Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 T.T. MAP 14410 12-16-96 NO. 1 i2-16-96 Inter-Com DATE: DECEMBER 16, 1996 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14410 (LEWIS HOMES).~. SUMMARY: Amendment 'No,"2 to Vesting Tentative Tract. 14410 is a"request to eliminate a secondaryi.-.producttine and add two new residential prodUct types, to a previoUSly approved t7t,t°t subdivisi°n on iLots 7,-8, ."N",: ~,0" and "U'!i of Tract. 13627.. On ]~[vvember. 25, ~1996;:i the. planning CornmissiOn'recommended that the: City COuncil.approve Amendment NO: 2 Vesting Tentative Tractl~ 14410, and' approved'Design Review 96'037 and Amendments t6' Hillside ReView 95-001 and Conditiona-I Use permit ~912008 for the site specific development Plans. Applicant/OWner: Lewis.HOmes of CaI~ornia RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: o Adopt Resolution No. 96-129 approving the environmental determination for the project; and , Adopt Resolution No. 96-130 approving Amendment No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map 14410. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid application fees to recover the cost of processing this application. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On October 16, 1995, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410, authorizing the subdivision of an approximate 38- acre site to accommodate the construction of 171 single-family detached residential units in accordance with the cluster development standards of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP). Three floor plans were approved, ranging in size from 2,437 square feet to 3,001 square feet, and marketed under the name "El Dorado." City Council Report VTT 14410/Amendment #2 December 16, 1996 Page 2 On June 17, 1996, the City Council approved an amendment to the project, allowing three'new residential product types~ ranging in size from 1,837 square feet to 2,300 square feet, to replace the originally approved product line on Lots 21 through 84, thus creating two distinct product lines. This second product line, named "Cordova," was approved to comprise approximately 37 percent of the project buildout. There were no changes in the total number of dwelling units or lot configuration as a result of this amendment. The applicant now proposes to withdraw the previous amendment (i.e.~ eliminate Cordova) and ' revert to the original product line throughout the entire subdivision. In addition, two new product types, 2,301 square feet and 2,771 square feet in floor area, are proposed to expand the original E1 Dorado product line to five models. As with the previous amendment, no increase in the number of units is proposed as part of this project. To date, the model complex and the first production phase of fourteen (14) units have been completed. Sales have either closed or are pending on several of the Phase 1 units as of this writing. project Description/Site Plan The subject site is located in Sectors 2 and 3 of the ETSP, and is bordered by Pioneer Road to the east, Peters Canyon Road to the south and west, and'Lot 9 of Tract 14397 to the north. Anticipated development in the vicinity includes single-family detached dwellings to the north and west, with single-family detached and attached products to the east, across Pioneer Road. With the elimination of the three floor plans comprising the Cordova product line, the larger E1 Dorado units are again proposed on all 171 lots. The two new product types, Plan 505 (2,301 square feet) and Plan 388 (2,771 square feet), are proposed to be introduced as Phase 4 and will be constructed on all remaining phases of the 10-phase project. Plan 505, equivalent in floor area to the largest Cordova model, would be the smallest model in the expanded E1 Dorado product line; Plan 388 would be the second largest E1 Dorado model. The proposed site, phasing and architectural plans are provided in Attachment C. City Council Report VTT 14410/Amendment #2 December 16, 1996 Page 3 Justification for Request 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 project. According to the applicant, due to the strong sales and interest in the larger units, Lewis Homes is confident that the E1 Dorado product line can be marketed successfully throughout the entire project. According to Gerald T. Bryan, Vice President/Land Development for Lewis Homes, the company determined that an ,,unacceptable footage and price gap" currently exists between Plan 389 (2,659 s.f., $321,490 avg.) and Plan 250 (2,987 s.f., $343,490 avg.); Plan 388 is proposed in an effort to close this gap. Plan 505, which is equivalent in size to the largest Cordova model, is proposed to broaden the range of products available within the target market segment. A complete tabulation of the proposed unit mix for the entire project is included in the attached Statistical Summary (Attachment A). As shown in the Statistical Summary, the proposed project meets or exceeds all development standards required by the ETSP. Architectural Desiqn The architectural designs of the previously approved elevations are contemporary interpretations of the Early California style. The building masses include multiple hip and gable roofs, multiple wall planes and arched entries. Additional architectural details include exposed wood rafters, turned wood columns, raised surrounds and trim, multiple-pane windows, recessed windows and wrought iron grillework. Each plan includes three alternate elevations to provide a variety of architectural character within the development. The proposed elevations '.of Plans 388 and 505 include similar architectural features', and utilize the same material and color palettes as the previously-approved designs. Three alternate elevations for each are also proposed. Massing elements and setbacks are consistent with the originally approved plans, so the new products will have no impact on the overall streetscape. A condition to ensure consistency with the original materials and colors has been included in the Design Review Resolution. Material sample boards will be available for review at the December 16, 1996 City Council meeting. City Council Report VTT 14410/Amendment #2 December 16, 1996 Page 4 Public Disclosure The applicant has provided copies of written disclosure forms signed by the prospective buyers stating that the applicant is requesting approval to add Plans 388 and 505 to the product line. Gregory S. ~ubman Associate Planner Attachment's: ~i-izabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Location Map Statistical Summary A - Previously Approved Plans B - Proposed Plans C - Planning Commission Resolution No. 3470 Initial Study Resolution Nos. 96-129 and '96-130 gg: ~ccreport~TT14410r.gg LOCATION PROJECT s~-r~ NO SCALE StatistiCal Summary Amendment #2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410, Gross Site Area Building Area Open Space Street Area Total Units Density Lot Coverage Building Setbacks Front Yard Side Yard Rear Yard Maximum Height Resident Parking Requirement N/A N/A 0.2 acres N/A N/A 5 du/ac (gross) 7O% 15 feet minimum 5 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 35 feet 342 spaces (2-car garage per unit) Proposed 38 acres 23 acres 8 acres 7 acres 171 units 4.5 du/ac (gross) 46% 15 feet minimum 5 feet minimum 10 feet minimum 29 feet (two story) 20 feet (single story) 473 spaces (2/3-car garage per unit ) Guest Parking 342 spaces 369 spaces PLAN SQ. FT. (Previously Approved) 393 2,437 389 2,665 250 3,001 (Proposed) 505 2,301 388 2,771 DESCRIPTION 4 BD/Bonus, 3 BA 4 BD/Bonus, 3 BA 4 BD/Bonus, 3 BA 4 BD/Bonus 5 BD, 3 BA QUANTITY % 27 15.8 65 38.0 46 26.9 20 11.7 13 7.6 TOTALS 171 100% ATTACHMENT A: Previously Approved Plans t&13131_ , CCI&II2 , I C. CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINF. FRING, LAND PLA. NN~G AND SURVEYING 1820 EAST SIXTRRNTH STRF. FTi' SANTA ANA, CAIIFORNIA 92701 TEL: (714) 835-2.548 FAX: (714) 835-0612 LOT SIZE TABULATION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. ~44:t0 126-1516-5 4/28/95 * S.F. = --WIDTH = SQUARE FEET EACH LOT AVERAGE LOT WIDTH EACH LOT LOT * ** LOT * ** LOT * · ** NUMBER S.F. WIDTH NUMBER S.F. WIDTH NUMBER S.F. WIDTH I 5,003 51 27 5,194 52 53 5,034 50 2 4,860 47 28 5,000 50 54 5,173 47 -- 3 5,546 51 29 4,975 50 55 5,438 50 4 5,592 51 30 4,952 50 56 4,729 45 5 5,120 46 31 5,026 50 57 4,703 45 6 5,620 51 32 5,000 50 58 6,021 58 7 5,550 51 33 5,000 50 59 5,543 53 8 5,667 51 34 5,136 51 60 5,435 53 9 5,146 46 35 5,880 57 61 5,577 53 10 5,300 50 36 8,142 62 62 4,969 45 11 5,300 50 37 9,017 ' 60 63 5,632 50 12. 5,265 50 38 5,510 52 64 6,933 58 13 5,988 58 39 6,473 50 65 5,934 58 14 6,450 55 40 7,489 50 66 5,216 45 15 7,700 60 41 8,129 54 67 6,830 53 16 5,907 55 42 9,394 56 68 5,474 46 17 5,584 54 43 10,479 56 69 6,005 50 18 5,238 50 44 9,107 57 70 5,284 45 19 ' 5,190 50 45 8,378 61 71 6,271 50 20 5,294 53 46 7,437 54 72 4,697 45 21 5,172 53 47 6,663 46 '73 5,636 51 22 5,010 51 48 5,572 45 74 4,865 45 23 5,114 51 49 5,215 51 75 5,292 51 24 5,213 52 50. 6,174 58 76 5,741 51 25 5,181 52 51 4,641 45 77 5,230 49 26 5~283 52 52 ,5~000 ', 50 78 5~345 50 LOT SIZE TABULA T/ON FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. '14410 126-1516-5 4/28/95 * S.F. = ** WIDTH = SQUARE FEET EACH LOT AVERAGE LOT WIDTH EACH LOT LOT * ** LOT * ** LOT * ** NUMBER S.F. WIDTH NUMBER S.F. WIDTH NUMBER S.F. WIDTH 79 5,353 51 105 4,628 45 ,131 6,758 58 80 5,623 54 106 5,215 50 132 5,352 54 81 5,835 55 107 5,960 50 133 4,590 ' -45 82 5,055 47 108 ' 7,404 46 134 4,631 45 83 5,608 53 109 5,076 54 135 4,743 45 84 4,858 47 110 5,033 50 136 4,525 45 85 4,981 51 111 4,867 45 137 5,025 50 86 5,000 50 112 5,300 50 138 4,477 45 87 5,000 50 · 113 5,345 50 139 5,160 53 88 5,129 50 114 5,633 51 140 5,000 '50 89 5,152 50 115 5,095 45 141 4,694 47 90 5,417 51 116 6,197 50 142 5,132 47 91 5,547 51 117 5,395 52 143 5,000 50 92 5,464 51 118 5,083 52 144 5,612 50 93 5,326 51 119 5,202 50 145 4,950 45 94 5,181 51 120 4,635 45 146 5,475 50 95 5,354 52 121 .5,286 50 147 5,429 50 96 5,243 51 122 4,948 50 148 5,618 58 97 5,088 50 123 7,324 57 149 9,089 55 98 5,034 50 124 5,328 53 150 6,069 51 99 4,836 45 125 5,635 62' 151 -5,174 51 100 4,933 50 126 4,652 ' 45 152 5,442 51 101 5,125 50 _127 5,375 50 153 5,361 49 102 5,313 50 128 4,898 45 154 5,979 54 103 4,630 45 129 5,067 50 155 5,724 52 104 5~404 51 130 41924 , -51 156 6~062 56 Page. 2 LOT SIZE 'TABULATION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. '144'10 126-1516-5 4/28/95 * S.F. = ** WIDTH = SQUARE FEET EACH LOT AVERAGE LOT WIDTH EACH LOT LOT * ** LOT * ** LOT * ** NUMBER S.F. WIDTH NUMBER S.F. WIDTH NUMBER S.F. WIDTH 157 5,688 53 162 8,192 58 167 4,854 50 158 5,444 50 163 5,244 50 168 5,150 50 159 5,787 50 164 4,665 45 169 4,747 ' -45 160 6,580 50 165 5,025 50 170 5,400 50 161 7~153 50 166 4~710 45 171 41804 45 Subtotal: 308,434 2,901 336,324 2,913 309,033 2,842 Total: 953,791 8,656 Average: 5,578 50.6 NOTE: 1. The data shown in the above tabulation was determined by digitizer and by scale. Therefore, this information is subject to change based upon final engineering. · Page 3 '".l.::i I ' I'' 'l ]jll,"i ,,' .!" ill', l i,,': ~,lh,~ Ih,191: I'j [JJ !1 ' ~ ,I' t.'. :s iI I ,i. --:IISi il , Ii ',1 ,.,I ,! I I ! It1! . ::- ,I.lli h i,,1 11 ~. 'Iii · i! !!! !, :,i :',' ~i ~i::i~;I;l! ! '; P" ',~ · i *! i I , ; liT, ill. I.' I,l.,i,.i ;: , , ,, ): ~ · hll ,' i i;11I.J,,,,h,.il:;'h, ,.,,,..h,~l,II ~ o .... ill ! llll !!],~ .~ :"3,:, an u :] u :; :: :', :: :;; :; , ,, , '"'o ...................... ~B ,i:l " , ii" ifil i, l I::: x, t~ Il · , , .,.._.',.-,.--~.-., '" · '¸'5 -/ i · IJJ. illhil' iiliJiil /'," #l t' p · [' ~'~ - .OQV'dOQ "I~. '- -"' ~ HDN~v"8 NLLSf'LL V'" . I .. ~6£ NV-Id ,_ . il ii ii ~ i L i i J ii ¥11~10-Jr1~ ,aO S3~OH SlAnT1 ! I I 1 ~L ~8oE - ', : , I HDNM"8 NLLSf'LL ...... · '( II 6g£ NV"Id · __ o~ · 9-,Z · '0~ OX OSOg · 9-d. o '0~, xox OgO~ Ox OSOS Ox 0~0~, // '\\~,'(~c: /// \\ - // // / \\ · 0-,/. · 'OH .O-,Z · 'OH *O-,SI ,D 'OH .0-,1;I ~' 'OH 'O'_-I 0~0~ "~'d 0£02 3dVHS ODO2 '9'2, O[OC V~N~D-JnYD ~10 SDWOH ~1 i --, ' ..... i , ~ HDNTV"d NII.I..SI'I.L : ,. ~ I O~E. NV-Id · ~'-.i ~ '(IH i o E ~xo XOX "~i "'°~ 050~ p i ' / ! .0CI¥~I0CI 93,, ' ......... ,' i ! H O N'X-~ N_LLS .eLL , , , i o6~ N,V'gd · , , ,. , ,, . ., . · . i i . . O~ ~z ./ I I I I 11 11 .'/ " ,m t '"0ii, %v gr~v,'~~ ATTACHMENT B: Proposed Site Plan & Additional Architectural Plans EL Dorado at Tustin Ranch, ':in CA Tract No. 14410, Total 171 Units. A Residential Development by Lewis Homes of California 11108196 Plan Summary ~plan'~93:'~(:35'~6"i:;~:';}:i'?2:'~5'0 ~SF;4 'BR:';"B0n~s R0~m,~ B~, 2_story' 3car..Garage ......... Plan 389 (40'x49'-4"): 2665 SF;3 BR+Den +Bonus Room, 3 BA, 2-Story, 3-Car Garage Plan 388 (40'x59'+2'-6") :2771 SF; 4 BR + Den/BR, 3 BA, 2-Story, 3-Car Garage Plan 250 (40'x59'-0"): 3001SF; 3 BR+Den+Bonus Room, 3 BA, 2-Story, 3-Car Garage Phas' Plan Mix & Elevatil Prelimin .- ....... ; ....... ,.^ ,.-, ,-,~,vuL. v,~o ~rlGIllllllldl ~ ~/IIIV! Plan .-. · No. ~,v Phl Ph2 Ph3 Ph4 PhS Ph6 Ph7 PhS Ph9 Ph10 Mode~s Sub- TotalTotals (%) A 0 0 0 0 505 B 0 0 0 0 0 0 2__ 2 _ 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 20 C 0 0 0 , 0 (11.7%) A 2 2 2 . 1 0 393 B 1 4 2 6 1 5 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 27 C 1 , 2~ 2 , , 0 (15.8%) A 2 2 2 0 389 B I 5 2 6 3 7 8 5 8 7 6 7 5 0 1 65 C 2 2 2 1~ (38.0%) I I I I I I A 0 0 0 0 388 B O 0-b- 0 0' 0 4 I 1 1 2 2 I 1 1' 13 C 0 0 0 , 0 (7.6%) A I ;3 2 1 250 B 2 5 2 7 1 5 6 3 --5 4 3 4 3 0- 1 46 C 2 2 , 2 , , , 0 (26.9%) !Sub - Total 14 19 17 22 13 18 16 16 18 13 5 171 171 116-127, 128-135, 98-102, 158-162 '154-157 Model ,1-7 & 91 - 8-20 & 21-30 & & 31-37 & & parking Lot No 97 85-90 78-84 167-171 65 - 77 59-64 38-53 163-166 136-153 103-115 at Lot 98 Notes u.,or U.,er Plan388 'Plan 388 Map Construction Construction ' iici:at: no Model recorded Revisions: 10/4/96, 10/8/96, 10/16/96.. Footnotes · Plan elevation to be assigned. Date · 11-7-96 10:20 AM11/08/96TR 14410.WK4 'l .< .< .{ ItDNVH NIJSfI£ -© HDNV}t N I & $ FI,I. ,,OQ V~tOG "i Et ,, . ~ · i ] HDNV'cI NIi. S,q.L :-:. ..... i" " ! i - ~S£ NM~(:I i L ~ · 'OH M-,~J · '1"45 OX O(~OS OX IDZO~ roI 'OIr~l 0809 ~o L i ATTACHMENT C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 3470 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 3470 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14410 The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ae That Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Lewis Homes of California for consideration to eliminate three (3) previously-approved product types and to add two (2) new product types on Tract 14410 with a new product type; and Be That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said Amendment by the Planning Commission on November 25, 1996; and Ce 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 De That the proposed subdivision is in conformance ~with the Tustin General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Subdivision Map Act; and The 1.5198· acres of parkland required for this development was previously dedicated with recordation of Tract 13627; and 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 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14410 on School District facilities, and changes in State law. Impacts associated with this approval on School District facilities are adequately addressed; and Ge He That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and That the site is phYsically- suitable for the proposed density of.development; and That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 3470 Page 2 environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife in their habitat; and Je 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 That the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410, authorizing the elimination of three (3) previously approved approved product types and the addition of two (2) new product types on Tract 14410, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. ' PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 25th day of November, 1996. Recording Secretary LOU BONE Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify, that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution N°. 3470 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of November, 1996. Recording Secretary EXHIBIT A AMENDMENT TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14410 RESOLUTION NO. 3470 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL *** 1.1 Ail conditions of Planning Commission Resolution 3450 are hereby annulled~ and superseded by the conditions contained in this Exhibit. *** 1.2 Condition 1.2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3394 is hereby revised to read as follows: "Prior to release of building permits, all conditions of approval of Design Review 95-008 and Design Review 96-037, for the subject project shall be complied with as shown on Exhibit A attached to Resolution Nos. 3392 and 3468 respectively." Ail other conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3394 remain in full force and effect. (1) 1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in this 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) 1.4 The subject project approval shall become null and void unless permits for the proposed project are issued within twenty four (24) months of the'date of this Exhibit and substantial construction is underway. Time extensions may be granted if a written request is received by the Community Development Department within thirty.(30) days prior to expiration. (1) 1.5 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14410 is contingent upon the applicant and property owner signing and returning an "Agreement to' Conditions Imposed" form as established by the Director of Community Development. (1) 1.6 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin harmless from all claims and liabilities arising out of City's approval of the entitlement process for this. project. 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 -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT $00 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714)573-3105 INITIAL STUDY Ae BACKGROUND Project Title: t,v~m4or~m~t-r' ~, --r'o o:,,4o~-n,=~.. ~ ~~T ~1-~ ~o ~.~¢r~; ~ ~ Lead Agency: City of Tustin 3.00 Centennial Way Tustin, Calffon~a 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: ~lm~do C_aO~~ Project Location: I--~=m'~--'~ '7 {; ~:' o~- T'~"r I~Co2."/ Phone: Project Sponsor's Name and Ad&ess: General Plan Designation: Zo~ng Desi~afion: Project Description: ~o Su~ound~ng Uses: North POVOg.~,~V.~q.~ --~'~t'4p~ East South FOr'O_ff,~ ~tol~- ~~t...~ \Vest Other public agencies whose approval is required: 0r~ge County Fire Ault~ority ~ 0r~ge County Heahh Care Agency ~ South Co~t Air Quality Management ~ District Other City oflrvine City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA Be ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 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. [] Land Use and Planning [] Hazards 1~ Population and Housing [2] Noise [~ Geological Problems [] Public Services [] Water 122 Utilities and Service Systems [] Air Quality ~ Aesthetics ~ Transportation&Circulation [2 CulturalResources [~ Biological Resources [~] Recreation I~1 Energy and 1W_tneral Resources 12 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 em4ronment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the propos ,ed project could have a significant effect on the em4ronment, 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 signifi~t 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 pr6posed 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. Signature Printed Name Date Title D~ e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Earlier analyses used: .1¢!¢- 'i~':Z ,a4~ ~/~V Available for review at: City of Tustin CommuniO~ Development Department 1. LAND USE & PLANNING - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict x~4th applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the ;4cinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority communi~,)? 2. POPULATION & HOUSING - Would the proposal: 'a) b) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Induce substantial grox~ in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides ormudflows? 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 - Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. 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 ox'),gen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ' Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact f) . Change in the quantity of ground waters, eithcr through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundv,2ter recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherw4se available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY - Would the proposal: . e o a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an e.,dsting or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors7 TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION - Would the proposal result in' a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curt,es or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? . c) Inad .equate 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, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal 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) Localh' designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, r/parian, and vernal pool)? e) \Vildlife dispersal or nfigration corridors? ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral . resource that would be of future value to the region? Potentially Significant hnpact _~tentially Significant Unless A(itigation Incorporated Less than Significant bnpact No hnpact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9. ItAZARDS - IFould the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference x~4th emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health ha?~qrd or potential health hazard? d) Exl>osure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire h~?.,qrd in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: 11. a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 12. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the proposal hm,e 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? 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? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS - Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potenlially S~ni ficant hnpact ,ten/ially Significant Unless A4itigalion Incorporated Less than Significant hnpact No bnpact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION - Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect exSsting recreational oppommiti~s? 16. MANDATORY FIND~GS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the en,,dronment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or ~41dlffe species, cause a fish or ~41dlife population to chop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communit3; 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 prehistory7 b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, em4ronmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are indixddually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection xvith the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which xx411 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ,entially Significant Potentially Unless Significant A4itigation bnpact Incorporated Less than Signi fican! bnpact No Impact 0 ~3 0 0 0 ~' 0 0 0 0 0 ~1 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 ~ Ee EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. INITSTUD. PM5 3702A ATTAC~[MENT A TIERED INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14410, DESIGN REVIEW 96- 037, AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-008 AND AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO HILLSIDE REVIEW 95-001 BACKGROUND On October 16, 1995, the City Council approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410 which authorized the subdivision of an approximate 38-acre site to accommodate the construction of 171 single-family detached residential units in accordance with the cluster development standards of the East Tustin Specific' Plan (ETSP). Three floor plans were approved, ranging in size from 2,376 square feet to 2,987 square feet. On June 17, 1996, the City Council approved an .amendment to the project, allowing three new residential product types, ranging in size from 1,837 square feet to 2,300 square feet, to replace the originally approved product line on Lots '21 through 84, and thus creating two distinct product lines. There were no changes in the total number of dwelling units or lot configuration as a result of this amendment. To date, the final map has been approved and construction has commenced. This application is a request to withdraw the previous amendment and revert to the original product line throughout the entire subdivision. In addition, two new product types, 2,301 square feet and 2,771 square feet in floor area, are proposed to expand the original ProdUct line to five models. As with the previous amendment, no increase in the number of units is proposed as part of this project. The subject site is located in Sectors 2 and 3 of the ETSP and i§ bordered by Pioneer Road on the east, Peters Canyon Road on the south and west, and Lot 9 of Tract 13627 to the north. Anticipated development in the vicinity include single-family detached dwellings to the north and west with single-family detached and attached products to the east across Pioneer Road. 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. In conformance with CEQA, the purpose of this 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, 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. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 2 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 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. 1. 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 Siqnificant Unless Mitiqation 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 other than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. Item d - "Potentially Siqnificant 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 Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 3 o 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 projedt will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR, as amended. 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 proposed development' complies with the mitigation measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a and b - "Potentially Significant Impact"- The proposed project would provide 171 single-family dwelling. units on the site. The Low Density designation would permit up to 190 units pursuant to the ETSP, which allows a maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre on the' subject site. The proposed project would have 4.5 dwelling units per acre. The project will not create additional impacts other 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"- Since the project site is currently vacant, housing units will not be displaced. The project would provide new dwellings for the planned population. Sources: Submitted Plans Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 4 o Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/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 proposed development complies with mitigation measures specified in the.certified EIR 85-2, as amended. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items b, h and i - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation 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 13627 and subsequently graded to accommodate development of the property consistent with the approved plans. Minor precise grading will be required to accommodate the development. However, since a portion of this site is within the Hillside District, the grading plan has been designed to be sensitive to the existing landforms and preserve the existing prominent hillside on the site. The project has been reviewed and will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified to the site and topography in the Program EIR, as amended. Irem 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 other 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. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 5 . Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required- A detailed soils engineering report and grading plan 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 q - "Potentially Siqnificant Impact"- The subject project site is within the ETSP area. 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 other 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 - "No Impact"- The proposed 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 other 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 Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 6 o East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2, as amended, including plans to accommodate increased 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 QUALITY 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 additional impacts other 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 E!R 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 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 8.5-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91'008 August 28, 1996 · Page 7 o Mitiqation/Monitoring 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 Impact"- The subject single-family residential project is within the 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 to provide an adequate circulation system for specific plan traffic, and mitigate impacts on the existing circulation system. The project will not create additional impacts Other 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-q - "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, bicyclists or pedestrians would be mitigated. No additional Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 8 o 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 project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR~85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorinq 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 proposed development complies with mitigation measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2, as amended. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a-e - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiqated"- The project site has been rough graded. 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 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures require revegetation on graded and cut-and-fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed, with consideration given Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 9 o to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials, such as the eucalyptus, pinus canariensis, schinus molle, b°ugainvillea, and pittosporum. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project as submitted, or will be incorporated as.gonditions of approval. ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and c - "No Impact"- The proposed 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 - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation 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 other 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. Consequently, 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 Mitigation/Monitoring 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 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 Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 10 been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval. 9. 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 Mitiqated"-. EIR 85- 2, 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. NOISE Item a - "Potentially Siqnificant 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 other, than those previously identified in the Pro~ram 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. Item b - "No Impact,,- The proposed development will not expose persons to severe noise levels. Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 11 Sources- Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitiqation/Monitorina Required: 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 - "Potentially Siqnificant Impact"- Implementation of this project will result in an 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 other 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 5 dwelling units per acre, resulting in a maximum of 190 units. The proposed project would provide 171 single-family residences with a density of 4.5 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 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 Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 12 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/Monitoring 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 Siqnificant Impact"- The ETSP will increase the demand for utilities. The project will not create additional impacts other 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 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None required. 13. AESTHETICS Items a and b "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiqated": The additional product type proposed to be added to the project include similar architectural features, detailing, colors and materials consistent with the previously approved units for Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 13 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, as amended. Item c - "Potentially Significant Impact"- The proposed 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 other than those previously 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 Mitiqation/Monitorinq 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 Impact"- The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2, as amended identified impacts t© the project site related to the proposed Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 14 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 other 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. Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None Required. 15. RECREATION Items a and b - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitiqated"- 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 1.7442 acres was previously dedicated as part of Tract 13627 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. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitiqation/Monitorinq 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 Attachment A - Initial Study Responses Amendment to VTT 14410, DR 95-0008 & CUP 91-008 August 28, 1996 Page 15 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 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None required. GG:TT14410R.ENV 10 !1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 96-129 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) PREPARED 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 14410 AND APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL .QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao That Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410 and respective development plans are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B , That the projects are covered by a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report 85-2, as amended, for the East Tustin Specific Plan which serves as a Program EIR for the proposed project. 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. The 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 satisfies the 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 Minimus Impact Finding related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 96-129 Page 2 Applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR have been incorporated into this project which mitigate potential significant environmental effects thereof. The mitigation measures are identified as Conditions on Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3470 recommending approval of Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410, Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3467 approving Amendment No. 2 to Hillside Review 95-001 and Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3468 approving Design Review 96-037. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City CoUncil of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 16th day of December, 1996. PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK TRACY WILLS WORLEY MAYOR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS 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. 96-117 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16th 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. 96-130 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14410, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF PIONEER ROAD AND PETERS CANYON ROAD. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao That Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410 was submitted to the Planning Commission by Lewis Homes of California for consideration to eliminate three (3) previously- approved product types and to add two (2) new product types on Tract 14410, located at the northwesterly corner of Pioneer Road and Peters Canyon Road; and m . That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said Amendment by the Planning Commission on November 25, 1996, whereby the Planning Commission recommended approval of said Amendment to the City Council; and Co That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held for said Amendment on December 16, 1996 by the City Council; and 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; and Do That the proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan, adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and Subdivision Map Act; and E · The 1.5198 acres of parkland required for this development was previously dedicated with recordation of Tract 13627; and 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 to Vesting Tentative Tract 14410 on School District facilities, and changes in State law. Impacts associated with this approval on School District facilities are adequatelY addressed; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolutzon No. 96-130 Page 2 Go That the site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development; and I o 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; and g . 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. m . The project has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of Measure "M" because entitlements specified in the East Tustin Development Agreement entered into in 1985, and the estimated project generated traffic does not cause the roadway system to exceed established levels of service standards. II. The City Council hereby approves Amendment No. 2 to Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14410, authorizing the elimination of three (3) previously approved approved product types and the addition of two (2) new product types on Tract 14410, located at the northwesterly corner of Pioneer Road and Peters Canyon Road, subject to the Conditions contained in Exhibit A of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3470, incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 16th day of December, 1996. PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK TRACY WILLS WORLEY MAYOR