HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 T.T. MAP 14168 05-02-94Inter-Com
NO. 1
5-2-94
'rE: MAY 2, 1994
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:'- VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14168 (CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Approve the environmental determination for the project by
adopting Resolution No. 94-47; and
2. Approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 by adopting
Resolution No. 94-48, as submitted or revised.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project as this is
an applicant initiated project. The applicant has paid application
fees to recover the cost of processing this application.
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 10.582 gross acre site into
69 numbered lots to accommodate 69 detached single family dwelling
units. A total of 17 lettered lots would be created for
landscaping and private streets, prior to development, the
Planning Commission has to approve the Design Review and
Environmental Determination for the project pursuant to the
provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan. The Planning
Commission is granted the authority to recommend approval of the
subdivisions of land, according to Tustin City Code Section 9312.
Pursuant to Section 9313, the City Council has the final approval
authority for the division.'6f land and subdivisions.
..
· .
On March 28, 1994, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
and approved' the Environmental Determination for the project
(Resolution No. 3239); approved Design Review 93-030 (Resolution
No. 3240); and recommended to the City Council approval of Vesting
Tentative Tract Map 14168 (Resolution No. 3241).
City Council Report
VTTM 14168
May 2, 1994
Page 2
Located in Sector 8 of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP), the
site is bounded by Lot 4 of Tract 12870 across Township Road to the
north, multiple family dwellings across Tustin Ranch Road to the
south, and single family dwellings across Township Drive to the
west. Across a proposed pedestrian paseo to the east, Tract 14669
(Lot 8 of Tract 12870) consisting of 69 single family dwellings is
under construction and is identical to the product proposed for
Tract 14168. The two tracts would be, in effect, sister tracts
linked by a common paseo. See the attached location map, included
as Attachment A.
Development of the subject lot was previously approved in 1990,
when Baycrest Development Company submitted a tentative tract map
and design review for the construction of 137 single' family
detached dwellings with common circulation on lot 8 and 28 of Tract
12870. In 1992, California Pacific Homes submitted a tentative
tract map and design review to remap the subject lot (Lot 28) to
allow the construction of 120 condominiums pursuant to the ETSP.
The proposal was approved by the Planning Commission and City
Council. The Planning Commission subsequently approved a tentative
tract map and design review for the development of 69 single family
dwellings on Lot 8, east of the subject parcel. The developer is
now requesting to develop Lot 28 of Tract 12870 as originally
approved, but without common private streets connecting it to Lot
8.
A public hearing notice identifying the time, date and location of
the public hearing on this project was published in the Tustin
News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were notified of
the hearing by mail and notices were posted on the site, at City
Hall and the Police'Department. The applicant was informed of the
availability of a staff report on this project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/SITE PLAN
The proposed project is in conformance with all applicable
development standards identified in the East Tustin Specific Plan.
The development standards of the Medium-Low Density Residential
category have been applied as required by the ETSP for development
of detached single-family dwellings within the Medium-Density
Residential category. Submitted development plans for the project
propose construction of 69 two-story single-family detached
dwelling units resulting in a gross density of 6.5 dwelling units
per acre. The ETSP permits a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre
within the Medium Density Residential category. The applicant's
previously approved plan for the subject lot was to develop 120
attached condominium units, resulting in a density of 10.86 units
City Council Report
VTTM 14168
May 2, 1994
Page 3
per acre. This current request would result in a density decrease
of 4.36 units per~ acre, and 51 fewer dwelling units than the
previously approved plan.
Access to the site is provided from Township Drive by a 40 foot
wide private entry with a 60'foot wide right-of-way width which is
a private street. The private street system within the tract
boundaries provides for a 46 foot right-of-way with'a 36 foot curb
to curb dimension and 5 foot sidewalks on each side of roadways
which would accommodate parking on both sides of the street. A 20
foot wide pedestrian paseo would be located between proposed lots
8 and 9, connecting the tract to the east-west pedestrian paseo on
the eastern boundary of the site which links Township Drive to
Tustin Ranch Road. The paseo would also provide pedestrian access
from the proposed tract to the single family dwelling tract to the
east, which has the same architectural product under construction.
All streets and facilities within the development are proposed to
be private and will be maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
One unique aspect of this project is the building siting and
property configuration. The proposal is a "Z" lot concept where
the property is not a typical rectangular configuration but is
offset following a diagonal pattern of the building footprint.
Similar to a "zero lot line" concept where there is one usable
single 10 foot side yard rather than the more conventional two 5
foot side yards, the front and rear yards also take advantage of
this concept in a diagonal configuration. Reciprocal use easements
and fence location would be utilized to define yard areas rather
than actual property lines. Each plan also identifies a portion of
the front yards being more privately defined with the use of low
.walls, railings and/or entry structures.
The project contains four different floor plans with 3 elevations
each ranging from 1,610 square feet to 2,372 square feet. The lot
sizes range from approximately 3,850 square feet to 8,600 square
feet which exceeds the minimum 3,000 square feet required by the
ETSP. Forty. seven of the 69 driveways are greater than 19 feet in
length. Approximately 32% or 22 driveways are less than nine feet
in length. Please refer to Attachment B for a complete statistical
summary of the project.
City Council Report
VTTM 14168
May 2~ 1994
Page 4
As presented to the Planning Commission on March 28, 1994, the
conceptual hardscape plan identifies wood frame fences with stucco
finish (stucco-over-wood) for the entry gate~ fencing, fences
adjacent to "B" 'Street, "E" Street and "G" Street; and vertical
board on board production wood fences with wood caps for all other
rear yard fencing. The Community Development Department has
identified these stucco-over-wood and wood production fences as a
long term maintenance problem for property owners. The life of a
wood fence is shorter than the life of a slumpstone fence due to
natural elements such as wind and rain and aggravation cause by
irrigation systems and wear and tear. Therefore, maintenance
requirements caused by the proposed wood and stucco fences would
result in an increased maintenance cost. Considering that the "Z"
lot configuration~ (which utilizes reciprocal use agreements)
permits a property owner to use a portion of the neighbors property
the question of who is to maintain these wood production and stucco'
over wood fences becomes especially significant and may even become
a matter of dispute between neighbors. However, the Planning
Commission approved the project with stucco-over-wood and wood
production fences as submitted by the applicant.
The conceptual landscape plan indicates that mailboxes would be
located.behind the sidewalk between every two houses. A maximum of
two mailboxes would be provided in one location. The applicant has
provided a letter from the U.S. Postal Service authorizing the
proposed location of the mailboxes. In addition, based upon
concerns expressed by the City Council over the past several months
related to mail security, the Planning Commission approved a
condition of approval to require that all mailboxes include methods
to ensure security provisions with locking devices where an
acceptable manufactured product is available, subject to the review
and approval of the Community Development Director. Said mailboxes
would also be required to be approved by the Postmaster.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Based upon'-review of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168, as well as
Environmental Impact Report 85-2 it's supplements and addendum, it
has been determined that environmental issues relating to this
project have previously been addressed. A copy of the initial
study for the project is attached to this report as Attachment F.
Also, appropriate mitigating measures identified in EIR 85-2 are
included as conditions of approval for the project. With this
information in mind, it is recommended that the Council make the
finding that requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act have been met and that no further environmental review is
required.
City Council Report
VTTM 14168
May 2, 1994
Page 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A list of conditions of approval is included within the attached
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3241. Conditions of approval
are standard conditions required by either the Specific Plan, other
applicable municipal codes, the approved Development Agreement for
the project area, or requirements of'City Departments or outside
reviewing agencies.
CONCLUSION
Given the analysis conducted, by the Community Development
Department and in consideration of comments from other agencies and
the public, it is concluded that the proposed project meets the
requirements of the East Tustin Specific Plan, the Subdivision Map
Act, as adopted, and the California Environmental Quality Act.
With the inclusion of conditions of approval listed in Planning
Commission Resolution 7o. 3241, it is recommended that the City
Council approve the environmental determination for the project and
approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168.
