Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 TT MAP 14188 12-02-96/ , // / ,., nter-Com NO. 1 12-2-96 DATE: DECEMBER 2, 1996 TO' WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14188 (STANDARD PACIFIC) RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 96-126 approving the Environmental Determination for the project; and, 2. AdOpt Resolution No. 96-127 approving Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. BACKGROUND In June of 1990, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 which authorized the subdivision of an approximate 19- acre site to accommodate 57 single-family detached residential dwellings. Subsequent to that approval, the developer recorded the Final Map and commenced construction of the development. In March of 1995, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14188 to add three (3) new residential product City Council Report Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 December 2, 1996 Page 2 types to the buildout of the project. The applicant is requesting approval to add two (2) new single-story plans to .the remaining buildout of the project. The total number of dwelling units for this project will not be increased. The site is bordered by Township Drive to the east, Lot 4 of Tract 12870 to the south, Lot 26 of Tract 13627 to the north and unincorporated residential properties to the west. The East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) provides the authority to the Planning Commission to take final action on Design Review applications and to recommend actions to the City Council on subdivision applications. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to eliminate the original Plans 1, 2 and 3 identified in the original project approval and Amendment No. 1 on Lambert (Lots 10 - 17). These plans would be replaced with~new Plans 11 and 12. Plans 1, 2 and 3 ranged in size from 3,450 square feet to 4,075. The new Plans 11 and 12 range in size from 2,970 to 3,355. No modifications to the previously approved street system or lot configuration of the development is proposed as part of this project. No additional units are proposed as part of this Amendment No. 2. The current project (the original project and Amendment No. 1) includes ten (10) different floor plans ranging in size from approximately 3,275 square feet to 4,170 square feet. Of the ten floor plans, three (3) plans are single-story and located along the western boundary of the development adjacent to the residential units in unincorporated territory as a requirement of the ETSP. To date, a total of 29 homes have been completed in the project. Nineteen (19) homes on Bennett, Kiser and Lambert (south of Lot 10) have been completed with the original plans. Ten (10) homes on Stanley have been completed with the new plans approved in March of 1995 consistent with Amendment No. 1. The proposed modifications meet or exceed all development standards .required by the ETSP. Please refer to Attachment A for a complete statistical summary of the project. City Council Report Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 December 2, 1996 Page 3 Site Plan Amendment No 1. to this development, approved in March of 1995, provided for the Lots south of Lot 10 to be developed with the original Plans 1-7 and the Lots north of Lot 9 to be developed with the original Plans 1, 2 and 3, and the additional Plans 8, 9 and 10. Separate and distinct project identification was provided at the corner of Bennett and Township Drive and between Lots 9 and 10 on Lambert to identify the difference between the original and modified projects. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The analysis of the proposed architecture has been limited to comparison between Plans 8, 9 and 10 approved with Amendment No. 1 because the applicant's request only pertains to eight (8) lots in the area approved by the City Council to be modified (Attachment A includes a complete statistical summary for the entire project, including the original plans). The architectural design of Amendment No. 1 is a contemporary interpretation of the Spanish Colonial and Monterey styles (Attachment B). Plans 8, 9 and 10 range in size from 3,275 square feet to 3,540 square feet. These plans include 4 or 5 bedrooms and 3 or 3.5 baths. The building masses are broken up with multiple hip and gable roofs, projecting gables, balconies and iow garden walls. Additional features include skylights, clearstory windows, wrought iron gates and decorative masonry veneers. The new Plan 11 is proposed to be 3,355 square feet in size with 4 bedrooms, a study and 3 baths. Plan 12 is proposed to be 2,965 square feet in size with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 baths. The proposed elevations include similar architectural features such as roof eave details, window trim and shutters consistent with the originally approved plans. Each plan includes two alternate elevations to provide architectural variety as was originally provided. The applicant is proposing to use the same finish colors that have been used on the existing units to provide consistency and compatibility between the existing portion of the development and the new buildout portion. City Council Report Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 December 2, 1996 Page 4 Public ConCerns Due to concerns expressed by the City Council regarding the number of recent requests to revise previously approved projects, and in light of the fact that this project has already been revised once before, staff requested that the applicant provide an explanation as to why the decision was made to modify the product line again. According to the applicant, the concept of creating two distinct product types in this development would be further reinforced with the proposal to replace the original Plans 1, 2 and 3 with new Plans 11 and 12 on Lots 10 through 17 (Attachment C). Prior to making a formal application to the City for the proposed changes, the applicant informed the Homeowner's Association and existing residents within the development of the desired modifications. Signed statements were received from 11 residents, including one future resident in escrow, indicating that they were aware of the proposed changes. In response to those discussions, it appears that there is general support for the proposed changes. A copy of resident correspondence received is included in Attachment D.. No additional comments or concerns from the existing residents have been expressed to staff as of the writing of this report. Daniel ~F ICP ~~~ ~~~I~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Senior Planner Community Development Director EAB: DF: br:/TT1418 $. DF Attachments: Location Map Proposed Site Plan/Elevations A - Statistical Summary B - Approved Plans 8, 9 and 10 Elevations C - Applicant Correspondence D - Resident Correspondence Initial Study Planning Commission Resolution No. 3499 Resolution Nos. 96-126 and 96-127 ATTACHMENT A - Statistical Summar~ Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 and DR 96-041 Requirement Proposed Gross Site Area Residential (Lots 1-57) Private Streets (Lots A) Landscape (Lots B, C, D) Total Units N/A 19.162 acres N/A 15.41 acres N/A 3.17 acres N/A .57 acres N/A 57 units Density Lot Coverage 4 du/ac (gross) 50% 2. 975 du/ac (gross) 22% Building Setbacks Front Yard 20 feet minimum 20 feet minimum Side Yard 5 feet 5 feet Rear Yard 15 feet minimum 30 feet minimum (adjacent to existing County residential area) 28 feet minimum 30 feet Height 35 feet maximum 23 feet (single story) 29.5 feet (two story) Resident Parking 114 garages (2 garages per unit) · 175 garages (3/4 garages per unit) Guest Parking 114 on-street spaces (2 .per unit) 122 on- street spaces) Unit Floor.Plans Sq. Ft. Plan Type Quantity Percentaqe Plan 1 3,448 Plan 2 4,077 Plan 3 4,056 Plan 4 3,600 Plan 5 3,736 Plan 6 4,000 Plan 7 4,167 Plan 8 3,275 Plan 9 3,340 Plan 10 3,540 Plan 11 3,356 Plan 12 2,967 4 br/2.5 ba 2 3 4 br/3.5 ba 1 2 4 br/4 ba 1 2 5 br/4.5 ba 3 5 5 br/3 ba 4 7 5 br/4.5 ba 3 5 5 br/5.5 ba 5 8 5 br/3.5 ba 10 18 4 br/4 ba 10 18 5 br/4.5 ba 10 18 4 br/3 ba + study 4 7 4 br/3.5 ba. 4 7 LOCATiO .S DR. NO SCALE / / · !1 // : I ,7 //, ,~ //' $ . .. .. PLAN 11 - 'FLOOR PLAN' ISAN MARCOS1 SINGLE FAMILY TRACT - 14188 ST.'~NDARD PACIFIC CORP. I!J] ! [ PLAN 11 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11A ISAN MARCOS1 SINGLE FAMILY TRACT - 14188 STANDARD PACIFIC CORP. PLAN 11 - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11A ~", , ..::~, AN MARCOS , il!;'..z . STANDARD PACIFIC CORP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11B PLAN'. ,11 - ! I,i JSAN MARCOSJ SINGLE FAMILY TRACT - 14188 STANOARD PACIFIC CORP. - . PLAN 11 EXTERIOR ELEvATIoNS llB tl;l't'" AN MARCOS ~,~ SINGLE FA~LY TRACT - 14188 ~ [,ll~, I I STANDARD PAC~ CORP. ATTACHMENT A STATISTICAL SUMMARY ATTACHMENT A - Statistical Summary Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 and DR 96-041 Requirement Proposed Gross Site Area Residential (Lots 1-57) Private Streets (Lots A) Landscape (Lots B, C, D) N/A 19.162 acres N/A 15.41 acres N/A 3.17 acres N/A .57 acres Total Units N/A 57 units Density 4 du/ac (gross) 2. 