Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3741 RESOLUTION NO. 3741 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-005 AND DESIGN REVIEW 00-007 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That Conditional Use Permit 00-005 and Design Review 00- 007 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B. An initial study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project and have been distributed for public review. C. This project is tiered from a previous EIR (85-2) for the East Tustin Specific Plan. D. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. E. The Planning CommisSion has evaluated the Final Negative Declaration and determined that with incorporation of the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment, II. A Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approval of the proposed project, and finds that it adequately discusses'the environmental effects of the proposed project~ On the basis of the Negative Declaration and comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission finds that although the proposed project could have impacts, there will not be a significant effect because the intent of the mitigation measures incorporated from EIR 85-2 that are identified in the Final Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the project and mitigate any potential significant effects to a point where clearly no significant effect would OCCUr. F~esolution No. 3741 July 10, 2000 In addition the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of July, 2000. C~hh~KOZAK EUZABETH A. ~ NSACK ~anning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) C~TY OF TUSTIN ) ~, ELIZABETH A. BINSACKI the undemigned, hereby ¢e~ify that ~ am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3741 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of July, 2000. ELIZABETR A. BINSACK ' Planning Commission Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Salvation Army Phase II (CUP 00-005 and DR 00-007) Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Lori Ludi Phone: (714) 573-3127 Project Location: 10200 Pioneer Road Project Sponsor's Name and Address Captain Lee Lescano 10200 Pioneer Road Tustin, CA 92782 General Plan Designation: Planned Community Residential Zoning Designation: Community Facility Project Description: Construction of Phase II of the church facility- a 24,235 square foot addition including a multipurpose room/daycare building, gymnasium and storage area. Surrounding Uses: North: Residential South: Residential East: Jamboree Road Right-of-Way West: Neighborhood Park Other public agencies whose approval is required: Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other City of Irvine City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FAC, i'ORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. QLand Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation & Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards ONoise Public Services QUtilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the 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 prepared. 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 standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers 1-.011 ~-U1~ Title I~1554c1~~ Pl.~l(~IC(e, Date ~ -/`rte Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions I) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Signifccant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special 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? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VL 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: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact 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? VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 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 nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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 RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of 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? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact o Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: ^ ^ ^ a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-005 & DESIGN REVIEW 00-007 BACKGROUND The project site, an approximate 6.93 acre parcel, is located at 10200 Pioneer Road, at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Pioneer Road. The existing use consists of a 31,695 square foot church facility including a sanctuary and fellowship hall constructed in 1992. The second phase of this church facility is proposed to be located to the south of the existing buildings. The project site is surrounded by residential developments to the north and south, the Jamboree Road right-of--way to the east, and a future neighborhood park to the west. The proposed project involves the construction of a 24,235 square foot addition to the church facility that includes: 1.) Construction of a 8,375 square foot building for classroom, daycare and office purposes; and 2.) Construction of a 7,930 square foot gymnasium with the same size storage area in a basement below the gymnasium. Design Review 00-007 is required to authorize site design, architecture and landscaping; Conditional Use Permit 00-005 is required to authorize the expansion of the church and day care facility. This project was considered and analyzed through a previously certified program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2) prepared for the East Tustin Specific Plan. Section 15150 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines permits an EIR or other environmental document to incorporate by reference all or portions of another document containing information relevant to that EIR. Therefore, in referencing EIR 85- 2, this tiered initial study hereby incorporates East Tustin Specific Plan EIR 85-2, City of Tustin, December 1985 (State Clearinghouse #85052217), as well as the Technical Appendices, Response to Comments, Supplement (November 15, 1986) and Addenda (May 1989). In conformance with CEQA, the purpose of tiered initial study is to identify and focus the environmental analysis for the project on significant new environmental impacts that were not previously considered in the Program EIR. EIR 85-2 identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overiding Consideration was adopted by the City of Tustin for the entire East Tustin Specific Plan area. For the purpose of this initial study check list, an evaluation has been made to ensure that impacts previously identified have not been intensified. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to minimize the impacts that will be applied to this project are identified in Exhibit 1. EIR 85-2 also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. Each of these impact categories were analyzed to ensure that no new project impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified and/or mitigated in the Program EIR. Impact categories not identified to have a potential impact in EIR 85-2 have been reviewed and identified in the initial study check list appropriately to ensure that the project would not create any additional significant impacts which were not considered by EIR 85-2 and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 1. AESTHETICS Items a, b, c, & d - No Impact: The project site is not located on a scenic highway nor does it affect a scenic vista. The project has been designed to be compatible with the design of the existing sanctuary and fellowship hall. Although the building will include lighting, the new light fixtures will not substantially increase light or glare sources. No impacts are anticipated beyond what has already been addressed in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code East Tustin Specific Plan 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a,b & c - No Impact: The proposed project will be located adjacent to the sanctuary and fellowship hall of the existing church facility. No impacts will occur to any agricultural uses or farmland. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin General Plan Field Verification Salvation Army Phase II (Conditional Use Permit 00-005 c~ Design Review 00-007) Initial Study Attachment A Page 2 of 8 3. AIR QUALITY Items a, b, c, d, & e - No Impact: Potential air quality impacts associated with the development of Phase II of the church facility were previously addressed in the certified EIR 85-2. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 which are identified in Exhibit 1. The development will not alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause any changes in climate, or create objectionable odors. Mitigation Measures/ Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a, b, c, d, e & f - No Impact: The proposed project will be located within an area that is vacant are next to the existing sanctuary and fellowship hall. No impacts will occur to endangered, threatened or rare species or habitats, locally designated species or natural communities, or wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site which is located adjacent to an existing church facility has no significant plant or animal species present on site. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a, b, c & d - No Impact: The subject site is within the East Tustin Specific Plan area and EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. This project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Salvation Army Phase !1 (Conditional Use Permit 00-005 c~ Design Review 00-007) Initial Study Attachment A Page 3 of 8 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 6. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a, b, c, d & e - No Impact: The project will require minor grading to prepare the site for construction. A review of the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map indicates that the project site is located in an area of potential liquefaction hazard. With the submittal of a precise grading plan, soils report and compliance with the City Grading. requirements and the Uniform Building Code as identified as mitigation measures in EIR 85-2 which are identified in Exhibit 1, no additional impacts beyond those previously identified are anticipated. The project will not create additional impacts other than those already identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code City of Tustin Grading Manual Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a, b, c, d, e, f, g & h - No Impact: Development or use of the proposed church facility is not anticipated to result in exposure to hazardous substances or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. All grading and construction would be subject to compliance with the all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. The project is not in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Salvation Army Phase 11 (Conditional Use Permit 00-005 & Design Review 00-007) Initial Study Attachment A Page 4 of 8 8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Items a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i & ,~ - No Impact: The project would not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding, change the course or direction of waters movements, or affect the quantity of groundwaters. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2 regarding impacts to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water percolation which are identified in Exhibit 1. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 9. LAND USE PLANNING Items a, b & c - No Impact: The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community Residential and zoned by the East Tustin Specific Plan (ESTP) as Community Facility. The proposed uses are consistent with a church use and with the applicable land use and zoning regulations. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 10. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a & b - No Impact: The construction and operation of the new church facility will not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The proposed development will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in EIR 85-2 on mineral resources with respect to loss of available known mineral resources. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Salvation Army Phase II (Conditional Use Permit 00-005 & Design Review 00-007) Initial Study Attachment A Page S of 8 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 11. NOISE Items a, b, c, d, e & f - No Impact: The development would result in short-term construction noise impacts. However, the Tustin City Code requires compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction hours and mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2 are provided in Exhibit 1. Long term impacts were originally considered as part of the certified EIR 85-2. The project will not ,create long-term impacts beyond those previously identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 12. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a, b & c - No Impact: The proposed project is Phase II of an existing church facility that totals 24,235 square feet. The project will not induce population growth or displace existing housing. No impacts beyond those previously identified in EIR 85-2 are anticipated. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 13. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a - No Impact: The project would not create the need for additional public services. Impacts to public services were originally considered as part of EIR 85-2 which are identified in Exhibit 1. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Salvation Army Phase 11 (Conditional Use Permit 00-005 & Design Review 00-007) Initial Study Attachment A Page 6 of 8 Sources: Tustin Police Department Orange County Fire Authority Tustin Public Works Department Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 14. RTJCREATION Items a & b - No Impact: The proposed addition to an existing church facility will not impact existing residential facilities in the neighborhood. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items b, c, d, e & f - No Impact: Potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the development of East Tustin, including the proposed community facility, were previously addressed in EIR 85-2, as amended. Surrounding roads have been designed to accommodate peak traffic demands, therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, nor would it impact the present pattern of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The site plan is designed to the specification of the East Tustin Specific Plan and the Tustin City Code, therefore, traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians would be mitigated. All required parking has already been provided on- site with the construction of Phase I and there would be no demand for additional parking. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the program EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Salvation Army Phase II (Conditional Use Permit 00-005 & Design Review 00-007) Initial Study Attachment A Page 7 of 8 16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a, b, c, d, e, f & ~ - No Impact: The project will connect into existing utilities; no substantial alterations are needed. The project will not create additional impacts beyond those identified in EIR 85-2. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Orange County Sanitation District Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a, b & c - No Impact: The project will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor limit the achievement of any long-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which are potentially and individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. Program EIR 85-2 addressed the cumulative impacts of this project and the project is fully within the scope of that discussion. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Salvation Army Phase 11 (Conditional Use Permit 00-005 & Design Review 00-007) Initial Study Attachment A Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT 1 MITIGATION MEASURES FROM EIR 84-2 EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN AS IT RELATES TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 00-005 & DESIGN REVIEW 00-007 3. AIR QUALITY: 3.11.3(4) Construction activity dust generation shall be reduced through regular watering as required by the SCAQMD Rule 403. 6. GEOLOGY & SOILS: 3.1.3 (1) Detailed grading plans (in conformance with established city procedures) further defining project earthwork requirements, will be developed during subsequent, more detailed levels of planning (i.e., site plan or tentative tract map preparation stages) and will be subject to the review and approval of the city. 3.2.3(3) Detailed geotechnical and soils engineering reports will be prepared subsequent to development of preliminary design layouts and final grading plans (e.g., at the tentative tract map preparation stages). This report will provide further, more detailed measures for treatment of excavational (ripping) difficulties, surficial material removals, cut and fill slopes, expansive soils, faults and liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of roadway stream crossings). 3.2.3(5) All structures will be designed in accordance with seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. 8. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY: 3.3.3(2) Erosion control measures will be developed and incorporated into final grading plans for the project to minimize potential increases in erosion and sediment transport during the short-term construction phases. Such measures could include the timely seeding of graded slopes, scheduling major grading phases during non-rainy season and the use of temporary control measures, e.g. perimeter sandbagging. Said construction erosion and sediment control plans for minimizing construction erosion will be submitted to the City of Tustin for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. Exhibit 1 EIR 85-2 Mitigation Measures CUP00-005 and DR00-007 Page 2 3.3.3(3) Development of appropriate pollution control plans (e.g., a street sweeping program, periodic storm drain system cleaning and developing landscape plans which control the use of fertilizer and pesticides) will be considered as means of reducing long-term water quality impacts. Long-term erosion and sediment control within proposed development areas will be provided with the installation of downdrains, terrace drains and brow ditches as necessary, and the continued maintenance of slope vegetation. 3.13.6(1) The following water conservation measures will be implemented as required by state law: • Low-flush toilets (Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code); • Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Park 6, Article 1, T20-1406F); • Insulation of hot water lines recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations); • The project also will comply with the water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. 3.13.6.(4) Preserve and protect existing trees where feasible. Established plans are often adapted to low water conditions and there use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 3.13.6(5) Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the amount of water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. 11. NOISE: 3.6.3(2) Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan will facilitate the orderly development of the project and mitigate the potential for land use conflicts.