B~'~"C.- -Stone
Assistant Planner
Christine A.~
CAS:BS:br/vtt1&168
Attachments:
Attachment A - Location map
Attachment B -'Statistical Summary
Attachment C - Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 and
Conceptual Plans
Attachment D - Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3241
Attachment E - Planning Commission Minutes 3-28-94
Attachment F - Initial Study
City Council Resolution Nos. 94-47 and 94-48
LOCATION
MAP
Z
?
/
x.
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
TRACT
Gross Site Area
Residential (Lots 1-69)
Private Streets (Lots A-G)
Landscape (Lots A-I)
Total Units
Density
Lot Area
Lot Coverage
Building Setbacks Front Yard
Side Yard
Rear Yard
Height
Resident Parking
ATTACHMENT B
Statistical Summary
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168
Requirement Proposed
N/A 10.582 acres
N/A 7.752 acres
N/A 2.37 acres
N/A .46
N/A 69 units
18 du/ac (gross)
3,000 sf/unit minimum 3,850-8,600 sf
70% (maximum) 20% - 42%
6.5 du/ac (gross)
15 feet minimum
aggregate minimum
10 feet
10 feet minimum
35 feet maximum
138 spaces
(2 car garage
per unit)
15 feet minimum
aggregate minimum
10 feet
10 feet minimum
29 feet
138 spaces
(2 car garage
per unit)
Driveway Lengths
Guest Parking
No. under 9 feet
22
35 on-street spaces
(.5 per unit)
No. over 9 feet
47
53 on-street
spaces
Unit Floor Plans
Plan 1
Plan 2
Plan 3
Plan 4
BS:br
.Sq. Ft. Plan Type
1,610 3 br/2½ ba
1,890 3 br/2~ ba
2,084 3 br/2% ba
2,372 4 br/3 ba
Quantity Percentaqe
15 22
16 23
19 27.5
19 27.5
\/
Iii1111111
! .........
_)
IL
l!
~ ~ii
Ii:!, l[ii l_i
i li~i: l~§ iii
0
0
o_
I
z
z
0
Z
0
,Z Z
0
..,)
.J,-.OL
Iii
~
· 9-, I/.
~ J
F-I
I
0
.<
Z
0
Z
Z
! I II
~ I II
I I II
~)
II-
ATTACHMENT D
FILE COPY
RESOLUTION NO. 3241
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING TO-THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14168.
The Planning Commission 'of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
a.
That Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 14168 was
submitted to the Planning Commission by California
Pacific Homes for consideration; and
B ·
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and
held for said map on March 28, 1994, by the
Planning Commission.
Ce
That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2 for
the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been certified
in conformance with the requirements of th~'
California Environmental Quality Act for the
subject project area.
D.
E:
That the proposed subdivision is in conformance
with the Tustin Area General Plan, adopted East
Tustin Specific Plan, Development Agreement and
Subdivision Map Act as it pertains to the
development of single family detached dwellings.
The .7038 acres of parkland required for th~s
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. The East
Tustin Specific Plan, EIR 85-2 with subsequently
adopted supplements and addenda, the impact of
vesting Tentative Tract 14168 on School District
facilities, and reviewed changes in Stat~ law, and
finds and determines that the impacts on School
District facilities by approval of this map are
adequately addressed.
That the site -is physically suitable for the type
of development proposed.
He
I o
That the site is physically suitable for the
proposed density of development.
That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
Resolution No. 3241
Page 2
Je
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife in their habitat.
·
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.
That the design of the subdivision or the types of
improvement proposed are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City
Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
14168, subject to the conditions ~attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 28th day of March, 1994.
Recor. ding Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY oF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
Chairperson
i, BARB~ RE_WES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am
the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission cf the City
of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3241 was duly
passed and.adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 28th day of March, 1994.
EYESecretary
(~)
(2)
(3)
(5)
EXHIBIT A
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14168
RESOLUTION NO. 3241
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PUBLIC/PRIVATE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
1.1 Prior to recordation of final map, the Subdivider shall
prepare plans for and construct, or post security
guaranteeing construction of all public and/or private,
infrastructure improvements within the boundary of said
tract map in conformance with applicable City standards,
including but not limited to the following:
ae
Ce
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.,
Ke
ne
Ne
-O.
Curb and gutter/cross gutters.
Sidewalks including access facilities for
physically handicapped person.
Drive aprons/approach
Street paving
Street signing and paving
Landscaping/irrigation facilities
Sanitary sewer service facilities
Domestic water service facilities
Reclaimed water service facilities
Utility connections (i.e., gas, electric,
telephone, and cable T.V. facilities.)
Traffic signal systems and other traffic control
devices.
Street and paseo lighting
Storm drains and subdrains (The private storm drain
facilities within this tract will be maintained by
homeowner' association).
Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility
distribution lines
Lot monumentation
Fire hydrants
Bus stops and other facilities such as bus shelters
and benches.
The amount of acceptable security for conduction of
public improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department. The amount and acceptable
security for private improvements shall, be reviewed and
approved by the Building Official.
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION ( 5 )
(2) CEQA MITIGATION (6)
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (7)
(4) DESIGN REVIEW
*** EXCEPTION
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENT
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
PC/CC POLICY
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 2
(1) 1.2 A separate 24" x 36"street improvement plan shall be
submitted showing all proposed improvements within the
public right-of-way . Said plan shall be prepared by a
California Registered Civil Engineer.
(1) 1.3 Ail changes in existing curbs, 91/tters, sidewalks and
(6) other public improvements shall be responsibility of
subdivider.
(1) 1.4 A separate 24" x 36" reproducible traffic control plan
prepared by a California Licensed Traffic Engineer and/or
Civil Engineer experienced in this type of plan
preparation shall be submitted.
(1) 1.5 Proposed streets shall be designed to the following
( 5 ) specifications: --
(6)
A. All proposed streets shall be designed in
substantially the same width and alignment as shown
on the approved vesting tentative map unless
modified and approved by the Directors of Community
Development and Public Works.
Be
C.
All streets and drives shall be constructed in
accordance with City requirements in terms of type
and quality of material used.
Sidewalk areas shall flare around the placement of
all above ground facilities, such as signing,
street lights and fire hydrants unless located
outside of sidewalk widths within public utility
easement areas.
Do
E ·
Ail sidewalks at 'street intersections shall be
provided with curb ramps for the handicapped per
C~ty standards.
· .
Elevations at center line of streets shall be
leveled with the top of curb elevations.
F o
Parking shall only be permitted on streets as
approved by the Police and Fire Department.
Signage and red curbing shall be installed where
appropriate.
(1) 1.6 Preparation of plans for and construction of: -
All sanitary sewer facilities must be submitted as
required by the City Engineer and local sewering
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 3
agency. These facilities shall include a gravity.
flow system per standards of the Irvine Ranch Water
District.
Be
A domestic water system must be to the standards of
the Irvine Ranch Water District/City of Tustin
Water service, whichever is applicable at the time
of plan preparation. Improvement plans shall also
be reviewed and approved by the Orange County'Fire
Department for fire protection purposes. The
adequacy and reliability of water system design and
the distribution of fire hydrants will be
evaluated. The water distribution system and
appurtenances shall also conform to the applicable
laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange
COunty Health Department. Any required reclaimed
water systems shall be to the standards as required
by the Irvine Ranch Water District.
C.
Sewer and water facilities shall be clearly
indicated as publicly maintained. Maintenance
access to water facilities shall be the
responsibility .of'the Homeowner's Association and
accommodations for such access shall be established
prior to building permit issuance.
(1) 1.7 Streets, storm drain, water and sewer improvement plans
(6) shall comply with the "City'of Tustin Minimum Design
Standards for On-Site Street and 'Storm Drain
Improvements" except as modified by the Building
Official.
(1) 1.8 A complete hydrology study and hydraulic calculations
(5) shall be submitted for review and' approval prior to
permit issuance.
(1) 1.9 Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion control plan
'(5) for all work related to the tract shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to permit issuance.
(1) !.10 Applicant shall prepare and submit a final grading plan
(5) delineating the following information:
a. Final street elevations at key locations;
bo
Final pad/finished floor elevation and key
elevations for all site grading. Ail pad
elevations to be a minimum of 1.0 foot above base
flood elevation as defined by FEMA; and
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 4
c. Ail flood hazards of record.
(5) 1.11 In addition to the normal full size plan submittal
process, all final development plans including but not
limited to: tract maps, parcel maps, right-of-way maps,
records of survey, public works improvements, private
infrastructure improvements, and final grading plans are
also required to be submitted to the Public Works
Department/Engineering Division in compute aided drafting
and design (CADD) format. The acceptable formats shall
be Intergraph DGN or AutoCad DWG file for~t, but in no
case less than DXF file format. The City of Tustin, CADD
conventions shall be followed in preparing plans in CADD,
and these guidelines are available from the Engineering
Division.
The CADD files shall be submitted to the City at the time
the plans are approved, and updated CADD files reflecting
"as built" conditions shall be submitted once all
construction has been completed.
DEDICATIONS/RESERVATIONS/EASEMENTS
(1) 2.1 The subdivider shall satisfy dedication and/or
(2) reservation requirements as applicable, including but not
(5) limited to dedication of all required street and flood
(6) control right-of-way easements, vehicular access
r~ghts,sewer.easements and water easements defined and
approved as to specific location by the City Engineer
and or.her reasonable agencies.
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(i) 3.1 Prior to recordation of the final map~ subdivider shall
(2) post with the Community Development Department a minimum
(6) $2,500 cash deposit or letter of credit to guarantee the
Sweeping of streets and clean-up ef streets affected by
construction activities. In the event this deposit is
depleted prior to completion of development or City
appearance of public streets, an additional incremental
deposit will be required.
(1) 3.2 Any damage done to existing street improvements and
(6) utilities shall be repaired before acceu%ance ~f the
tract and/or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for
the development on any parcel within the subdivision.
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 5
(1) 3.3 Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, an
Excavation Permit must be obtained from and applicable
fees paid to the Public Works Department.
GRADING/GENERAL
(1) 4.1 Prior to issuance of grading permits:
(2)
(6) A. A detailed soils engineering report shall be
submitted to and approved by the Building Official
conforming to the requirements of the Uniform
Building Code, City Grading Requirements, and all
other applicable State and Iocal laws, regulations
and requirements.
B. Preparation and submittal of a grading plan subject
to approval by the Department of Community
Development delineating the following information:
·
·
·
Methods of drainage in accordance with all
applicable City standards.
All recommendations submitted by geotechnical
or soils engineer and specifically approved by
them.
Compliance with conceptual grading shown on
tentative tract map.
A drainage plan and necessary support
documents such as hydrology calculations to
comply with the following requirements:
a·
bo
c o
Provision of drainage facilities to
remove any flood hazard to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer which
will allow building pads to be safe from
inund.ation from rain fall which may be
expected from all storms up to and
including the theoretical i00 year storm
and dedication of an}-necessary easements
on the final map as required.
..
Elimination of any sheet flow and ponding
across lot lines.
Provision of drainage facilities to
protect.the lots from any high velocity
scouring action.
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 6
de
Provision for tributary drainage from
adjoining properties.
5. Ail flood hazard areas of record.
e
A note shall be placed on the grading plan
requiring Community Development Department
approval of rough grading prior to final
clearance for foundations. The Department
will inspect the site for accuracy of
elevations, slope gradients, etc. and may
require certification of any grading related
matter.
·
Note on plans that a qualified paleontologist/
archeologist, as appropriate, shall be present
during rough grading operations. 'If resources
are found, work shall stop in the affected
area and all resources shall be excavated or
preserved as deemed appropriate or as
recommended by the paleontologist/archeologist
subject to review and approval by the
Department of Public Works and Community
Development. Ail "finds" shall be reported
immediately tO the Department of Community
Development. The paleontologist/archeologist
shall attend the pregrade construction meeting
to ensure that this condition and necessary
procedures in the event of a "find" are
explained.
·
Preparation of a sedimentation and erosion
control plan for all constz~.ction work related
to the subject tract including a method of
control to prevent: dust and windblown earth
problems.
Ce
Submittal of a construction traffic routing plan to
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public
Works.
(1) 4.2 Ail earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the
(3) City of Tustin Municipal Codes and grading requirements.
FIRE DEPARTMENT --
(5) 5.1 Prior to the recordation of a final tract map, water
improvement plans shall be submitted to and approved by
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 7
the Fire Chief for adequate fire protection and financial
security posted for the installation. ..The adequacy and
reliability of water system design, location of valves,
and the distribution of fire hydrants will be evaluated
and approved by the Chief.
(5) 5.2 Prior to the issuance .of any building permits for
combustible construction, evidence that a water supply
for fire protection is available shall be submitted to
and approved by the Fire Chief. Fire hydrants shall be
in place and operational to meet requirements and fire-
flow prior to commencing construction with combustible
materials.
(5) 5.3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a
construction phasing plan shall be submitted to and
approved by the Fire Chief. The purpose of this review
is to evaluate the adequacy of emergency vehicle access
for the number of dwelling units served.
(5) 5.4 Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and
occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue
Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating its location on
the street Or drive per Orange County Fire Department
standards. On private property these markers are to be
maintained in good condition by the property owner.
(5) 5.5 Prior to recordation of the final tract map, a note shall
be placed on the map indicating proposed fire lanes which
shall be approve by the Fire Chief. A plan shall be
approved by the fire department indicating the curbs to.
be painted red and the type of signage to be utilized.
The CC&R's shall contain provision which prohibit parking
in the fire lanes and provide a method of enforcement by
the Home Owners Association.
NOISE
(1) 6.1 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.
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 8
All 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
standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with
applicable zoning regulations shall be provided.
(1) 6.2 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) 6.3 All construction operations includfng engine warm up
shall be subject to the provisions of the City of Tustin
Noise Ordinance and shall take place only during the
hours of 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday
unless the Building Official 'determines that said
activity will be in substantial conformance with the
Noise Ordinance and the public health and safety will not
be impaired subject to application being made at the time
the permit for the work is.awarded or during progress of
the work.
CC&R.'S
(1) 7.1 Prior to approval of the final map, all organizational
(3) documents for the project including any deed
restrictions, covenants, conditions, and restrictions
shall be Submitted to and approved by the Community
Development Department and City Attorney's Office.
Costs for such review shall be borne by the subdivider.
A copy of the final documents shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department after their recordation.
CC&R's shall include but not be limited to the following
provisions:
a.
Since tke City is interested in protecting the
public health and safety and ensuring the quality
and maintenance of common areas under control of a
Homeowner's Association, the City shall be included
as a party to the CC&R's for enforcement purposes
of those CC&R provisions in which the City has
interest, as reflected by the following B through
Q. However, the City shall not be obligated to
enforce uhe CC&R's.
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 9
B .
C.
De
Ee
F.
The requirement that association bylaws be estab-
lished.
Provisions for effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all
common areas and facilities including landscaped
areas and lots, walls and fences and paseos.
Membership in any Homeowner's Association and
Master. Association shall be inseparable from
ownership in individual lots.
Architectural controls shall be provided and may
include but not be limited to provisions regulating
exterior finishes, roof materials, fences and
walls, accessory structures such as patios,
sunshades, trellises, gazebos, awnings, room
additions, exterior mechanical equipment,
television and radio antenna.
Maintenance standards shall be provided for
applicable items listed in Section C above in
CC&R's. Examples of maintenance standards are
shown below:
(1) Ail common area landscaping and private lawn
areas visible from any public way shall be
properly maintained such that they are evenly
cut, evenly edged, free of bare or brown
spots, free of debris and free of weeds above
the level of the lawn. All planted areas
other than lawns shall be free of weeds, dead
vegetation and debris. All trees and shrubs
shall be trimmed so they do not impede
pedestrian traffic along the walkways. Trees
shall be pruned so they do not intl~ude into
neighboring property and shall be maintained
so they do not have droppings or create other
nuisances to neighboring property. All trees
shall also be root pruned to eliminate expcsed
surface roots and damage to sidewalks,
driveways and structures.