975 du/ac (gross) Lot Coverage 50% 22% Building Setbacks Front Yard 20 feet minimum 20 feet minimum Side Yard 5 feet 5 feet Rear Yard 15 feet minimum 30 feet minimum (adjacent to existing County residential area) 28 feet minimum 30 feet Height 35 feet maximum 23 feet (single story) 29.5 feet (two story) Resident Parking 114 . garages (2 .garages per unit) 175 garages (3/4 garages per unit) Guest'Parking 114 on-street spaces (2.per unit) 122 on-street spaces) Unit Floor Plans Sq. Ft. Plan Type Quantity Percentage Plan 1 3,448 Plan 2 4,077 Plan 3 4,056 Plan 4 3,600 Plan 5 3,736 Plan 6 4,000 Plan 7 4,167 Plan 8 3,275 Plan 9 3,340 Plan 10 3,540 Plan 11 3,356 ' Plan 12 2,967 4 br/2.5 ba 2' 3. 4 br/3.5 ba 1 2 4 br/4 ba 1 2 5 br/4.5 ba 3 5 5 br/3 ba 4 7 5 br/4.5 ba 3 5 5 br/5.5 ba 5 8 5 br/3.5 ba 10 18 4 br/4 ba. 10 18 5 br/4.5 ba 10 18 4 br/3 ba + study 4 7 4 br/3.5 ba 4 7 ATTACHMENT B APPROVED PLANS 8, 9, & 10 I I 65'-0' 1!" I J 0 0 68~0' 0 Z 0 0 I I 50LO' 4Lo] I ATTACHMENT C APPLICANT CORRESPONDENCE October 1, 1996 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY Mr. Dan Fox Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92680 RE: Amendment Number 2 to Tentative Tract 14188 and DR-041 Dear Dan: As you know, Standard Pacific originally submitted and subsequently obtained approval for a fifty-seven (57) unit site plan for tentative tract 14188 consisting of one and two stow floor plans(plans 1-7). Forty-five (45) of the lots within tentative tract 14188 were plotted with two stow floor plans (lots 1 - 5 and 18 - 57) while lots 6 thru 17 (twelve lots) were plotted with one stow floor plans (East Tustin specific plan condition). The project was named San Rafael and opened for sale in December of 1991. In March of 1995, Standard Pacific amended the approved site plan by adding three two stow floor plans (plans 8, 9 and 10). Tentative Tract 14188 was conditioned to require the construction of nineteen (19) San Rafael floor plans on lots 1 - 9 and 48 - 57. With the new floor plans 8, 9 and 10 and the one stow plans 1, 2 and 3 plotted on the remaining lots 10 - 47. Lots 10 - 47 were to be named and marketed separately from San Rafael as San Marcos. In an effort to provide one stow plans for San Marcos that are consistent in square footage and specification to the newly approved two stow plans 8, 9 and 10, Standard Pacific is submitting for your consideration plans 11 and 12. These plans are in compliance with the architectural guidelines and standards for Tustin Ranch and will better compliment the sales effort of the previously apl plans 8, 9 and 10 for the San Marcos development. Sincerely, [ ~d David S. Foell \ Project Manager DSF/mew 1505 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92626, 714/6684300 ATTACHMENT D RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE John W. Cochrane and Joanne M. Frasca 2415 Kiser Tustin CA 92680 714/505-1880 e-mail: jwc246@jdplaw.com October 8, 1996 Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Director of Community Development City of Tustin · 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 RE: Standard Pacific Corp. - San Marcos Dear Ms. Binsack: As a resident of the adjacent San Rafael project in Tustin Ranch, I am writing to comment upon and to support Standard Pacific's efforts to develop the San Marcos project. Standard Pacific has gone to significant len~hs to meet with the residents of San Rafael, present plans for our review, and obtain our comments in t~ lng to develop a series of marketable products for San Marcos. The plans currently under consideration -- specifically, the proposed one story configurations -- have been made available to the San Rafael residents. I personally think they are fine; I personally have spoken to each of the owners of the original one story homes within San Rafael (who probably would have the most at stake in terms of impact upon the value of their own homes) and can report that these residents think the proposed San Marcos one story plans appear to be fine. I am told that it has been suggested, by someone who does not live in San Rafael, that the homeowners xvithin San Rafael are dissatisfied with Standard Pacific's performance with respect to the San Marcos project. This is news to me and, because I am on our association board of directors, I have tried to discuss this issue with many of my neighbors. None have expressed any dissatisfaction with the products that San Marcos features or proposes to build, nor is there any concern expressed over the timing or sequence of the proposed construction phases. San Marcos is what it is and, perhaps more to the point, Standard Pacific appears to have tried very hard to live up to the representations that were made to us at the time this development was last before the City for apprOvals -- San Marcos appears, to me, to be precisely what Standard Pacific told us it would'be when we met with them and reached some compromises that shifted the project away from Standard Pacific's original proposal to the City and resulted in the present name and configuration of the project. Speaking for myself alone, but having discussed the issue with the owners of the San Rafael single story homes, I appreciate and favor Standard Pacific's concept of developing new and different one story products for San Marcos. It is my perception that this is consistent with the compromise worked out previously, the ~vhole point of which was to try to avoid diminishing Stol Rafael property values. Our original concern was that the marketing of different homes at different price points, but under the original name of San Rafael, could adversely affect the value of the original project. By designating the new development as San Marcos and implementing the various features such as signage and street treat~nents Ms. Elizabeth Binsack Page 2 October 8, 1996 between the projects, it does appear that our original concern may be met with reasonable success. If, as Standard Pacific is now proposing, the new designs for the one story phase of San Marcos will be reasonably different from those of San Rafael (not wholly inconsistent, just different) then, it seems to me, the goal of maintaining separate community profiles -- ultimately benefitting both San Rafael residents and San Marcos residents in terms of property values is enhanced, not diminished, by the new plans. It is fair to say that we in San Rafael have not experienced the same degree of problems with builders that the residents of San Marino have faced concerning the build out of that project. Not having had first hand involvement in San Marino's experiences with Bramalea and Lennar, I can only surmise about how that relationship went. But I have been involved with Standard Pacific's representatives in the course of our San Rafael efforts to preserve our property values, and I will go on record as saying that I believe Standard Pacific has been responsive to our concerns and. once agreement was negotiated and reached with Standard Pacific, that company has done its best to liv~ up to'~hose agreements. We have not received Standard Pacific's (or the City's) agreement to everything we would have liked, but I am reasonably certain that Standard Pacific probably feels the same way. The compromises that have been a~eed upon have been honored, though, and that is important. A specific example seems worth mentioning. As part of the resolution we reached with standard Pacific, the company agreed to implement some enhanced monuments and street treatments between San Rafael and San Marcos on Lambert Street. In consultation xvith the San Rafael homeowners, plans were drawn,' modified and approved. When the workmen came and built the concrete block monuments, however, they put them about eighteen inches away from the actual site designated and also built them aboUt a foot shorter than had been anticipated. In short, they did it but they did it wrong. This was called to David Foell's attention at Standard Pacific -- and his reaction was' immediate and direct: he saw them, immediately acknowledged they were not as proposed, and had them torn down and rebuilt at the right spot and to the proper height. Now, this was the right thing to do; my point is, it is what got done and it got done instantaneously, without even a suggestion that maybe the initial effort was "close enough." I appreciate that type of response and they ought to get credit for it -- not for ultimately or grudgingly doing the right thing, but for doing the right thing because that is what ought to be done. I am sure that there will.be things in the future that we do not agree upon, and when that happens I am sure that I will be right and Standard Pacific will be wrong. But the proposed designs for the one story homes in San Marcos is not one of those areas and I support Standard Pacific's present proposals for those homes. Thank you for your attention. cc: Mr. David Foell Ms. Peggy Roberts Ms. Elain Nermon V lY yours, //// ,,' / J/ol~'n W. Cochrane / STANDARD PACIFIC CORP. SAN RAFAEL/SAN MARCOS NOTICE OF PLAN ADDITION RECE.