HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 08-21RESOLUTION NO. 08-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
FINDING THAT ZONE CHANGE 08-001 AND THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE
TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND
PROSPECT VILLAGE LP ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROSPECT VILLAGE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ("FEIR")
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
A. That Zone Change 08-001 and the Second Amendment to the Disposition
and Development Agreement by and between the Tustin Community
Redevelopment Agency and Prospect Village LP are considered a
"project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act;
B. That on May 17, 2004, the Tustin City Council certified the Prospect
Village Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR is a project
EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIR
considered the potential environmental impacts associated with the
development of the Prospect Village Project;
C. That an Environmental Analysis checklist, attached as Exhibit A hereto,
was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated
with Zone Change 08-001 and the Second Amendment to the Disposition
and Development Agreement by and between the Tustin Community
Redevelopment Agency and Prospect Village LP. The Environmental
Analysis checklist demonstrates that all potential impacts of the project
were addressed by the certified FEIR and no additional impacts have
been identified;
D. That on February 26, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution
No. 4083, recommending that the City Council adopt findings that Zone
Change 08-001 is within the scope of the previously approved Prospect
Village Final Environmental Impact Report;
E. That the City Council has considered the Environmental Checklist along
with the FEIR prior to making a decision on Zone Change 08-001 and
approves the Environmental Checklist, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
II. The City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the previously
approved FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections
15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would
be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA.
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 1 of 30
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
the 4th day of March, 2008.
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do 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. 08-21 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4"' day of
March, 2008, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Amante, Davert, Bone, Kawashima, Palmer (5)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0)
PAM STOKER
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 2 of 30
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION N0.08-21
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Prospect Village Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution
No. xxxx) takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of
the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to
Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): Zone Change 08-001 and Second Amendment to DDA (Prospect Village)
Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016
Project Location: The site is located within a portion of Planning Area 5 of the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue and the State Route 55 Freeway.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
General Plan Designation: City of Tustin -Old Town Commercial
Zoning Designation: City of Tustin -Planned Community
Project Description: Approval of Zone Change 08-001 and Second Amendment to the DDA by and
between the Tustin Commuruty:Redevelopment Agency and Prospect Village LP
to allow commercial service and professional office uses in a maximum of three
(3) of the six (6) live/work units facing Prospect Avenue and to clarify the process
by which owners of restricted units may be permitted to lease the ground floor
portion of the restricted units. Other very minor amendments aze also proposed.
Surrounding Uses: North: Vacant site used for a weekly farmers market
East: Main Street Water Facility and public pazking lot
South: Commercial
West: Commercial
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 3 of 30
Previous Environmental Documentation: Prospect Village Final Environmental Impact Report (FE?~1
(State Clearinghouse #2003041144) certified by the Tustin City Council on May 17, 2004.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "New Significant Impact" or "More Severe Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section
D below.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geology and Soils
Hydrology and Water Quality
Air Quality
nation & Circulation
al Resources
Resources
oral Resources
^Hazazds and Hazazdous Materials
^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 prepazed.
^ 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepazed.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ 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 standazds, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the eazlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Sigtificant 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 eazlier EIR pursuant to applicable standazds, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that aze 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 eazlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that aze imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparer: Scott Reekstin Date: 2/14/08
Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner
Date: 2-14-08
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attached
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 5 of 30
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No
Substantial
New Change
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: Significant More Severe From
Impact Impact Previous
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Analysis
^ ^
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 glaze which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the azea?
a o
II AGRICULTURE RFSnirRCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resowces aze 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 Resowces Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
^ ^
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
a a
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?
D ^
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?
a a
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-
attainmentunder anapplicable federal or state ambient air
quality standazd (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
~ ~
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Cr~~ ~ib~1P~o~s affecting a substantial number
f
^ ^
30
of peop~e~9e o
~ ^
No
Substantial
New ~ Change
Significant More Severe From
iV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: Impact Impact Previous
Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
o a
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 of Fish 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
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
a a
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. CULTURALRESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
a a
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
o a
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?
a a
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:
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 7 of 30
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 H ARDOUS 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 thc project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
wou doth~'gb~n~e~cinity of a private airstrip,
It in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
No
Substantial
New Change ,~,,~..