(2) Common areas shall be maintained in such a
manner as to avoid the reasonable
determination of a duly authorized official of
the City that a public nuisance has been
created by the absence of adequate maintenance
such as to be detrimental to public health,
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 10
Ge
I ·
J.
n.
safety, or general welfare, or that such a
condition of deterioration or.disrepair cause
harm or is materially detrimental to property
values or improvements within the boundaries
of the subdivision and Homeowner's
Association, to surrounding property, or to
property or improvements within three hundred
(300) feet of the property may also be added
as alternative language.
Homeowner's Association approval of exterior
improvements requiring a building permit shall be
obtained prior to requesting a building permit from
the City of Tustin Community Development
Department. All plans for exterior improvements
shall conform to requirements set forth by the City
and the CC&R's. All plans submitted to the City
shall bear the Association's stamp and authorized
signature of approval.
Residents shall not store or park any non-motorized
vehicles, trailers or motorized vehicles that
exceed 7 feet, high, 7 feet wide and 19 feet long in
any parking or driveway area except for purpose of
loading, unloading, making deliveries or emergency
repairs except that the Homeowner's Association may
adopt rules and regulations to authorize
exceptions.
All utility services serving the Site shall be
installed and maintained underground.
The Association shall be required to file the
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of at least
one member of the Association Board and where
applicable, a Manager of the project before January_'
1st of each year with the City of Tustin Community
Development Department for the purpose of
contacting the association in the case of emergency
or in those cases where the City has an ].nterest in
CC & R violations.
Disclosure information related to aircraft noise
impacting the subdivision, as approved by the City
of Tustin Community Development Department.
Perimeter project block walls to be constructed on
private property shall be maintained and replaced,
if necessary by a Homeowner's Association. This
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
- Page 11
Me
shall not preclude a Homeowner's Association from
assessing charges to individual property owners for
structural damage to the wall or fence.
No amendment to alter, modify, terminate or change
the Homeowner's Association's obligation to
maintain the common areas and the project perimeter
wall or other CC&/{provisions in which the City has
an interest, as noted above, or to alter, modify,
terminate or change the City's right to enforce
maintenance of the common areas and maintenance of
the project perimeter wall, shall be effective
Ne
Pe
Q.
without the prior written approval of the City of
Tustin Community Development Department.
Provisions shall be made to specifically identify
that street light standards and mailboxes may be
located within the five-foot public utility
easement behind the private street right-of-way.
Where such facilities are located on private
property within'the utility easement, notification
shall be given to those owners as to the locations,
types and quantities of all facilities as it
relates to their specific property.
Maintenance of all manufactured slopes on
individual lots shall be the responsibility of the
individual property owners.
Units maintaining driveway lengths of less than 19
feet shall prohibit the parking of vehicles.
The Homeowners' Association is responsible for
monitoring and enforcing any and all parking and
traffic regulations on private streets. The
project CC&R's shall include provisions tc require
the Association, to develop and enact an enforce-
ment program related to enforcement of parking and
traffic regulations within the private development.
Said program may include provisions for levying
fines, collecting fines and enforcement/monitoring
by private security companies/persons.
Prior to implementation of such a program,-copies
of the approved HOA program shall be for~,arded to
the City of Tustin Police Department and Community
Development Department for review and approval.
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 12
The Police Department and Community Development
Department shall also be provided.with any amend-
ments or modifications to the program. All parking
regulations shall be enforced at time of final
occupancy of any phase of the project.
TENANT/HOMEBUYER NOTIFICATION
(1) 8.1 Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:
(2)
A. A document separate from the deed, which will be an
information notice to future tenants/homebuyers of
aircraft noise impacting the subdivision, shall be
recorded. The notice shall further indicate that
additional building upgrades may be necessary for
noise attenuation. This determination to be made
as architectural drawings become available and/or
where field testing determines inadequate noise
insulation.
·
The Subdivider shall submit for review and approval
of content by the Director of Community
Development, a copy of rental/sales literature for
the residential project with the approved
aircraft/helicopter noise statement and the
approved schools notification statement, printed on
it. Any changes to the rental/sales literature
after initial City approval shall be submitted to
the Director of Community Development for approval.
The .subdivider shall provide the City with a copy
of the approved aircraft/helicopter noise statement
which shall contain a disclosure document on
aircraft notification. Said document must be
signed by each tenant/homeowner prior to occupancy
of any unit. The content of the statement shall be
approved by the Director of Community Development
prior to circulation.
D·
The developer shall provide the City with a schools
notification statement which shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development
and participation by the governing school district
which shall indicate:
(1) The location of existing and proposed
elementary, middle and high schools which will
serve the subdivision (text and map).
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 13
(2) Advice to homebuyers that proposed school
sites may never be constructed.
(3) Advice to the homebuyers of the presence of
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act assess-
ments within the subdivision.
E.
The Subdivider shall provide the City with a
statement, signed by each tenant/homebuyer,
containing a comprehensive .description of all
private and public improvements and developments
adjacent or in close proximity to the proposed
development.
(1) 8.2 Subdivider shall notify all potential homebuyers, of the
(6) following assessments:
A. Assessment District 86-2
B ·
City of Tustin 1982 Landscaping and Lighting
District as amended.
FEES
(1) 9.1 Prior to recordation of any final map, Subdivider shall
(3) pay plan check and inspection fees for all public and/or
(6) private infrastructure improvements within City's
responsibility excluding those financed by an Assessment
District.
(1) 9.2 Prior to issuance of certificates of use or occupancy,
(6) the Subdivider shall pay all costs related to the
calculation of the revised parcel assessments,
the
preparation of the'revised assessment diagram and other
required administrative duties related to any Assessment
Districts applicable to the subdivision.
(1) 9.3 Prior to issuance of any building permits, payment shall
(3) be made'of all required fees includ4_ng:
(6)
A. Major thoroughfare and bridge fees to Tustin Public
Works Department.
B ·
Sanitary sewer connection fee to Orange County
Sanitation District. -
C.
Grading plan checks and permit fees to the
Community Development Department.
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 14
D·
E·
F·
G.
H.
I ·
Ail applicable Building plan check and permit fees
to the Community Development Department.
New development fees to the Community Development
Department.
School facilities fee to the Tustin Unified School
District subject to any agreement reached and
executed between the District and the Irvine
Company.
Required East Tustin Facility Fees as may be
adjusted to reflect cost of living increases prior
to issuance of any permits, including rough
grading.
1) Civic Center Expansion Fee -'
2) Irvine Boulevard Widening Fee
3) Fire Protection Facility Fee
Payment of all Assessment District No. 86-2
reapportionment fees prior to recordation of final
tract map.
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
twenty-five dollars ($25.00) to enable the City to
file with the County Clerk the appropriate
environmental documentation pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act. If within
such forty-eight (48) hour period 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 null 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) if an EIR was prepared or
$1,250 if a Negative Declaration was prepa=ed. If
this fee is imposed, ~he subject project shall not
be operative, vested or final unless and until the
fee is paid.
Exhibit A, Conditions of Approval
VTTM 14168
Resolution No. 3241
Page 15
GENERAL
(1) 10.1 Within 24 months from tentative map approval, the
Subdivider shall file with,appropriate agencies, a final
map prepared in accordance with subdivision requirements
of the Tustin Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map
Act, and applicable conditions contained herein unless an
extension is granted pursuant to Section 9335.08 of the
Tustin Municipal Code.
(1) 10.2 Prior to occupancy of units, the Subdivider shall record
a final map in conformance with appropriate tentative
map.
(1) 10.3 Prior to final map approval. --
A. Subdivider shall submit a current title report.
B ·
Provision for landscaping maintenance of landscape
lots, paseos and easements adjacent to project
private streets shall be the responsibility of the
adjoining property owners and/or Homeowner's
Association of Tract 14168.
Ce
Subdivider shall submit a duplicate mylar of the
Final Map, or 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch transparency of
each map sheet prior to final map approval and "as
built" grading, landscape and improvement plans
prior to Certificate of Acceptance.
(1) 10.4 subdivider shall conform to all applicable requirements
of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision
Ordinance, in the East Tustin Specific Plan and
Development Agreement, EIR 85-2, and applicable
conditions for Final Map 12870.
(1) 10.5 The cumulative number cf residential units for which
(2) certificate of occupancy may be issued shall not exceed
(5) the cumulative total of square feet of occupied revenue
generating uses; or equivalents as shown in the East
Tustin Specific plan Development Agreement.
*** 10.6 Prior to release of building permits, all conditions of
approval of Design Review 93-030 of the subject project
shall be complied with as shown on Exhibit A attached to
Resolution No. 3140 and incorporated herein by reference.
ATTACHMENT E
.
T.-.--.-z~ PLAW~Z~G COMMZSSION
REGULAR HEETING
F.~CH 28, 1994
CALL TO ORDER: ':'2 p.m.; City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/i~OCATION
ROLL CALL: ~resent: Weil, Baker, Butler,
Stracker
Kasalek,
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
('imited to 3 minutes per person for items not
¢- uhe agenda.)
A-. ~his time members of the public may address
the Commission regarding any items not on the
a ._-enda and within the subject matter
Jurisdiction of the Commission (NO action can
be -_aken off-agenda items unless authorized by
YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY
~UTER, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE.. OF THE CARDS
LiCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE SO THAT YOUR
A~--wB~RKS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING
BE ATTRIBUTED TO YOU. WHEN YOU START TO
Ai iRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE STATE YOUR FULL
~A~E ~D ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
CONSENT CALENDAR: (A~L FB. TTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE
CiNSIDr_RED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
~iCION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION
OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING
ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE
Ci._wlMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC
IU~--MS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE
CiNSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.)
1. Minutes of the M~r=h ~4, 1994 ~annin~ Commission meetinq.
Commissioner Kasalek ~:ved, Butler seconded, to approve the Consent
Calendar. Motion carrled 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2.
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
iF YOU CHALLENGE AN ITEM CONSIDERED AT A
Pi~LIC HEARING IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO
PJ-..iSING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE
FJ:iEED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS
A$--NDA, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED
Ti THE CITY OF TUSTIN AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE
.Vestinq Tenta-_iv~ Tract Map 14168 and Desiqn Review 93-030
CALi.rC.r_';iA PACIFIC HOMES
5 CiVi' PLAZA, SUITE 100
NEWPDR.- BEACH, CA. 92660
BAYCRESi DEVELOPMENT
5 CiVi' PLAZA, SUITE 100
NEWPDR.- 3EACH, CA. 92660
LOTS 2: ?-~ND .Dp OF AMENDED MAP NO. 1 OF TRACT 12870,
NORUH'~'Z.:_- CCRNER OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND TOWNSHIP
DRIVE
PLA-'~::Ki CO~-_".:UNITY RESIDENTIAL - (MEDIUM DENSITY
RESiDE:;.-iAL~. - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28, 1994
Page 2
STATUS:
REQUEST:
THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC ~PLAN. NO
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED.
AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 10.582 GROSS ACRES INTO
69 NUMBERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 69 SINGLE FAMILY
DETACHED DWELLINGS AND 17 LETTERED LOTS FOR
LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE STREETS.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental
Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 3239;
2. Approve Design Review 93-030 by adoption of Resolution No. 3240,
as submitted or revised; and 3. Recommend to the City Council
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 by adoption of
Resolution No. 3241, as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner
Commissioner Weil asked if the sister project contained slump stone
fences
Staff stated that the sister project contains the wood production
fences.
Commissioner Stracker asked if the sister project also included "Z"
lots.
Staff replied, "yes".
The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m.
Douglas Woodward, California Pacific Homes~ noted that originally
this project was designed along with LoL 8 as one continuous
project with "Z" lots but following that, 120 condominium units
were approved. Now, because of the current market 'they have
changed their position and have returned to the original plan. In
doing so they have decreased the density. The projects are called
San Miguel I and II and ultimately will contain a total of 138
units. The present proposal is a sister project to the first.
The model complex currently operated with continue throughout the
life of both tracts and the recreation area will be utilized by
both tracts and linked by a pedestrian paseo. There are two items
in which they disagreement with staff, 1) The request for block
walls. (It is important to them to have consistency in both tracts
and the other tract contains wood fences) and, 2) locking mail
boxes. (Since the other tract was approved-with no mention of
locking mail boxes and also they feel there is not a ready supply
of adequate product).
................... ' if ~& ~i~2iAg Commission
Commis ion Stracker asked t a' "t
requested masonry walls, would they be willing to install them in
the adjacent tract as well.
Mr. Woodward stated that he did not have the authority to accept
that condition.
Commissioner Wei] asked to see the fence model.
Mr. woodward showed and explained the fence model.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if the homeowner would be responsible
for painting the fence following the original paint application by
Californi~ Pacific.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28, 1994
Page 2
STATUS: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVICUSLY
EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC ~L~;. NO
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRE2.
REQUEST: AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 10.582 GRD$S A~RES iNTO
69 NUM.BERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 6~ SINGLE F~ILY
DETACHED DWELLINGS AND 17 LETTL~ED LO!~ FOR
LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE STREETS.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning C~r~.ission
take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental
Determination for'the project by adopting Resolution No. 322~;
2. Approve Design Review 93-030 by adoption of Resoluuion :~c. 2240,
as submitted or revised; and 3. Recommend to the City C:~ncil
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 ky adcpti:n of
Resolution No. 3241, as submitted or revised.
Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner
Commissioner Wei~ asked if the sister project contained siur.; ~one
fences.
Staff stated that the sister project contains the ~:od ~rc~2:uion
fences.
Commissioner Stracker asked if the sister project also includ~ "Z"
lots.
Staff replied, "yes".
The Public Hearing opened at 7:10 p.m.
Douglas Woodward, California Pacific Homes~ noted that crig[nally
this project was designed along with Lot 8 as one con~:nuous
project with ,,Z',: lots but following that, 120 con~ominiur units
were approved. Now, because of the current market %he'.' have
changed their position and have returned to the orl;inal plan. In
doing so they have decreased the density. The projects are :alled
San Miguel I and II and ultimately will contain a total
units. The present proposal is a sister project tc the fir~%.
The model complex currently operated with continue throu~k:uu the
life of both tracts and the recreation area will ~e u~ili:ed by
both tracts and linked by a pedestrian pasec. There are two ~uems
in which they disagreement with staff, l) The request for =lock
walls. (It is important to them to have consistency in both tracts
and the other tract contains wood fences) and, 2' lockin; mail
boxes. (Since the other tract was approved with no menu~:n cf
locking mail boxes and also they feel there is no~ a ready s2pp!y
of adequate product).
Commissioner Stracker asked that if the Planning C~r~ :ssicn
requested masonry walls, %~ould they be ~il~ing to ~nstaL~ ~r~ in
the adjacent tract as well.
Mr. Woodward stated that he did not have the autkrrity cc
that condition.
Commissioner Wei] asked to see the fence mctel.
Mr. Woodward showed and explained the fence model.
Commissioner Kasalek asked if the homeowner would ~e res;--sibie
for painting the fence following the origina
California Pacific.
Planning Commission Minutes
March 28, 1994
Page 3
Mr. Woodward noted that the CC&R's state tha~ the homeowner is
responsible for maintaining the rear yard fences.
Commissioner Stracker asked if the offset nature of ~he entry
roadway had been looked at with regard to traffic entering it and
the adjacent roadway.
Staff noted that there were no concerns as it is shown.
Commissioner Butler asked if both sides cf the fence were
identical.
Mr. Woodwar~ replied "yes".
The Public Hearing closed at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioner Baker asked if locking mailboxes and the nunbers of
boxes listed were a requirement of the postmas%er.
Staff stated that the language in Condition 4.10 fcr locking
mailboxes has been stipulated as policy directicn by City Council.
In regard to the number of mailboxes, this item will ~ brought
back to the Planning Commisson for more detail and review.
~ommissioner Kasalek commented that she had looked for a locking
mailbox for her own use and had not found an acceptable ~roduct on
the market. She would have a problem imposin~ a condition if a
product were not available.
Staff noted that there is product available an~ that ~kere was
clear direction from City Council thMt locked b:xes were ~esired.
Commissioner Wei] was concerned that small packages may n~% fit in
these mail boxes causing an inconvenience in hav~ng to ccn~inually
go to the post office and also thinks that locke~ boxes ~ill send
a negative message to the future buyers of the area suck as areas
where bars are on the windows of homes. Since tke tract k~s locked
gates, she does not feel that locked mailboxes are also needed.
Commission Butler is not in favor of locked mailboxes, an~ has no
problem with the wood fence.
~ommissioner Stracker prefers masonry fences.
Commissioner Kasalek is not in favor of woc~ fences if the
homeowner must maintain them instead of the Homeowners Association.
The Public Hearing opened at 7:38 p.m.
Jon Robertson, California Pacific Homes, note~ tha~ tke CC&R's
provide enforcement for requiring maintenance of tk~ entire
project.
The Public Hearing closed at 7:44 p.m.
Commissioner Butler indicated that he was aware cf some prr~ects in
Yorba Linda with problems and noted that the gra~[ng map indicated
a 60 to 75 percent fill and asked if there were certain perrentages
required for projects.
Staff noted that a compaction percentage was require~ by %he
Grading Ordinance, Building Code and Grading Manu~' Al' ~rojects
are tested and certified by Soils and Civil E~rineers refore a
single pad is certified, in both rough and precis~ grading. It was
Planning Commission Minutes
March 2~, 1994
Page 4
noted that certification =an only be as good as the engineer
performing the service. The City of Tustin has a good inspection
process but some problems cannot be avoided if work is done
improperly by an engineer.
Commissioner Butler moveda Baker seconded.,, to approve the
Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution
No. 3239 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review
93-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3240 revised as follows, Exhibit
A, page 2, paragraph 1, No. B, 3rd line, "waster" should read
"water", Condition 3..11 on page 4 should be removed. Condition
4.10, page 7, should be modified to read as follows, "mailboxes
shall include methods to ensure security provisions with locking
devices where an accep~ab!e manufactured product is available,
subject to the review and approval of the Community Development
Director. Said mailboxes shall also meet the requirements of the
postmaster. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Butler moved Baker seconded to recommend to the City
Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 by adopting
Resolution No. 3241 revised as follows, Exhibit A, page 13,
paragraph E, second line, add "statement to be signed by each
tenant home buyer". Condition 1.1, page 1, No. H, the word
"waster" should be changed to "water". Motion carried 5-0.
3. Conditional Use Permit 92-038 and Desiqn Review 92-050
APPLI CANT:
LANDOWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
FRONTRUNNER HOMES
1200 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 100
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
FRANAGOFIN, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
505 N. TUSiiN AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92705
THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, APPROXIMATELY
450 FEET EAST OF NEWPORT AVENUE
CO}~.[ERCIAL SENERAL (CG) DISTRICT
IT HAS SEEN DETERMINED THAT THE NEGATIVE'
DECLARATION, PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS iF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT AND CEEUIFiED ON ~ARCH 22, 1993, ADEQUATELY
ADDRESSES ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION ASSOCIATED
WITH THE FROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCb~ENTATiCN WILL BE REQUIRED.
MODIFICATICN TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN
EXTENSION iF TIME TO THE EXPIRATION DATES FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-038 AND DESIGN REVIEW 92-
050.
Recommendation - It is rerommended that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution Number 2244, as submitted or revised: 1.
Approving a modification to Condition No. 1.3 of Planning
Commission Resolution Nc. 3132 to allow a twelve (12) month
extension through March 22, 1995 to obtain all building permits and
have substantial construc%iDn underway for Conditional Use Permit
92-038; and 2. Recommendlnc to the Tustin Community Redevelopment
Agency approval of a modifluation to Condition No. 1.3 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2133 to allow a time extension to run
Planning Commission Minutes
March 2~, 1994
Page 4
noted that certification can only be as good as the engineer
performing the service. The City of Tustin has a good inspection
process but some problems cannot be avoided if work is done
improperly by an engineer.
Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded, to approve the
Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution
No. 3239 as submitted. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Butler moved, Baker seconded to approve Design Review
93-030 by adopting Resolution No. 3240 revised as follows, Exhibit
A, page 2, paragraph 1, No. B, 3rd line, "waster" should read
"water", Condition 3.11 on page 4 should be removed. Condition
4.10, page 7, should be modified to read as follows, "mailboxes
shall include methods to ensure security provisions with locking
devices where an acceptable manufactured product is available,
subject to the review and approval of the Community Development
Director. Said mailboxes shall also meet the requirements of the
postmaster. Motion carried 5-0.
Commissioner Butler moved Baker seconded to recommend to the City
Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 by adopting
Resolution No. 3241 revised as follows, Exhibit A, page 13,
paragraph E, second line, add "statement to be signed by each
tenant home buyer". Condition 1.1, page 1, No. H, the word
"waster" should be changed to "water". Motion carried 5-0.
3. Conditional Use Permit 92-038 and Desiqn Review 92-050
APPLICANT:
LANDOWNER:
LOCATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
REQUEST:
FRONTRUNNER HOMES
1200 QUAIL STREET, SUITE 100
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
FRANAGOFIN, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
505 N. TUSTIN AVENUE
TUSTIN, CA 92705
THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF EL CAMINO REAL, APPROXIMATELY
450 FEET EAST OF NEWPORT AVENUE
COM]~ERCIAL GENERAL (CG) DISTRICT
IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT AND CERTIFIED ON 5~RCH 22, 1993, ADEQUATELY
ADDRESSES E~VIRO~MENTAL CONSIDERATION ASSOCIATED
WITH THE PROJECT. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCL~ENTATION WILL BE REQUIRED.
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN
E>[TENSION OF TIME TO THE EXPIRATION DATES FOR
CONDITIONAL USF PERM. IT 92-038 ~D DESIGN REVIEW 92-
050.
Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution Number 3244, as submitted or revised: 1.
Approving a modification to Condition No. 1.3 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3132 to allow a twelve (12) month
extension through March 22', 1995 to obtain all building permits and
have substantial construction underway for Conditional Use Permit
92-038; and 2. Recommending to the Tustin Community Redevelopment
Agency approval of a modification to Condition ~o. 1.3 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3133 to allow a time e>:tension to run
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF TUSTIN
Community Development Department
~NVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDy FORM
I·
II.
Background
·
·
·
5~
Addres~ ~nd~Phone Number of Proponent ~'~,li&~'~ ,i~~
Da~e of Checklist Submitted
Environmental Impacts
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on
attached sheets.)
·
Earth· Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
be
Disruptions, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
de
The destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or physical features?
yes Maybe No
ee
f·
Any increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of
beach sands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may modify
the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any ban, inlet or
lake?
Yes Navbe ~o
·
·
go
Exposure of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudslides, ground failure,
or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
ac
Substantial air emission or
deterioration of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture,
or temperatures, or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
water. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Changes in currents, or the course
of direction of water movements,
in either marine or fresh water?
be
Co
Changes in absorption rates,
drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to ~he course or flow
of flood waters?
de
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
ee
Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface wa~er
quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity?
fe
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow of ground waters?
ge
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct additions
or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
he
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
.
e
e
e
Yes Maybe
i.
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flooding
or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants) ?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
Ce
Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
do
Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural Crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of anY. species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
Ce
Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals.?
de
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a.0 Increases in existing noise levels?
be
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and. Glare. Will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
Yes Maybe To
·
·
10.
11.
12.
13.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in
a substantial alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a·
Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
be
Substantial depletion of any
nonrenewable natural resource?
Risk cf Upset. Will the proposal involve:
ae
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the '~vent of an accident
or upset conditions? .
be
Possible interference with an
emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing, or create a demand
for additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
ac
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
be
Effects on existing parking facilities,
or demand for new parking?
C,
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
de
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
¢ , ¢
14.
15.
16.
Yes ~y~e No
ee
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
fe
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Public Services. Will the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a need for new
or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
de
Parks or other recreational facilities?
ee
fe
Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
Other governmental services?
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a.- Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of
energy?
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Yes Maybe No
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
be
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Solid Waste. Will the proposal create
additional solid waste requiring disposal
by the City?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in'
the obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction of
a prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
be
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Ce
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
de
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
22.
Mandatory Findings of Si?ificance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe NO
be
Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-
term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive
period of time while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future).
Ce
Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
siderable? (A project may impact on two
or more separat9 resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant.)
de
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find-that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measure described on an attached sheet have
· been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED
I.find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required..
Date
Signature
P]%RT III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
EXHIBIT A
TIERED INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 14168, DESIGN REVIEW..93-030
LOT 28, TRACT 12870
69'SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
BACKGROUND.
The proposed project is an application' by California Pacific to
subdivide a 10.582 acre lot into 69 "Z" lots and 17 lettered lots
for the construction of 69 single family residences. The improve-
ment of this property is governed by the regulations adopted by the
East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) and the City's Grading Ordinance.
Tract 12870, the sector level map, designates the project site as
residential with underlying Medium-Density Residential. The
maximum allowable density for the Medium-Density Residential land
use designation is 18 dwelling units per acre.
Located in Sector 8 of the ETSP the subject site is bounded by Lot
4 of Tract 12870 across Township Drive to the north, single family
dwellings to the east, multiple family dwellings across Tustin
Ranch Road to the south and single family dwellings across Township
Drive to the west.
This is atiered initial study that is based on and incorporates by
reference, the environmental analysis included in EIR 85-2, which
was previously certified on March 17, 1986, and subsequently
amended with.supplements and addenda for the East Tustin Specific
Plan (ETSP). 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.
EIR 85-2 as subsequently amended with supplements and addenda
identified several impact categories where a Statement of
Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City for the entire
ETSP area. For the purposes of this initial study check list,
these items have been checked "Yes" and an evaluation has been made
to ensure that projects 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 subsequently amended with supplements and addenda 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.
For the purposes of this initial study check list, these items have
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 2
been checked "No" and the mitigation measures identified in the
Program EIR 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 subsequently amended with supplements and addenda have been
also checked "No" and were also reviewed to ensure that no new
impacts would be created by the project. Since the ETSP included
a variety of uses, ie: residential, community facilities, and
commercial use, some of the impact categories may not be
applicable.
1o EART~
Items B, and C - "Yes": The project site is within the
Specific Plan area, is a 10.582 acre site and is primarily
flat. The site has been mass graded in accordance with
Sector level map, Tract 12870. Minor grading will be required
to prepare the site for construction . 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 worsen previously identified impacts on site and
topography in the Program EIR. Applicable conditions of
approval will be required to ensure that all grading
activities that would occur to accommodate the 69 single
family dwelling development incorporate mitigation measures
identified in the certified EIR 85-2, its supplements and
addendum.
Items A,D,E,F, and G - "No": The proposed 69 family dwelling
site is within the Specific Plan area for which the certified
EIR 85-2 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 in accordance with the Sector level
map, Tract 12870. Applicable mitigation measures were
identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum and were
implemented during mass grading of Tract 12870. Minor
grading will be required to prepare the site for construction.
This was an activity previously considered in the Program EIR.
Applicable conditions of approval will be required to ensure
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 3
·
that all grading activities that would occur to accommodate
the proposed 69 single family dwelling development
incorporates mitigation measures identified in the certified
EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans-
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: A detailed soils engineering
report and grading plans for the site are required as a
condition of approval to determine that all grading activities
on the site incorporate applicable mitigation measures, as per
the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum.
AIR
Item A - "Yes": The subject site is within the project area
for which the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum, 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 worsen previously
identified impacts on Air Quality in. the Program EIR.
Conditions of approval will be required for~ the project to
meet applicable mitigation measures, as required by the
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum. Mitigation
measures identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
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, and C - "No": The project site is within the
Specific Plan area covered by the program EIR. The certified
EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum identified impacts to
the project site related to the proposed development and the
resultant negative effects to air quality. The project has
been reviewed and will not worsen previously identified
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 199~
Page 4
o
impacts on air quality in the Program EIR. This proposal has
incorporated those measures related to air quality such as
encouraging the use of alternate transportation modes, the
encouraging of ridesharing, and the inclusion of sidewalks and
pedestrian paseos connecting the project to other tracts to
encourage the use of alternate transportation methods into
either the submitted plans or will be included in the
conditions of approval for the subject project.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
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, it's supplements and addendum, as applicable, have
been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be
incorporated as conditions of approval.
WATER
Items B, C and F - "Yes": The subject project site is within
the ETSP area for which the certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum 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 certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum 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 previously identified impacts on
water quality in the Program EIR. Applicable mitigation
measures were identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum and recommended for implementation. This proposal
has incorporated those measures related to surface runoff,
drainage flows, water quality and water percolation into
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 5
·
either the submitted plans or will be included in the
conditions of approval, where applicable.
Items A, D, E, G, H and I - "No": The proposed 69 single
family dwelling development is within the Specific Plan area.
The certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
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
previously identified impacts on water quality in the Program
EIR. Applicable mitigation measures were identified in EIR
85-2, it's supplements and addendum and recommended for
implementation. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2,
it's supplements and addendum 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, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures
identified in certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum, 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.
PLANT LIFE
Items A, B, C and D - "No": The project site has been rough
graded, and is presently vacant. The certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum identified impacts to the project
site related to the proposed development and the resultant
negative effects to plant life. Applicable mitigation
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 6
®
measures were identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum and recommended for implementation. This proposal
has incorporated those measures related to plant 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 occur beyond those
identified in the Program EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
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
to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials, such as the
eucalyptus, brisbane box, hawthorne, bougainvillea, and
pittosporum~ These mitigation measures have been incorporated
into the project as submitted, or will be incorporated as
conditions of approval.
ANIMAL LIFE
Items A throuqh D - "No": The project site is within the East
Tustin Specific Plan area. The certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum identified impacts to the ETSP
related to the proposed development and the resultant negative
effects to animal life. Applicable mitigation measures were
identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum and
recommended for implementation. This proposal has
incorporated those measures related to animal life into either
the submitted plans or woUld be included in the conditions of
approval, where applicable, for the subject project. No
additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the
Program EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 7
·
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Those measures identified in
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum, including
providing open space in the site plan, revegetation of the
site, 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, brisbane box, hawthorne,
bougainvillea, and pittosporum have been incorporated into the
project as submitted or would be incorporated as conditions of
approval.
NOISE
..
Item A - "Yes": 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, it's supplements and addendum. The City
Council considered the benefits of the ETSP original program
EIR 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 worsen impacts previously identified in
the Program EIR. Mitigation measures addressing the acoustic
environment were identified in the program EIR, and are
included in the submitted project, or would be conditions of
approval.
Item B - "No": The project site is within the Specific Plan
area and the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed
development and the resultant negative effects of noise.
Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2,
it's supplements and addendum and recommended for
implementation. This proposal has incorporated those measures
related to noise into either the submitted plans or would be
included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for
the subject project. No additional impacts would occur beyond
those identified in the Program EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 8
·
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures
identified by the program EIR include measures to identify
exterior noise levels identified with the project in an
acoustical analysis construction of barriers used within the
project site such as 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, it's supplements and addendum and the City
of Tustin Ordinance No. 828, have been incorporated into the
project as submitted or would be incorporated as conditions of
approval.
LIGHT AND ~LARE
"Yes": The proposed.69 single family dwelling development
would 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. However,
mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum and recommended for implementation.
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 also been reviewed and will not
worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 9
·
Mitigation/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.
LAND USE
"No": The project site is within the Specific Plan for which
the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed
development and the resultant negative effects of land use.
The site was anticipated to be designated as Medium-Density-
residential by the land use plan. The impacts to the site by
a Medium Density development allowing up to 18 dwelling units
per acre was considered by certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and amendments. However, the proposed project
would only have a density of 6.5 dwelling units per acre and
would, therefore, have less impact on the site then the
project anticipated by..the Program EIR. The. program EIR
identified that the development of the project site would
result in the gradual conversion of existing open space 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. However,
mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements
and addendum 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. The project will not worsen
impacts previously identi- fied in the Program EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
~itiqation/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, would ensure that the
development of the proposed 69 single family dwelling
development complies with mitigation measures specified in the
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum.