[VED Standard Pacific is revising the San Rafael/San Marcos site plan to include two additional single story plans which will be constructed on lots 10-17. By signing below, this document is evidence to the City of Tustin that Standard Pacific has disclosed to the buyers in escrow its intention to add the additional single story plans. ACKNOWLEDGED: DATE: /W-'g -".7 ~ LOT: 41. TRACT: 14188 PHASE: 1 Robin Song NI c/o ~e~ Lee September 27, 1996 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY RECEIVED uCi 07 ' .... COM,MUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY Michael and Bonnie Marcus 2-,-,0 Kiser Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Marcus: As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Wednesday, October 2nd. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Project Manager Acknowledged: ...'.'"'Signature . .. .,_, Date 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California o2626, 714/665-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY. RECE ¥ September 27, 1996 u~'~:~',U:'.ITY DEVELO?~ENT Jack and Joyce Jung 11995 Lambert Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jung: As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Wednesday, October 2nd. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or-Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. David S. Foell Project Manager Acknowledged: 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92626, 7141668-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY September 27, 1996 OCT 0 7 ~o':' Ken and Kaye Cochran 2420 Kiser Tustin, CA 92680 ,- nr~:s~ e?MENT BY Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cochran: As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notificatiOn to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Wednesday, October 2nd. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myselfi or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. David S. Foell Project Mm".ager Acknowledged- Signat~e / Date 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92626, 714/668-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY September 30, 1996 RECEIVED Brad and Mary Rockwell 2450 Bennett Tustin, CA 92680 COM~;-fUNiTY DEVELOPMENT BY Dear Mr. and Mrs. Rockwell: .As discussed at our recent Homeowner's ,Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael and San Marcos homeowners. Therefore, please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Friday, October 4th. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. David S. Foell Project Manager Acknowledged: ......./' _. I Date/ 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 92626, 714/668-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY ECE V September 27, 1996 Michael and Elain Nermon 2460 Kiser Tustin, CA 92680 COMMUNITY Dear Michael and Elain: As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, please sign your ac 'knowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addiessed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Wednesday, October 2nd. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. David S. Foell Project Manager Acknowledged: /" ' Date 15o5 Vt'est MacArthur Boulevard Costa .Xlcsa, California o2o2t,, 714 poS-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY September 27, 1996 Cu ,C, ur lTY L;,'" ¥ r_L~.~"iYi: :~ ~ Fred and Margaret Landry Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Landry: As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Wednesday, ' October 2nd. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. David S. Foell Project Manager Acknowledged: ~,/ Date 1565 West XlacAr:~.ur Boulevard Costa Mesa. California 02020, 714 005-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY RECE- V?'''nlb'' September 27, 1996 COMMUI'~ITY n~,,.-., ,-,~.,,,-~,-,- ur v ~.LUr'Wi BY Jeff and Janice Slavin 12005 Lambert Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Slavin: As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, Please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Wednesday, October 2nd. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. Sincerely, David S. Foell Project Manager Acknowledged: Date 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California 02626, 714/668-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY October 1, 1996 John Cochrane and Joanne Frasca 2415 Kiser Tustin, CA 92680 Dear John and Joanne: 0 C i" 0 7 I9% COMMi... lulTY. ~.._..~.. ns,¢.z, npM£NT BY As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, please sign your acknowledgment below and remm to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Friday, October 4th. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. Sincerely, David S. Foell Project Manager AcknOwl : ' Signa~t~re Date/~~/~ 1565 West MacArthur Boulevard Costa Mesa, California .02626, 7141668-4300 October 1, 1996 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ORANGE COUNTY COM~U.r, JlI¥ DEVELOp,r,.,I£NT John Cochrane and Joanne Frasca 2415 Kiser Tustin, CA 92680 Dear John and Joanne: As discussed at our recent Homeowner's Association meetin__.s, Standard Pacific has made application to the City of Tustin for a site plan revision which'entails adding two single story plans on Lots 10-17. The City of Tustin has requested that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notification to San Rafael homeowners. Therefore, please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt response is very important to us in that it facilitates the completion of our site plan application and enables us to be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please return this acknowledgment by Friday, October 4th. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. Please contact myself, or Peggy Roberts, if you have any questions. Sincerely, David S. Foell Project Manager Acknowledged: Signature 0 Date 15o5 1,¥est Mac.Arthur Boulevard Costn Mesh, Californin o2o2o. 714.'ec5-4300 STANDARD PACIFIC OF ()RANGE COUNTY September 27, 1996 OCT 0 ? Don and Corrlne HoWard 2a~0 Bennett ' ' Tustirg CA. 92680 COt~'~UNITY DE BY' Dear Mr. and Mrs. I-I~)ward: · As discussed at our r6cent Homeowner's Association meetings, Standard Pacific has application to the Git31 of Tusfin for a site plan revision which entails adding tw° singl story plans on Lots 10-17. The City ofTustin ha~ requestf~d that Standard Pacific provide evidence of this notifi, ~o San Rafael homeowners. Theregore, please sign your acknowledgment below and return to me in the enclosed serf'addressed stamped envelope. Your prompt respons~ is very important to us in that it fadh'tates the completion of our site plan application enables us to be placefl on the Planning Commission Agenda for October 28. Please this acknowledgment by Wednesday, October 2nd. Thank you for your assistance wiflx tttls matter. Please contat:t ,nysdf, or Peggy Rob you have any question, s. David $. l,'oell · ' Project Manager. I ' Acknowledged: : Signature ~/ .... ----- Date 1565 West MacArlhur Boulcvard Costa Mesa, California 02620. 7141o6~q-4300 FROM VONS REAL ESTATE 818 821 7914 10-03-96 ~ade .tion nd etum ts, it' ~8:54AM P001 ~25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3]05 INITIAL STUDY A~ BACKGROUND . · ProJect T~tle. Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: _]~]~___ ~L[TF~'"---'/' Phone: ~-1 .-~- Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: __~~0~ ~ C' tmag Meslgnauon' Project Description: 3 ' ' -~ ~-- I - -.--- Surrounding Uses: North X/~T- East South . ,,~'~ 1'- West Other public agencies whose approval is required: I~ Orange County Fire Authority [] Orange County Health Care Agency I~1 South Coast Air Quality Management District I~ Other C] City oflrvine [2] City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS I'OTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. - Land 'Use and Planning Population and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation & Circulation Biological Resources Energy and lvlineral Resources Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fred 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 sheets 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 requirer[ . [22] 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 stan~, 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." Atl ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. .find that although the proposed project COuld have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a s~gnfficant 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 pi-oject. Signatur/cl~-~'~ 7~' Date Printed Name i<__~1~___ ~_.5~ Title __1 D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMf'ACTS: Earlier analyses used: ~ ~--~; ~S A vailablefor review at: City of Tustin Community Development Department LAND USE & PLANNING - 14~ould the proposal: a) Conflict ;;5th general plan designation or zoning? ' . b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a Iow-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION & HOUSING - WouM the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial gro;~ in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undevelope~l area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIc PROBLEMS - k~ould the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) . Fault rupture? b) Seismic grotmd shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER - lf{>u/d the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface mnoft'? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved ox3,gcn or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount ofsurface water in an), water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water nlOVClllCn[s? Potenlially Significant ltnpact ]~olenlially Significant Unless A4~itigation Incorporated Less than Significant Jmpact [3 [3 -12 [3 E3 [3 [3 [3 [3 0 0 [3 [2 [2 El. E3 Impact [2 [5] O [5] 8~ 0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdraxvals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY - WoUld the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? bi Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odorS? TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION- 14~ouldthe proposal result in'. a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? . c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, ~terbome or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the propos~l result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration comdors? ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient nlanncr? c) Result in thc loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region? Potentially ,Vi~g, nificant Impact ~ otcntiallp &~nificant Unlesx A4ili~ation h~corporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. HAZARDS - Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of lxazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with emergency response plan or emergency evacuation' plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of'people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire tm7ayd in areas with flammable brush, . grass, or trees? 10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. pUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roadS? e) Other government services? 12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highx~2y? b) Have a demonstrable negative acsthetic cffect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact t'otentially Significant Unless Le,~:r than Mi!igati°n Significant Incorporated ' Impact No Impact 181. 0 0 0 0 O. 0 ~1 0 E3 [3. 0 ~ 0 0 E] o o 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources7 b) Disturb archaeological resources7 c) Have the potential to cause a physical change xvhich would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious oi' sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION - Would the proposal: a) Incr .e.a._se the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIHCANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially redUce the habitat of a fish or ,,~41dlife species, cause a fish or vdldlife population to drop below self-~g 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 prekistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 furore projects). d) Does the project have em4ronmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ~ .... :ntiallv .(;igni ficant Potentially Unlexs Lexx than Significant ggitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact o o o 0 0 0 me EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. INITSTUD. PM5 3702A ATTACHMENT A TIERED INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES. AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14188,AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-041 BACKGROUND In June of 199'0, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 Which authorized the subdivision of an approximate 19- acre site to accommodate 57 single-family detached residential units. Subsequent to that approval, the developer recorded the Final Map and commenced construction of the development.. In March of 1995, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14188 to add three (3) new residential product types to the buildout of the project. To date, 29 of the 57 dwellings (51% of the project) have been completed. The applicant is requesting approval to add two (2) new single-story rplans to the buildout of the project. The total number of dwelling units for this project will not be increased. The improvement of this property is governed by the regulations adopted by the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) and the City's Grading Ordinance. The site is bordered by Township Drive to the east, Lot 4 of Tract 12870 to the. south, Lot 26 of Tract 13627 to the north and unicorporated residential properties to teh west. This is a tiered initial study that is based on and incorporates by reference, the environmental analysis included in EIR 85-2 for the ETSP (certified on March-17, 1986) and subsequently amended with supplements and addenda, as it relates to the subject property. conformance with CEQA, the purpose of this tiered initial study In to identify and focus the environmental analysis for the project is significant new environmental impacts that were not previously · '. on considered in the Program EIR, as amended. EIR 85-2, as amended, identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overriding ConsideratiOn was adopted by the City for the entire ETSP area. For the purpose of this initial study check list, these items have been checked "Potentially Significant Impact', and 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 would be applicable to this project have been identified. EIR 85-2, as amended, also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. Staff has reviewed each of these imPact categories to be sure no new project impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified in the Program. EIR, as amended. For the purposes of this initial study check list, these items have been checked "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated,, and the mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR, as amended, that would be Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 2 applicable to this project that are included as part of the project have been identified. Impact categories not identified to have a potential impact in EIR 85-2, as amended, have been reviewed and identified in the initial study check list accordingly to ensure that the project would not create any additional significant impacts which were not considered by EIR 85-2, as amended, and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. LAND USE & PLANNING Items a, b and e - "No Impact": The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community - Residential. The ~subject property is zoned Planned Community Residential and is identified within the Low Density Residential Land Use Designation of the ETSP Land Use Plan. The proposed uses on the property are Consistent with those land use designations. The proposed'project would not alter existing or future land uses. Item c - "Potentially SiGnificant Unless Mitiqatior Incorporated,,: EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects of residential land uses to ensure compatibility with existing land uses. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2, as amended, have been incorporated into the project or would be required as conditions of approval which avoid or substantially lessen the'significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR, as amended. The project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Item d - "Potentially SiGnificant Impact": EIR 85-2, as amended, identified that the development of the project site would result in the gradual conversion of existing open space and agricultural uses into urban use. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Specific Plan. Since the subject property has been identified for residential development, the project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 3 Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the ETSP, which address building height, building setbacks, parking requirements, and other site development standards and would ensure that the buildout of the existing development complies with the mitigation measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2, amended, as · POPULATION & HOUSIN~ Items a and ~ - "P~te_n~iall Si nificant~ Im~t,,: The existing development includes a total of 57 ~welling ~nits, 29 of which have been constructed to date. The Low Density designation would permit up to 76 units pursuant to the ETSP, which allows a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre on the subject site. The existing development was approved at 3 dwelling units per °acre. The project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which the-certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to population. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects'· A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to population into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval where applicable for the subject project. ' , . Item c - "No Impact'J: No housing units or population would be displaced. The project would provide new dwellings for the planned population. Sources- Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 4 ~itiqation/Monitoring Required: Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the ETSP, which address building height, building setbacks, parking requirements, and other site development standards and would ensure that the buildout of the existing development complies with mitigation measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended. · GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items b, h and i - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiqation Incorporated": EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the necessary grading activity that would occur in order to accommodate the various types of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography of the area. The site has been mass graded as part of Tract 12870 and subsequently graded to accommodate development, of the property consistent with the approved plans. Minor precise grading will be required to accommodate the buildout of the existing development. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified to the site andtopography in the Program EIR, as amended. Item f - "Potentially Significant Impact": EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the necessary grading 'activity that would occur in order to accommodate the various types of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography Of the area. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effect. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was prepared to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit 'of the Specific Plan area and region. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified to the site and topography in 'the .Program EIR, as amended. Items a, c-e, g and i -"No Impact": The proposed development will not expose people to potential fault ruptures, liquefaction, volcanic hazards or mudflows. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 5 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: A detailed soils engineering report and grading plans for~the site are required as a condition of approval to ensure that all grading activities on the site minimize grading impacts. . WATER Items a~_~b and ~ "~otentiall Si nificant Impact": The subject project site is within the ETS~ ~ea for which the certified EIR 85-2, as amended identified impacts to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water percolation. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan' and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water percolation into either the submitted plans or will be' included in the conditions of approval, where applicable. Items c-f h and i - ~ The proposed buildout of the existing development is within the Specific Plan area. The certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to water quality. The project has been reviewed and will not worsen or create additional impacts than those previously identified on water quality in the Program EIR, as amended. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended, related to changes to water course direction, amount of surface water, discharge into surface waters, ground waters, reduction of amount of water, and.exposure to water hazards would also be implemented at the time subsequent specific development plans are considered. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - InitiaI Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 6 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: 'Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, including plans to accommodate increase runoff' flows associated with the proposed development by incorporating on-site and off-site drainage improvements, providing erosion control measures and developing appropriate pollution control plans have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 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. · AIR OUALITY Item a - "Potentially Siqnificant-Impact,,: The subject site is within the project area for which the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, determined that the ETSP will result in an incremental degradation of air quality in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefitS against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was.prepared to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit of the Specific Plan area and region. The project has been reviewed and will not create additionaI impacts than those previously identified impacts on Air Quality in the Program EIR as amended. Conditions of approval will be required for the project to meet applicable mitigation measures, as required by the certified EIR 85-2, as amended. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2, as amended, related to air quality impacts, such as encouraging the use of alternate transportation modes, and the encouraging of ridesharing will be incorporated as mitigation measures. Items b, c and d - "No Impacts',: The proposed buildout of the existing development will not alter air movement, moisture, temperature or cause any changes in climate or create objectional odors. ' Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code' Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study RespOnses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 7 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required- Construction activity dust generation shall be reduced through regular watering as required by the SCAQMD Rule 403. Additionally, mitigation measures encouraging use of alternative transportation methods have been made available to the project as part of Tract 12870 the Sector level map. These measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. · TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATIOn! Item a - "Potentially Significant imDact,,: The subject single-family'residential project is within t~e density.range permitted by the ETSP. The impacts from the project were previously addressed in certified EIR 85-2, as amended. The program EIR as amended, identified that ETSP will generate increased traffic in the vicinity. The City Council considered.the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects and chose to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Applicable mitigation measures were incorporated into the ETSP, including a circulation plan intended t© provide an adequate circulation system for specific plan traffic, and mitigate impacts on the existing circulation system. The project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified on the transportation and circulation in the Program EIR, as amended. This proposal has incorporated applicable measures related to transportation/circulation into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval where applicable, for the subject project. ' Items b-g - "No Impact,,: EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects on traffic safety, emergency access, demand for new parking pedestrian circulation, and alternative modes of transportation. As all required parking would be provided on site, there would be no demand for additional parking. As the surrounding roads have been designed to accommodate peak traffic demands the proposed project would nOt have a substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, as discussed above, nor would it'impact the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. As the site plan is 'designed to the specifications of the ETSP, and the Tustin City Code, traffic hazards to. motor vehicles, Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 8 bicyclists or pedestrians would be mitigated. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR, 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to transportation and circulation into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject p~oject. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Conditions of approval require that the private street system and residential development on the site shall meet the requirements of-the ETSP, and the Tustin City Code. Also, a condition of approval requires that a street improvement plan be provided ~for all construction within the public right-of-way. Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the ETSP will ensure that the buildout of the existing development complies with mitigation measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended. · BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a-e - "Potentially Significant'Unless Mitigated": The project site is presently' under construction with 29 of'57 units completed. The site is within the ETSP area for which certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site .related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to plant and animal life. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to plant and animal, life into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 9· Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures require revegetation on graded and cut-and-fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed, with consideration given to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials, such as the eucalyptus, pinus canariensis, schinus molle, bougainvillea, and pittosporum. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project as submitted, or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. · ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and c - "No Impact": The proposed buildout of the existing development will not create additional impacts than. those previously identified on energy conservation or mineral resources with respect to adopted energy conservation plans or loss of available known mineral resources. Item b - "Potentiall Si nificant Unless ~ation Incorporated,,: Implementation of this project as well as the ETSP as a whole, will increase the demand for and consumption of energy. The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to energy. However, the project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. C°nsequently,'mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to energy into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin .City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required- Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, require that building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, that energy conservation techniques be Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041. November 12, 1996 Page 10 considered, that insulation of walls, ceiling and floors be required, and that energy efficient lighting be used. These mitigation measures related to-energy, as applicable, have been incorporated into the project as'submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval.' · HAZARDS Items a, b,d and e - "No Impact"- EIR 85-2, . as amended, identified no impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects from hazards. Item c - "potentially Significant Unless Mitigated": EIR 85- ~, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to human health, Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in'EIR 85-2, as amended. This development has previously incorporated those measures related to'human health into the project. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Sources: Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. 10. ~OISE Item a - "Potentially Significant Impacts": Development of the site would result in short-term construction noise impacts, and a long-term increase in the ambient.noise levels in and around the project site. These impacts were originally considered as part of certified EIR 85-2, as amended. The City Council considered the benefits of the ETSP original program EIR as amended, and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Mitigation measures addressing the acoustic environment were identified in the program EIR, as amended, and are included in the submitted project, or would be conditions of approval. Attachment A - Initial StUdy Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 11 Item b - "No Impact"- The proposed buildout of the existing development will not expose persons to severe noise levels. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Miti ation Monitorin Re ired: Mitigation measures identified by the program EIR, as amended, include measures to mitigate exterior noise levels with the use of berms, walls or a combination of'both. Landscaping materials and setbacks from the roadway are also included in the site design as mitigation measures. -Interior noise impacts Where determined to be greater than the level permitted by the Noise Ordinance will be mitigated by providing improved noise rated windows. In addition, the City's Noise Ordinance No. 828 has specific requirements in regard to construction noise. Those measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, and the City of Tustin Ordinance No. 828, have been' incorporated into the project as submitted or would be incorporated as conditions of approval. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a - e - ,,p · . . . otentlall Si n~f~cant ~ .ImplementatiOn of this project will result in ~n increase in the demand for and utilization of public services, such as fire protection, police protection, infrastructure maintenance and other governmental services, schools, parks and recreational facilities. Impacts to public services were originally considered as part of EIR 85-2, as amended. The project will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended, as the impacts anticipated that the site.would be designated as Low Density Residential by the land use plan, allowing up to 4 dwelling units per acre, resulting in a maximum of 76 units. The proposed project would provide 57 single-family residences with a density of 3 units per acre. The subject site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to public services. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 12 balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan. Additionally, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to public services into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval where applicable for the subject project. ' ' Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, such as; stating the project sponsor shall work closely with the Police Department, the Orange County Fire Department and other governmental services to ensure adequate security, safety and services for the project; a street improvement .plan required, for all construction in the public right-of-way; and a parkland dedication for this.project have been incorporated into the project. These measures identified in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, have been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 12. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a-q'- "Potentially Significant Impact": The ETSP will increase the demand for utilities. The project will not create additional impacts than those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects on the use of utilities. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Specific Plan. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 13 13. AESTHETICS Items a and b "Po ' · · -- Potentiall Si nificant Unless Mit_i_qB~ed": The two additional plans proposed to be added to the buildout of the projectinclude similar architectural features,.detailing, colors and materials consistent with the existing and previously approved units for the development. The project is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to aesthetics. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified through Design Review in conjunction with EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal- has incorporated those measUres related to aesthetics into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval~ where applicable, for the subject project. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in the Program EIR, amended, as Item c - "Potentially Siqnificant Impact": The proposed buildout of the existing development will create additional light- at the presently undeveloped site. Lighting from pedestrian and street lights, decorative wall lights and outdoor private area lights will have a significant impact. The project site is within the Specific Plan area in which the program EIR addresses the impact of development and the resultant negative effects from light and ~glare, and the City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the specific plan and mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, as amended. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to light and glare into the submitted plans. The mitigation measures would also be included in the conditions of approval for the project.' The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Pro. gram EIR, as amended. Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, .as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 14 Mitiqation/Monitoring Required- Conditions of approval for the project require that a lighting plan be submitted for the project, and that no lights that create any.glare or have a negative impact on adjoining properties shall be permitted. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a, c and d - "No ImDact,,: The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2, as amended 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. Item b - "Potentially Siqnificant Unless Mitiqated,,: EIR 85-. 2, as amended, identified impacts related to archaeological resources related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. The project has also been reviewed and will not create additional impacts than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended, as this project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 15. RECREATION Items a and b - "Potentially Siqnificant Unless Mitigated"- The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2, as amended, identified- impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to recreation. Parkland dedication of 0.7128 acres was previously dedicated as part of Tract 12870 to satisfy the parkland required by the ETSP. Furthermore, all parks identified by the ETSP have been reserved for the purpose of providing recreation in the ETSP. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment No. 2 to VTT 14188 and DR 96-041 November 12, 1996 Page 15 Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitiqation/Monitoring Required- None Required. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a-d - ,,No Impact": The project in and of itself will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor limit the achievement of.any long-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. The program EIR 85- 2, as amended, addressed all of these concerns and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. Sources- Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan M~itiqati°n/M°nitoring Required: None required. DF:br:TT14188.ENV 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3498 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLA/~NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 96-041 TO ADD TWO NEW PRODUCT TYPES TO THE BUILDOUT OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON TRACT 14188 LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE AT RAWLINGS WAY. The 'Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby reSolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: a. That a proper application, Design Review 96-041, was .submitted by Standard Pacific requesting approval to add two new product types to the buildout of the previgusly approved development on Tract 14188 located on the west ..side of Township Drive at Rawlings Way; m o That the said application was considered by the Planning Commission on November 12, 1996; C o That an Environmental Impact Report EIR 85-2, as amended, for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified in conformance with the requirements of .the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project; and D o Pursuant to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal Code, the Commission finds that the location, size, architectural features and general appearance of' the proposed development will not impair the orderly and harmonious development of thearea, the present or {uture development therein, or the occupancy as a whole. In making sUch findings, the Commission has considered at least the following items: 1. Height, bulk and area of bUildings. · Setbacks and site planning. 3. Exterior materials and colors· 4. Type and pitch of roofs· · Size and spacing of windows, doors and other openings. o Towers, chimneys, roof structures,.flagpoles, radio and television antennae. · Landscaping, parking area design and traffic circulation. Resolution No. 3498 Page 2 o Location, height illumination. and standards of eXterior o Location and appearance of equipment located outside of an enclosed structure. 10. Physical relationship of proposed structures to existing structures in the neighborhood. 11. Appearance ~ and design relationship of proposed structure to existing structures and possible feature structures in the neighborhood and public thoroughfares. 10 11 12. DeVelopment Guidelines and criteria-as adopted by the City Council. II. The Planning' Commission hereby approves Design Review 96-041 12 to add two new product types to the buildout of the previously approved development on Tract 14188 located on the west side 13 of Township Drive at Rawlings Way, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto 14 · · PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of 15 Tustin, at a regular meeting on the. 12th~.day of November, 1996. 17 ~, 18 ~'~~~ Chairman REYE§ 19 Recording Secretary 20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 21 CITY OF TUSTIN ) 22 I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of 23 Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3498 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission 24 held on the 12th day of November, 1996. ' 26 BARBARA~YES RecordiYfg Secretary 27 28 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 3498 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DESIGN REVIEW 96-041 GENERAL (1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the submitted plans date stamped November 12, 1996 on file with the Community Development Department as herein modified or as modified by the Director of Community Development in accordance with this Exhibit. The Director of Community Development may also approve subsequent minor modifications to plans durin~ plan check if such modifications are to be consistent with provisions of the East Tustin'Specific Plan (ETSP). (1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in the Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project, subject to review and approval by the Community Development DePartment. (1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless building permits are issued within twenty four (24) months of the date of this Exhibit. (1) 1.4 The applicant shall sign and return an Agreement to Conditions Imposed form prior to issuance of building' permits. (1) 1.5 The applicant and property owner shall hold harmless and defend the City of Tustin for all claims and liabilities arising out of the City's approval of the entitlement process for this project. (1) 1.6. Ail other applicable conditions of Planning. COmmission Resolution No. 3324 approving Design Review 94-033 for Amendment No. 1 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14188 shall remain in full force and effect, and incorporated herein by reference. SOURCE CODES (1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT (2) CEQA MITIGATION (6) LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES (3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7) PC/CC POLICY (4) DESIGN REVIEW *** EXCEPTION Exhibit A -Conditions' of Approval DR 96-041 Resolution No. 3498 Page 2 PLAN SUBMITTAL 2.1 At building plan check the following shall be submitted: (3) A. (2) (3) Be (2) C. (3) (2) D. (3) Construction plans, structural calculations, and Title 24 energy calculations. Requirements of the Uniform Building Codes, State Handicap and Energy Requirements shall be complied with and approved by the Building Official. (2) E. (3) Preliminary technical detail and plans for all utility installations including cable TV, telephone, gas, water and electricity. Additionally, a note on plans shall be included stating that no field' changes shall be made without corrections submitted to and approved by the Building Official. Final grading and specifications consistent with the site plan and landscaping plans and prepared by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by the Community Development Department. Final street improvement plans consistent with the site plan and landscaping, plans and prepared by a registered Civil Engineer for approval by the Community Development Department. Model complex plans identifying ali"temporary fencing, landscaping, elevations, parking facilities and other temporary model complex facilities. (2) F. A detailed acoustical noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical expert shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department to insure that interior noise levels do not exceed a maximum of 45 dBa's and that the exterior noise levels shall not exceed a maximum of 65 dBa's. (1) 2.2 SUbmitted construction drawings shall be in conformance with all development standards as applicable in the East Tustin Specific Plan. Conceptual approval of locations of structures shall not constitute final approval. Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 96-041 Resolution No 3498 Page 3 SITE AND BUILDING coNDITIONS (1) 3.1 Provide exact details of all exterior door and window (4) types, including but not limited to such information as frame color and glass tint. (1) 3.2 Ail exterior colors to be used shall be consistent with (4) the~ existing residences and shall be subject to review .and approval of the Director of the Community Development Department. All exterior treatments shall be coordinated with regard to color, materials and detailing and noted on. submitted construction plans; elevations shall indicate all colors and materials to be used. (1) 3.3 Note on final plans that a six-foot high chain linked fence shall be installed around the site prior to building construction stages. Gated entrances shall be permitted along the perimeter of the site for construction vehicles. (1) 3.4 (4) Exterior elevations of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to'be located on the roof of the building, equipment heights and type of screening. *** 3.5 Storage of personal items may occur in the garages only to the extent that vehicles may still be parked within the required garage spaces. NOISE (1) 4.1 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a final (2) acoustical, analysis report describing the acoustical (3) design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Tustin Community Development Department for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. The acoustical analysis shall be prepared by an expert or authority in the field of acoustics. ,~ Ail residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present and projected noises, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard 65 dBa CNEL in outdoor areas and an interior standard of 45 dBa CNEL in all habitable rooms is required. Evidence prepared under the supervision of an acoustical consultant that these Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 96-041 Resolution.No. 3498 Page 4 standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be provided. (1) 4.2 Prior to issuance of any Certificates of Use or (3) OCcupancy, field testing in accordance with the Title 25 regulations may be required by the Building Official to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. (1) 4.3 Ail construction operations, including engine warm-up, deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of~the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance shall take place only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday unless otherwise determined by-the Building.Official. (1) 4.4 Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building OffiCial. FEES (1) 5.1 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall (3) be made of all required fees as may be in effect at the (6) time of permit issuance, including but not limited to: a. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees in the amount of $2,501 per unit to the Tustin Public Works Department, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. ' m . water and sewer connection fees to the Irvine Ranch' Water District. C. Street improvement, grading and landscaping plan checks and permit fees t° the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. Ail applicable Building plan check and permit fees to the Community Development Department based on the most current schedule, as may be amended prior to permit issuance. E . F. New development fees in the amount of $35'0 per unit to the Community Development Department, or as may be amended prior to permit issuance. ' School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School District subject to any agreement reached and Exhibit A -Conditions of Approval DR 96-041 Resolution No. 3498 Page~5 G o executed between the District. and the Irvine Company. Within forty-eight (48) hours of approval of the subject project, the appliCant shall deliver to the- Community Development Department, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $38.00 (thirty eight dollars) pursuant, to AB 3185, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code SectiOn 21151 and 14 California Code of. Regulations 15094. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period that the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department the above-noted check, the approval for the project granted herein shall be considered automatically nu%l and void. In addition, should the Department of Fish and Game reject the Certificate of Fee Exemption filed with the Notice of Determination and require payment of fees, the applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department, within forty-eight (48) hours of notification, a cashier's check payable to the COUNTY CLERK in the amount of $850 (eight hundred fifty dollars) pursuant to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. If this fee is imposed, the'subject project shall not be operative, vested or final unless and until the fee is paid. DF: br 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-126 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 85-2, AS MODIFIED BY SUBSEQUENTLY ADOPTED SUPPLEMENTS AND ADDENDA) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14188 AND ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolves as follows: I o The City Council finds and determines that Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 and respective development plans are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and II. The East Tustin Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (85-2), previously certified on March 17, 1986 as modified by subsequently adopted supplements and addenda, was considered prior to approval of this project. The City Council hereby finds: this project is within the scope of the East Tustin Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of this project, relating to grading, drainage, circulation, public services and utilities, were examined in the Program EIR. All applicable mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into this project. The Final EIR, is therefore determined to be adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project and satisfied all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Further, the City Council finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final 'EIR have been incorporated into this project which mitigates any potential significant environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures are identified as Conditions on Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3498 approving Design Review 96-041 and Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3499 recommending approval of Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14188. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution 'No. 96-126 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 2nd day of December, 1996. TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 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. 96-126 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 2nd day of December, 1996, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-127 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14188 LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWNSHIP DRIVE.AT RAWLINGS WAY. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: a. That Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 located on the west side of Township Drive at Rawlings Way was submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council by Standard Pacific for consideration; B o That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said Amendment No. 2 by the Planning Commission on November 12, 1996 and by the City Council on December 2, 1996; C . That an Environmental Impact Report EIR 85-2, as amended, for the East Tustin Specific Plan has been certified in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act for the subject project; D , That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Subdivision Map Act; E . The .7182 acres of parkland required for this development was previously dedicated with recordation of Tract 12870; F . That'the City has reviewed the status of the School Facilities Agreements between the Irvine Company and the Tustin Unified School District for the impact of Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14188 on School District facilities, and changes in state law. Impacts associated with this approval on School District facilities~ are adequately addressed; That the site .is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 96-127 Page 2 H. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; I . That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; J. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easement acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision; and K, That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. II. The City Council hereby approves Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14188 located on the west side of Township Drive at Rawlings Way to add two new product types to the buildout of the previously approved development on Tract 14188, subject to the Conditions contained in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3499, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 2nd day of December, 1996. TRACY WILLS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk