HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 90-072 8
11
12
13
15
17
i9
22
23
24
~5
~6
RESOLUTION NO. 90-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 90-08 AND DESIGN REVIEW
88-20, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
ao
Conditional Use Permit 90-08 and Design Review
88-20 are considered a "project" pursuant to
the terms of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project and has been distributed for
public review.
Whereby, the City Council of the City of
Tustin has considered evidence presented by
the Community Development Director and other
interested parties with respect to the subject
Negative Declaration.
The City Council has evaluated the proposed
final Negative Declaration and determined it
to be adequate and complete.
II.
A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in
compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The
City Council, having final approval authority over
Conditional Use Permit 90-08, has received and
considered the information contained in the
Negative Declaration prior to approving the
proposed project and found it adequately discussed
the environmental effects of the proposed project.
On the basis of the initial study and comments
received during the public review process, the City
Council has found that there is no substantial
evidence that there will be any significant adverse
environmental effects as a result of the approval
of the project because mitigation measures
identified in the Negative Declaration have been
incorporated into the project which mitigate any
potential significant environmental effects to a
point where clearly no significant effects will
occur. The mitigation measures are identified in
Exhibit A to the attached Negative Declaration and
~)
10
14
1G'
18,
i9~
22 ~
27
28
Resolution No. 90-72
Page 2
initial study and are adopted as conditions of
approval of the subject project pursuant to
Conditions 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1 of Exhibit A of
Resolution No. 90-73A, incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the 2nd day of July, 1990.
RICHARD B. EDGAR
Mayor
WYNN
Clerk
NEGATIVE
CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL
DECLARATION
WAY, TUSI'IN, CA. 92680
Project Title: C(mditio:~,'lL [':it, P,~rmit 91~-()8 File No. CUi) 90-08
Project Location: 1.50,',2 l'dsadena Avenue, 'rust.tn
Project Description: An l] till[[ al)aTtmen:: project with seve:l (7) units
]I;!V[II}; ~l ~;IXiltlt:ill heir;hi of Z~ :.;torics (29.f)') & four (4) units havi. n$~ a
Project Proponent: l.'eridoun RezaL maximum heLght of 1 story (ZOO).
Contact Person: Steve Ruhin Telephone: 544-8890 Ext. 252
The Community Development Department has conducted an initial study for the
above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding
implementation of the California Envir'onmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby find:
That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant affects were identified, but revisions have
been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that
would avoid or mitigate the affects to a point where clearly no
significant effects would occur. Said revisions are attached to and
hereby made a part of this Negative Declaration.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
I The initial study which provides the basis for this determination is on
file at tl~e Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public
is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration
during the review period, which begins with the public notice of a
Negative Declaration and extends for seven calendar days. Upon review by
the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if
deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:30 p.m. on
DATED: I'lav 24, 1990
June 13, 1990.
Community Develdpment Directo .'
II.
CITY OF TUST]N
Community Development Department
ENVIRO;<HENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORH
I. Nome of Proponent FER].DOU,~ REZA]
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent
203 TROJAN STRF. ET
ANAItEI.M , CA 92804
(71~) 220-2893
Date of Checklist Submitied HARCH 12. 1990
Agency ~equiring Checklist CITY OF 'I'US'F1N
Name of Proposal, if applicable CONi)I'I'ION,\I, USE I'I';RHIT 90-08
Errvironme~tal I mpocts
([xplanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers ore required on attached sheets.)
Em-th.
O.
Will the proposal result in:
Unstable ecr;h conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disrugtions, displocemenB, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Chcnge in topography ac ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruclion, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical leo:utes?
e. Any incr.'~ose in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
.sands, or chang, es in siltation, deposition or
erosion which may modify the channel of a
river or strecm or the bed of the ocean or
cmy bay, inlet or lake?
Y~ Mc~. _No
X
X
X
X
o
go
Exposure of people or pro~er,b' to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creotioo of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
Wa¢~. Wi;I tl~e proposal result in:
aa
Changes in o)rrents, or the course of dj-
rex:tim of water movements, in tither
marine or fresh waters?
b. Chc~qges in absorption rotes, drainage pet-
terns, or the rate and amount ef surface
runoff?
' ,' fl~)w of flood
c, Alterations to ,h~ course or
waters?
d. Change in the. amount of surface water in
any water body?
eo
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
olteratic~'~ of surface water quality, in-
c!udlng but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or tu?oidity?
f. Alterctior~ of !he direction or r;tc of f'.cw
.cf ground waters?
go
Chc~-~ge in ;he quantity of gro~,nd waters,
either through direct odd/t ions or with-
drcwr;Is, o,- through interception of o~
aquifer by cuts or excavctioos?
ho
Substantial redtxzticn in the amount of
water otherwise availabie for public water
supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hczards sc,ch as flooding or tidal waves?