Significant More Severe From
Impact Impact Previous
Anal sis
a a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
~ ^
^ ^
a a
~ ^
^ ^
a a
^ ^
a o
a a
f-1 n
No
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 fines, including where
wildlands aze adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY 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 neazby 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 runoffl
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-yeaz 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?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities?
Substantial
New Change
Significant More Severe From
Impact lmpact Previous
Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^ ~
^ ^
^ ^
^ ~ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
Resolution .08-21
^ ^ Pa Q of 40
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-
construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stonnwater
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect
the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create. the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause
environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas?
1X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
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 RES URCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a lmown mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-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
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No
Substantial
New Change ~ ,
Significant More Severe From
Impact Impact Previous
Anal sis
a a
a a
^ ^
a a
a ^
^ ^
o a
O O
^ a
^ ^
o a
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 10 of 30
No
Substantial
New Change
Signifreant More Severe From
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels Impact Impact Previous
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ~ Ana sis
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?
~ 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?
^ ^
o a
^ ^
XII.POPULATION 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?
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?
^ ^
a o
a o
a o
0 0
^ ^
o a
^ ^
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 11 of 30
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?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI UTILITIES ANi, 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?
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 12 of 30
No
Substantial
New Change
Significant More Severe From
Impact Impact Previous
Anal sis
a o
o a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a ^
a o
0 0
O ~
^ ^
^ a
No
Substantial
New Change
Significant More Severe From
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?
h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water
treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands),
the operation of which could result in significant
environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
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 unportant
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?
Impact Impact Previous
Analysis
^ ^
D D ~
D D
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
D D
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 13 of 30
ATTACHMENT 1 TO EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 08-21
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
ZONE CHANGE 08-001 AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO DDA
(PROSPECT VILLAGE)
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 2004, the Tustin City Council and Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency") conducted a joint public hearing and considered the Prospect Village
Project (the "Project"), which included the demolition of existing buildings and the
construction of a 9,300 square foot two-story commercial building and twelve (12)
live/work units at the northwest corner of Main Street and Prospect Avenue. The
approximately one-acre project site is bordered by Third Street on the north, Prospect
Avenue on the east, East Main Street on the south and a public alley on the east.
After conducting the hearing, the Tustin City Council approved a General Plan Conformity
Finding for the disposition of the site; approved an ordinance approving a zone change
from Central Commercial and Parking Overlay (C2-P) to Planned Community (PC) and to
establish Planned Community District Regulations; approved a tentative tract map, design
review, and conditional use permit; and approved the sale of Agency-owned property.
Following the Council's actions, the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency approved
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 04-01 between the Agency and Prospect
Village, LP.
On May 17, 2004, the Tustin City Council also certified the Prospect Village Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as complete and adequate pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and adopted Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.
The proposed project is a zone change that consists of minor amendments to the
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations to allow commercial service
and professional office uses in a maximum of three (3) of the six (6) live/work units
facing Prospect Avenue and to clarify the process by which owners of restricted units
may be permitted to lease the ground floor portion of the restricted units. Other very
minor amendments are also proposed. The proposed project to be evaluated also
includes the Second Amendment to the DDA, to provide flexibility to the types of uses
along Prospect Avenue so that three (3) of the six (6) live-work units facing Prospect
Avenue may be used for commercial services or professional office uses, to reduce the
number of units requiring owner/proprietor occupancy of all floors of all Live-Work units
and to clarify the process by which owners of restricted units may be permitted to lease the
ground floor portions of the restricted units.
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in
the Environmental Analysis Checklist.
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 14 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 2
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?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The Prospect Village Project is not located on a scenic highway, and the proposed
zone change and DDA amendment will not affect a scenic vista. Development of
the site was considered within the FEIR and was determined to have no negative
aesthetic effect on the site or its surroundings. The FEIR identified no significant
impacts related to aesthetics. No substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (pages 3.1-1 to 3.1-16)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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?
