, straight into commercial and residential development. Myford was the first major landowner to allow development to proceed southwards in the county. Myford was not a farmer. He leaned heavily on the advice of his father's ranch manager, Brad Hellis, whom he allowed to completely control The Irvine Company's agricultural operations. Myford loved the San Francisco social life, and did not share a consuming love of the land as had his brother, his father, and his grandfather. After attending Stanford University, he had elected to take over the management of his father's San Francisco offices and of his stocks and bonds. Known to everyone on the ranch as "Mike," Myford Irvine was a gentle soul - too gentle to run an empire.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation
    CHAPTER 9 CONSERVATION The City’s natural resources form an important part of its unique character This Chapter includes the following topics: and quality of life. In Lake Forest, these resources include the City’s biological resources, geology and soils, mineral and energy resources, hydrology and 9.1 Biological Resources water quality, visual resources, and cultural resources. 9.2 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 9.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 9.3 Mineral and Energy Resources This section describes biological resources in the City of Lake Forest from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective. The results of this assessment may 9.4 Hydrology and Water Quality be used in planning and management decisions that may affect biological resources in the City of Lake Forest. 9.5 Cultural Resources Key Terms The following key terms are used throughout this section to describe biological Figures are located at the end of resources and the framework that regulates them: the Chapter. Hydric Soils. One of the three wetland identification parameters, according to the Federal definition of a wetland, hydric soils have characteristics that indicate they were developed in conditions where soil oxygen is limited by the presence of saturated soil for long periods during the growing season. There are approximately 2,000 named soils in the United States that may occur in wetlands. Hydrophytic Vegetation. Plant types that typically occur in wetland areas. CONSERVATION / 9-1 6 3 MARKET DEMAND Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United States may occur in wetlands. Plants are listed in regional publications of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and include such species as cattails, bulrushes, cordgrass, sphagnum moss, bald cypress, willows, mangroves, sedges, rushes, arrowheads, and water plantains.
    [Show full text]
  • Irvine Guide to Shop, Dine, Play and Explore Table of Contents
    Irvine Guide to Shop, Dine, Play and Explore Table of Contents Arts/Culture, Attractions & Entertainment . 1 Golf . 6 Seasonal Events Calendar . 8 Special Events . 9 Parks & Recreation . 10 Retail Centers . 15 Restaurants . 33 Transportation . 45 Hospitals . 47 Disclaimer: The Irvine Guide to Shop, Dine, Play and Explore is provided as an informational resource and a community service to visitors. This Guide is not inclusive of all businesses in Irvine. The identification of companies, individuals and products is not intended and should not be treated as a recommendation, endorsement or approval by the City of Irvine. The City cannot and does not make any warranty or representation concerning the information contained in this Guide. While reasonable care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information in this Guide, the City shall not be held responsible for any errors or omissions. The information in this Guide may be changed in future publications. IRVINE GUIDE TO SHOP, DINE, PLAY AND EXPLORE • WWW.CITYOFIRVINE.ORG COSTA MESA FWY 55 REDHILL AVE. AL BARRANCA BR W IRVINE ALNUT MAIN TON VD. Y BL AN MICHELSON 19 CAMPUS PKWY A BL THUR ST VE A VD . VE . RD. MACAR . JAMBOREE RD 15 261 DR. Toll Rd A 24 VE. 14 6 9 16 1 HARVARD AVE. 4 BONIT UNIVERSITY CULVER DR. 2 IR 73 SAN DIEGO FWY VINE A 13 CANY YALE AVE. CENTER DRIVE POR 22 11 RD. ON 3 8 TOLA 23 A ANA FWY 7 DRIVE TRABUCO JEFFREY RD. Turtle PKWY Rock SANT 405 18 5 . RD. SAND CANYON AVE. CANYON SHADY 133 Toll Rd 241 17 LAGUNA CANYON RD 5 10 26 12 N 20 25 21 1.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego Creek Newport Bay Santiago Creek Santa Ana Riv Er
    Coyote Creek Santa Ana River Santiago Creek San Diego Creek Newport Bay THE OC PLAN Integrated Regional Water Management for the North and Central Orange County Watershed Management Areas March 2018 The OC Plan Contacts County of Orange Orange County Watersheds Orange County Department of Public Works 2301 N. Glassell Street Orange, California 92865 www.ocwatersheds.com Orange County Water District 18700 Ward Street Fountain Valley, California 92708 (714) 378-8248 www.ocwd.com Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 (714) 962-2411 www.ocsd.com March 2018 The OC PLAN for IRWM in North and Central Orange County TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. TOC-1 LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................... AC-1 1 REGIONAL PLANNING, OUTREACH, GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION........................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 History of Integrated Regional Water Management Planning in the North and Central Orange County Watershed Management Areas ...................................................................................... 1-5 1.3 IRWM Plan Development and Governance .................................................................................. 1-7
    [Show full text]
  • TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN City of Tustin | Ordinance 1482 07-18-17
    TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN City of Tustin | Ordinance 1482 07-18-17 Prepared for: City of Tustin Community Planning 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Prepared by: PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN City of Tustin | Ordinance 1482 07-18-17 Reuse Plan Adopted: October 31, 1996, Amended September 8, 1998 Specific Plan Adopted: City Council Ordinance No. 1257 Date: February 3, 2003 Zone Change 04-001 Ordinance 1295 03-07-05 Zone Change 04-002 Ordinance 1296 03-07-05 Zone Change 05-001 Ordinance 1299 06-06-05 Zone Change 05-002 Ordinance 1311 04-17-06 Zone Change 07-001 Ordinance 1335 06-05-07 Specific Plan Amendment 10-001 Ordinance 1379 03-16-10 Specific Plan Amendment 11-003 Ordinance 1406 10-18-11 Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04Ordinance 1413 04-03-12 Specific Plan Amendment 2012-002 Ordinance 1426 03-05-13 Specific Plan Amendment 2013-001Ordinance 1432 05-21-13 Specific Plan Amendment 2013-002 Ordinance 1440 03-04-14 Specific Plan Amendment 2014-001 Ordinance 1450 11-18-14 Prepared for: City of Tustin Community Planning 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Prepared by: PlaceWorks 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CONSULTANTS CITY COUNCIL PLACEWORKS, INC. John Nielsen (former Mayor) Karen Gulley, Principal Dr. Allan Bernstein, Mayor 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100 Al Murray, Mayor Pro Tem Santa Ana, CA 92707 Letitia Clark, Council Member 714.966.9220 Rebecca Gomez, Council Member Charles E. Puckett, Council Member FUSCOE ENGINEERING Ian Adam, Principal
    [Show full text]