X
X
X
X
Il. Plcr~t Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
p lents)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered spoaies of plants.'?
c. Introduction of new .species of plants into
an area, or in o barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing -mecies?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop.'?
.5. Animal Life. Will t,%e proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of .spc. cics, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles~ fish
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)2
b. IReductioq of the ,numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of c~imols into
an area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. h-xzreases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe r,_~im levels?
7. Li.c~t oncl Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
8. Larxi Use. Will the proposal result in a sub-
stantial alteration of the presc.,t or planned
land use of an area?
?. Natural Rescx~rces. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of ~'~y na,~ural
resources?
Yes
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable
natural resource'?.
!0. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:.
Il.
12,
o
A risk of on explosion or the relea~
of h~zardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
rcKiiation) in the event of an oozident or
ul~set
Po.~slble interference with an eme. rg. ency
re~>onse plor~ or c~n er',-~rcjer, o/
plan?
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
}~Jmon population of an c;rea?
Ha~si.,-~g.. Will the. proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing?
Transportotlon/Circulcrtion. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular, movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. 5ut)stontial impact upon existing transpor-
tation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of c]rcuIa-
tion or movement of p_,:~ple and/or goods?
e, Alterations :o wc'.erborne, r.cil o~' air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal hove an
effect upon, or result in o .~ed for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
o. F-ire protection?
b. Police protection?
V~
..X
X
X
X
X
X
×
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy'. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial irxzrea.~, in demand ~.~on exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy?
Utilit/c--s. ',¥i~1 t,ke prof.~osal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations ~.o
tl'~..- fei!owing utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
17. Hurr4~ l-balth. Wi!l the proposal result in:
a. Creation of a~',.· health .hazard or potentlcl
health hazard (excluding mental
b. Exposure of people to poten~.ial hec~th
,hazards?
18. Aestheti~-~. ',','ill ;he proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
I?. Recrecrtion. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural IReso~rc'es.
a. Will the prc~=~o~l result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wi}I tF~. propo~l result in odver~e physical
or o~$tl-~.tic effects to a prehi~tc>ric or
historic building, structure, or object'?.
IDoes the proposal hav~ the potemtial to
cause a pt~ysical charge which wo~JId affect
t, niqu¢ ethnic cultural values?
Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential irmpoct
area?
21. Mc~datory F'ir~dings of Significanc~..
[Does the project have the potential to
degrcde, the quality of the environment,
substantially redc, ce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, co, se a fbh or wild-
life populctir~'~ ~,o drop be[ow :,elf sus-
k:inirwj ]eve]s, tl~rc-atc-m ¢o eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the
number, or restrict the r(~qge of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminc:e
important examples of thc major periods
of California history or prehistory?
bo
[')oe.$ the project' hove thc potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term irt, pact on the environment is one
which occ, Jrs in a relative!y brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts
will encbre well into thc fu;ure.)
Co
Does the project have irr~octs which cra
individually ;imited, but cumulotive!y con-
siderable? (A pre jo-ct may immact on t,~'o
or more separate :e~ur;es ,.,.,here tke ~mpoct
on each reso.:rce is relc:iveb' sma!i, but
where the effect of the total of tho.~
imoocts c~n :~e environment is significant.)
do
Does thc proiect have environmental effects
which will cou~ substantial odver.se effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Ill. Discus.sion of Environmental Evalucrtic~
.X
IV. De. terminat io~
(To be completed by t,be Lead Agency)
On the basis of this in~tial evaluation:
I find ~hat t.~e proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect
on the environment, and a NEGATIVF DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a s'.kgnificant effect
on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described on an attoched sheet have
been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significc~qt effect on the environ-
ment, and an E]~IVIRONMF_J~TAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
/',HARC!I 16, 1990 ,
O'ate ................... Signature
ASSOCI A'i'E PI,~.NNER
EXHIBIT A
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ]'~VALUATION
USE PERMIT 90-08
Project Description Supplement - The project involves the removal
of an existing one-story single family residence on an R-3
(Multiple Family Residential) zoned lot and development of a two
and one half story, 11 unit apartment project consisting of two (2)
buildings with below grade, tucked under parking (two car garages
and three guest spaces). Surrounding development includes:
existing two-story apartment buildings to the north and west,
existing one-story apartment units to the south, and existing one-
story single family residences to the east.
EARTH - This project would not result in any ch'~nge to
existing geologic conditions; however, grading is proposed
that will require excavation 5 feet below existing grade for
driveway and parking purposes and raise grade levels 3.5 feet
above existing grades for the units themselves, resulting in
disruptions, overcovering and compaction of the soil and
changes to existing topography. This is proposed to
accommodate below grade, tucked under parking and still
maintain a two and one half story building design. (Source:
Field inspection, June 30, 1988, precise grading plans)
Mitigation/Monitoring - Appropriate soils reports and
precise grading plans will be required by the Building
Division prior to issuance of grading permits to ensure
proper drainage, compaction and retention.
AIR a,c - This project would not result in any change to the
existing air quality based on review of AQMD standards for
preparing EIR documents. (Source: AQMD Regulation No. 15,
Site and Floor Plan)
Air b - The proposed trash enclosure is located four feet from
the rear yards of the adjacent single family properties.
Odors from open bins may adversely affect those residents
(Source: Submitted site plan).
Mitigation/Monitoring - The trash enclosure shall be
relocated towards the front of the site at the base of
the drive ramp subject to approval by the Community
Development Department.
WATER a, c, d, e, f, q, h, i - This project would not result
in any change to the existing water conditions based on review
of the site by City staff on June 30, 1988. The site is
located in Flood Zone C, which is subject to minimal flooding.
(Source: Tustin FIRM, Proposed Site/Grading Plans)
Water b - improvements are proposed which will add impervious
surface area to the property which could effect drainage and
Exhibit A
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use Permit 90-08
Page 2
absorption rates. (Source: Site Inspection, June 30, 1988,
Community Development Department).
Mitigation/Monitoring - Drainage plans for the project
for acceptance of water into the public storm drain
system will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department.
PLANT LIFE a, b, c, d - The site was developed with an
existing single-family residence and landscaped with turf in
front and fruit trees in the rear. Development of this
project resulted in removal of existing vegetation and
eventual replacement with new turf, shrubs, ground cover and
trees that are common species to the area. (Source: Field
Inspection, June 30, 1988, submitted landscape plans)
ANIMAL LIFE a, b, c, d, - Based on review of City records and
site inspection conducted by City staff, no rare or endangered
species are known to inhabit the project site. (Source:
Field Observation, June 30, 1988)
NOISE - Adjacent, existing residents may experience increases
in ambient noise levels related to construction activities,
however, this is considered a short term impact.
Mitigation/Monitoring - Construction activities shall be
limited between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday
through Friday (including engine warm-up) and will be
monitored by the Community Development Department.
Construction shall be prohibited on weekends and Federal
holidays.
LIGHT AND GLARE - The project will introduce additional
lighting into the area by means of exterior fixtures on the
future buildings.
Mitigation/Monitoring - Specific lighting plans and light
standards will be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department which confine direct light rays
to the subject property as required by the Zoning Code.
LAND USE - The proposed project will alter the existing land
use of the site although the proposed number of apartment
units (11) is permitted by the R-3 Zoning District standards.
Due to its originally proposed two and one half story design,
Exhibit A
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use Permit 90-08
Page 3
10.
11.
the project could impact the adjacent properties to the east
which are both developed with one-story buildings. The one-
story buildings to the south are located within six feet or
less of the common property line; however, the resulting site
line blocks views into those yards. For the sine]e family
properties to the east, the elimination of the 2nd floor from
the two (2) end units of Buildings A and B, or as an
alternative to the elimination of unit #6 along with the 2nd
floor of units 10 and 11, planting of mature trees is
recommended to reduce privacy impacts. (Source: Community
Development Department, General Plan Land Use Element and
Zoning Code).
Mitigation/Monitoring - Rear yard grades shall be left
natural and landscaped except for drainage purposes.
Minimum 24" box Melaleuca and Brisbane Box or another
evergreen species of tree shall be densely planted at
approximately 10 foot intervals along the north, south
and east property lines of the subject site within 150
feet of the rear property line. At least one major
specimen size evergreen tree shall also be planted in the
southeast corner of the site.
NATURAL RESOURCES - The project would not result in any
significant increased use of natural resources. The site is
presently developed, and is located in an area of numerous
existing multi-family developments as determined by field
inspection on June 30, 1988. (Source: Field Inspection, June
30, 1988)
RISK OF UPSET - The proposed project would not result in any
increased risk of upset to the property or future residents
in that the proposed use is for an !1 unit apartment project
and no hazardous or flammable materials are associated with
this use. Applicable requirements of the Fire Department and
Uniform Building Code will be satisfied to significantly
reduce any risk of upset (~ource: Building Division and Fire
Department).
POPULATION - The proposed project will remove an existing
single family residence and replace it with 11 apartment
units, adding approximately 24 new residents to %he a-'ca,
based upon the City's average household population of 2.4
persons/household (deducting the residents of the existing
dwelling). The proposed density and resultinG increase in
Exhibit A
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use Permit 90-08
Page 4
12.
13.
population in the immediate area will not result in any
significant impacts, as the increase in number of dwelling
units and population are permitted and anticipated by the
City's Zoning Code and General Plan. Comments received from
the Community Services, Public Works, Police and Fire
Departments did not note significant impacts to their services
as a result of this project. (Source: State Department of
Finance Census data - 1/88, Community Development, Police,
Fire, Public Works and Community Services Department, General
Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code.)
HOUSING - See No. 11.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION a, b, c, d, e - The project
will generate approximately seven (7) average daily trips
(ADT) per unit, for a total of approximately 77 ADT as
compared to approximately 10 ADT for the existing single
family residence. Although this is a substantial increase,
the City Traffic Engineer has determined that the project
would not significantly impact the carrying capacity of
existing streets, as they are capable of handling the
anticipated additional vehicle trips generated by the project;
however, the subject property is located in area B of the
Tustin-Santa Ana Transportation System Improvement Program
(TSIP), whose purpose is to implement a program for
transportation system improvements in the two cities.
(Source: Engineering Department/City Traffic Engineer TSIP)
Mitigation/Monitoring - Should the City's TSIP Fee
Ordinance be in place prior to issuance of Certificates
of Occupancy, the developer shall pay development fees
as established by said ordinance to be calculated by the
Community Development Department.
Transportation f - Vehicles exiting the site may create a
potential hazard to passing motorists/pedestrians due to the
upward grade of the driveway. (Source: submitted grading,
site plans).
Mitigation/Monitoring - The developer shall install a
speed bump in the driveway ramp to reduce vehicle speeds
and a stop sign at the drive exit subject to verification
by the Community Development Department prior to an
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project.
Exhibit A
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use Permit 90-08
Page 5
14.
15.
16.
18.
PUBLIC SERVICES - The project would not result in any
significant change to public services, new families are likely
to have children utilizing public schools. All services are
in place for the area and development of the site has been
anticipated by the Community Development Department. (Source:
Fire, Police, Public Works, Community Services Departments)
Mitigation/Monitoring - The developer shall pay impact
fees to the Tustin Unified School District prior to
issuance of permits.
ENERGY - The project will not result in a substantial change
in the use of energy. The project site has existing energy
service. (Source: Public Works Department)
UTILITIES - The project would not result in any increased need
for utilities, as all utilities are existing and presently
serve the site and have adequate capacity to serve the
project. (Source: Public Works Department)
HUMAN HEALTH - The project would not result in any effects to
human health given the nature of the proposed land use.
(Source: Community Development Department)
AESTHETICS - Section 9226(c) of the Tustin City Code requires
approval of a Use Permit to construct a building on an R-3 lot
whose height would be greater than one-story or 20 feet, when
the property abuts an R-1 zone and the building would be
within 150 feet of a single family residence; all of these
conditions apply to the subject project. To mitigate
potential impacts to the single family residences to the east,
and one-story apartments to the south, the proposed project
has undergone an extensive design review process, resulting
in a two and one half story building which incorporates colors
and materials that are compatible with those found on existing
structures and building height that is consistent with
existing two-story buildings located to the north and west.
Additionally, impacts to the existing developments to the east
and south have been further mitigated by proposed side and
rear setbacks that meet and exceed minimum required setbacks
and the proposed grading scheme which minimizes grade
differences to the extent possible. To minimize poLential
privacy impacts on the two single family residences
immediately to the east of the subject property. Use of
specimen size trees (m~nimum 24" box) will also provide
Exhibit A
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Use Permit 90-08
Page 6
privacy screening.
Mitigation/Monitoring - The landscape plans shall
incorporate the use of minimum 24 inch box trees another
evergreen tree along the north, south and east property
lines to provide additional privacy screening.
19.
RECREATION - Future residents of the project may use existing
recreational facilities; however, due to the small scale of
the project (11 units), anticipated impacts are minimal.
(Source: Community Development and Services Departments)
20.
CULTURAL RESOURCES - The project site is not located in an
area known as an archaeological resource, nor is it located
in the City's Cultural Resources District. The site is
presently developed with a simply, one-story, stuccoed,
single-family residence. There is no evidence that any
cultural resources exist on the subject property. (Source:
Tustin Area Historical Survey, Field Inspection, June 30,
1988.)
21.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - The environmental
evaluation provided herein, attempts to fully identify,
discuss and mitigate any impacts associated with the proposed
development project. Considering the sources used, the
proposed level of development and the mitigation and
monitoring measures incorporated herein, staff has determined
that any project impacts will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
SR:kbc
City of Tustin
RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFOR~IIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
RESOLUTION NO. 90-72
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole
number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is
five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 90-72 was duly and
regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the 2nd da~ of July., 1990 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Edgar, Puckett, Pontious
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: Potts, Prescott
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None
Valerie Whiteman
Chief Deputy City Clerk