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 15 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 3
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?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not convert prime
farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance as shown on
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use. Also, the property is not
zoned or used for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the
allowed use involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in
the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The FEIR identified no impacts
related to agricultural resources. No substantial change is expected from the
analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigafion/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: - Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page 1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 16 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 4
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No intensified uses or changes to the physical development of the site are
proposed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any impacts to
air quality. Development of the site was considered within the FEIR, and the FEIR
identified no significant impacts related to air quality. No substantial change is
expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required.' No mitigation is required.
Bounces: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (pages 3.2-1 to 3.2-11)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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 status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by tree California Department of Fish 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 of Fish 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 established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
SIteS? Resolution No. 08-21
Page 17 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 5
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?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not result in impacts to
federally listed, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species The FEIR
identified no impacts related to biological resources. No substantial change is
expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page 1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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 formal
cemeteries?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The FEIR determined that the Prospect Village Project would cause a substantial """
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. Consequently,
mitigation measures were identified in the FEIR to minimize these impacts. '° ~"'
However, in approving the Prospect Village Project, a Statement of Overriding
Resoiutio~d.~~ations was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 17, 2004 for cultural
Page ~ $ ~burces impacts that could not be mitigated.
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 6
No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Requir~ed.• Specific mitigation measures were adopted by
the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR. However, the FEIR also concluded
that impacts to cultural resources were significant and impossible to fully mitigate.
A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR was adopted by the Tustin
City Council on May 17, 2004. No additional mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (pages 3.3-1 to 3.3-11)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment .:Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Weuld the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• 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 4Z.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefactiion?
• 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site ar~~pEY~~°~ os-21
Page 19 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 7
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any impacts . _ .
related to geology or soils. The FEIR identified no significant impacts related to
geology or soils. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously
completed in the FEIR.
Mitigafion/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Souses: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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 ci'isposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonable 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 or 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?
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
Resolution No1r4~~Ling wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
Page 20 of 30urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 8
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any impacts
related to hazards or hazardous materials. Development of the site was
considered within the FEIR, and the FEIR identified significant impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials, but these impacts were reduced to a level of
insignificance after mitigation. No substantial change is expected from the
analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific .mitigation measures were adopted by
the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR. No additional mitigation measures
are required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (pages 3.4-1 to 3.4-7)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere subst.-~ntially
with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table IevEsl (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 flooding 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 storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 21 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 9
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood hazard Boundary of 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, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas
of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor
work areas?
w,...~o
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial
uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding
areas?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any impacts
related to hydrology and water quality. The FEIR identified no significant impacts
related to hydrology and water quality. No substantial change is expected from the
analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page 1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. 08-21 and Prospect Village, LP
Page 22 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 10
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
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
environrnental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
Furthermore, the proposed changes do not conflict with the City's General Plan or
Zoning Ordinance.
The FEIR dE:termined that the Prospect Village Project would be inconsistent with
General Plan policies that promote preservation and rehabilitation of historic
resources. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in the FEIR to
minimize these impacts. However, in approving the Prospect ~Ilage Project, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the Tustin City Council on
May 17, 2004 for land use and planning impacts that could not be mitigated.
No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by
the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR. However, the FEIR also concluded
that impacts to land use and planning were sign cant and impossible to fully
mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR was adopted by the
Tustin City Council on May 17, 2004. No additional mitigation measures are
required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (pages 3.5-1 to 3.5-15}
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 23 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 11
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?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not result in impacts to
mineral resources. The FEIR identified no impacts related to mineral resources.
No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
XI. NOISE: Would the project:
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 ground borne
vibration or ground borne 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 excessive
noise levels?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
Resolutio~~. g~p"ii4ed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Page 24 `r'ro)ect. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 12
Furthermore, the proposed changes would allow uses that are no more noise-
sensitive or noise-generating than uses currently allowed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any impacts
related to noise. Development of the site was considered within the FEIR, and the
FEIR identified no significant impacts related to noise. No substantial change is
expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (pages 3.6-1 to 3.6-9)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
XII. POPULATION ~ HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either direcirly (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?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The FEIR determined that the Prospect Village Project, which includes the
construction of twelve (12) live-work units, would not substantially increase the
population of the area. The FEIR identified no significant impacts related to
population and housing. The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would
not have any impacts related to population and housing. No substantial change is
expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 25 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 13
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:
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The FEIR determined that the Prospect Village Project would result in a minor
increase in the demand for and utilization of public services. With compliance with
all agency requirements, any potential impacts are reduced to a level of
insignificance. The FEIR identified no significant impacts related to public
services. The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any
impacts related to public services. No substantial change is expected from the
analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Requir~ed.• No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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?
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The FEIR determined that the Prospect Village Project would result in a minor
Resoiutiorinara~se~ in the demand for recreational services and facilities. Compliance with
Page 26 0~ Clty'S parkland dedication requirements reduces any potential impacts to a
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 14
level of insignificance. The FEIR identified no significant impacts related to
recreation. The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any
impacts related to recreation. No substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the FEIR.
Mifigation/Moniforing Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Tustin City Code Section 9331(d)
Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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 i~~ 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 er dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result iri inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The propose;d zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Project. No ~;hanges to the physical development of the site are proposed.
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any additional
impacts related to transportation or traffic. Development of the site was
considered within the FEIR, and the FEIR identified significant impacts related to
short term construction traffic and increased parking demand, but these impacts
were reduced to a level of insignificance after mitigation. No sl~s~t4l~al~sh~€ic~ is
expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR. Page 27 0 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 15
Mitigation/Moniforing Required.• Specific mitigation measures were adopted by
the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR. No additional mitigation measures
are required for the proposed project.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (pages 3.7-1 to 3.7-13)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
Tustin General Plan
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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?
h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment
control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment
basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could
result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and
odors)?
-~~
The proposed zone change and DDA amendment would make minor changes to
the allowed uses and owner/proprietor occupancies in the Prospect Village
Resoiutio P~o~je~_2,{Vo changes to the physical development of the site are proposed.
Page 28 of 30
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 16
The FEIR determined that the Prospect Village Project would result in a minor
increase in the demand for utilities. Compliance with all agency requirements
ensures that any potential impacts are reduced to a level of insignificance. The
FEIR identified no significant impacts related to utilities and service systems. The
proposed zone change and DDA amendment would not have any impacts related
to utilities and service systems. No substantial change is expected from the
analysis previously completed in the FEIR.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR (page 1-1)
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
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?
Based upon the foregoing, the proposed zone change and DDA Amendment would
not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the f'iabitats or wildlife populations, or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal
ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIR mitigation and implementation
measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed zone change and
DDA Amendment would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will
cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The FEIR
previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Prospect Village Project. The proposed zone change and
DDA Amendment will result in no substantial changes to environmental issues
previously considered with adoption of the FEIR. Mitigati6tesd~assv~re
identified in the FEIR to reduce impacts, but not to a level of insigrflr~f~call
Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-21
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ZC 08-001, Second Amendment to DDA
Page 17
cases. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR was
adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 17, 2004.
Mitigation/Moniforing Required.' The FEIR previously considered all environmental
impacts associated with the implementation of the Prospect Village Project.
Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR and
no additional mitigation is necessary.
Sources: Field Observations
Prospect Village FEIR
Prospect Village Planned Community District Regulations
DDA by and between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency
and Prospect Village, LP
CONCLUSION
The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously
examined in the FEIR, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation
measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found
to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or
alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project
that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting
Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIR on May
17, 2004, and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable.
S:\Cdd\SCOTT1Environmental\ZC 08-001 Prospect Village Amendments Initial Study Evaluation.doc
Resolution No. 08-21
Page 30 of 30