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 10
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Items A and B - "No": The project site is within the East
Tustin Specific Plan area and was anticipated to be designated
as Medium-Density residential by the land use plan, allowing
up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The impacts to the site by
a Medium Density development was considered by certified EIR
85-2 its supplements and amendments. However,. the proposed
project would only have a density of 6.5 dwelling units per
acre and would, therefore, have less impact on the site then
the project anticipated by the Program EIR. The certified EIR
85-2, it's supplements and addendum identified impacts to the
ETSP related to the proposed development and the resultant
negative effects to natural resources. Applicable mitigation
measures were identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum and recommended for implementation This proposal
has incorporated those measures related to natural resources
into either the submitted plans or would be included in the
conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject
project. No additional impacts would occur beyond those
identified in the Program EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures
identified by the program EIR include measures to provide open
areas in the site plan where feasible and to provide
vegetation that includes drought tolerant materials such as
eucalyptus, brisbane box, hawthorne, bougainvillea,
pittosporum and revegetating graded and cut and filled areas
where feasible. These mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project as submitted, or will be
incorporated as conditions of approval.
10. RISK OF UPSET
Items A and B - "No": The project site is within the Specific
Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements
and addendum identified no impacts to the project site related
to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects
from risk of upset.
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 11
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
· Mitigati°n/Monitorinq Required: No mitigation measures are
required for this project.
11. POPULATION
"Yes": The proposed project would provide 69 single family
dwelling units on the site. The Medium Density designation
would permit up to 190 units pursuant to the ETSP, which
allows a maximum of 18 dwelling units per acre on the subject
site. The proposed project would only have 6.5 dwelling units
per acre. As a result, the project will not worsen impacts
previously identified in the Program EIR. The project site is
within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-
2, it's supplements and addendum 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, it's supplements and addendum and
recommended for implementation. 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.
Sources: 'Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
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, would ensure that the
development of the proposed 69 single family dwelling
development complies with mitigation measures specified in the
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum.
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 12
12. HOUSIN~
"Yes": The proposed project would provide 69 single family
dwellings or approximately 6.5 dwelling units per acre. The
Medium Density designation permits up to 18 dwelling units per
acre. Therefore, the project will not worsen impacts
previously identified in the Program EIR. The project site is
within the specific plan area, and the Certified EIR 85-2,
it's supplements and addendum identified impacts to the
project site related to the proposed development and the
resultant negative effects to housing. 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, applicable mitigation measures
were identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum and
recommended for implementation where feasible. This proposal.
has incorporated those measures related to housing into either
the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of
approval, where applicable,.for the subject property.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin'city Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitiqation/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, would ensure that the
development of the proposed 69 single family dwelling
development complies with mitigation measures specified in the
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Item A - "Yes": The subject 69 single family dwelling
development would be accessed by a 40 foot wide private, entry
street off of Township Drive, an existing improved street with
60 feet of right-of-way width. On-site circulation will
consist of a 36 foot wide private drive with one 36 foot wide
loop street and two 36 foot wide cul-de-sacs.
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 13
Trip generation for the subject project is determined, by
multiplying the trip rate for single family dwelling units
which is 12 Average Daily Trips (ADT) per unit by the number
of units. The total trip generation for the project would be
828 ADT.
Township Drive and Tustin Ranch Road were designed for
critical peak loads, which are on weekdays between 7:00 t 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. According to the General Plan,
Township Drive is a local street designed to accommodate local
traffic at an acceptable level of service and distribute this
traffic to the City's arterial roadway system. Township Drive
currently operates at LOS A. Tustin Ranch Road is identified
as a master arterial in the City's General Plan, and .is
constructed to ultimate master arterial status in the location
of this project. According to the General Plan, Tustin Ranch
Road has a maximum capacity of 56,300 ADT at LOS E.
Currently, traffic volumes on Tustin Ranch Road is 5 500 ADT,
which represents a LOS A.· '
The program EIR identifies 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. Based on review of project and
program EIR, the project will not worsen previously identified
impacts on the transportation/circulation in the Program EIR.
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, C, D, E. and F - "No": The project site is within
the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum identified impacts related to the
proposed development and the resultant negative effects to
transportation/circulation, including: the effects on existing
parking facilities, or demand for new parking; substantial
impact upon existing transportation systems; alterations to
present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or
goods; alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic; and
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 14
increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians. 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
impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program
EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum and recommended for implementation.
This proposal has incorporated those measures related to
transportation/ 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, it's supplements and addendum
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. Furthermore,
adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions
of the East Tustin Specific Plan will ensure that the
development of the subject project complies with mitigation
measures specified in the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements
and addendum.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Items A, B, C, D, E, and F, - "Yes": 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, however, impacts to public services were
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 15
originally considered as part of EIR 85-2, its supplements and
addendum. The project will not, however, worsen impacts
previously identified in the Program EIR as the impacts
identified by the program EIR anticipated that the site would
be designated as Medium Density by the land use plan, allowing
up to 18 dwelling units per acre, resulting in a maximum of
190 units. The proposed project would provide 69 single
family residences with a density of 6.5 units per acre.
The subject~site is within the Specific Plan area for which
the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
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,
it's supplements and addendum and recommended for
implementation. 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, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitigation/Monitorinq' Required: Measures identified in
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum, 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, it's supplements and addendum, as applicable have
been incorporated into the project as submitted or will be
incorporated as conditions of approval.
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 16
15. ENERGY
Items A and B - "Yes": The ETSP will increase the demand for
and consumption of energy. The project site is within the
Specific Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum identified impacts to the project
site related to the proposed development and the resultant
negative effects to energy. However, the project will not
worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR as the
impacts identified by. the Program EIR anticipated that the
site would be designated as Medium Density by the land use
~lan, allowing up to 18 dwelling units per acre, resulting in
a maximum of 190 units. The proposed project would provide 69
single family residences With a density of 6.5 units per acre.
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, it's supplements and addendum and
recommended for' implementation. 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, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures
identified in certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum, 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 been incorporated into the project as
submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of approval.
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 17
16. UTILITIES
Items A through F - "Yes": The ETSP will increase the demand
for utilities. However, the project will not worsen impacts
previously identified in the Program EIR. The subject site is
within the Specific Plan area for which the certified EIR 85-
2, it's supplements and addendum identified impacts to the
project site related to the proposed development and the
resultant negative effects to utilities. The project will
not, however, worsen impacts identified by the Program EIR as
the impacts identified by the Program EIR anticipated that the
site would be designated as Medium Density by the lard use
plan, allowing up to 18 dwelling units per acre, resulting in
a maximum of 190 units. The proposed project would provide 69
single family residences with a density of 6.5 units per acre.
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. Mitigation
measures were identified in EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum and recommended for implementation where feasible.
This proposal has incorporated those measures related to
utilities 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, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures
identified in certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum, require that water conservation methods as required
by state law, energy conservation standards and building
construction techniques as set forth in Title 24 of the
California Administrative Code, energy conservation
techniques, insulation of walls, ceiling and floors, and that
energy efficient lighting beimplemented to mitigate potential
effects on utilities. These mitigation measures have been
incorporated into the project as submitted or will be
incorporated as conditions of approval.
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 18
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Items A and B - "No": The project site is within the Specific
Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum 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, it's supplements and addendum and
recommended for implementation. This proposal has
incorporated those measures related to human health into
either the submitted plans or will be included in the
conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject
project. No additional impacts would occur beyond those
identified in the Program EIR.
.Sources: Field Verification.
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Those measures identified in
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum, related to
human health such as; adherence to and compliance with the
guidelines and provisions of the ETSP, which address building
height, building setbacks, open space requirements, parking
requirements, and other site development standards; adherence
to the Uniform Building Code and all applicable city, state
and federal codes as applicable; and compliance with the City
of Tustin Noise Ordinance have been incorporated into the
project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of
approval.
18. SOLID WASTE
"No": The development site is within the Specific Plan area
for which the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and
addendum identified impacts to the project site related to the
proposed development and the resultant negative effects of
solid waste. This proposal has incorporated those measures
related to solid waste into either the submitted plans or will
be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable,
for the subject project. Pursuant to the City of Tustin
Municipal Code, the subject project will be required to
contract for trash removal services with the City's contracted
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 19
hauler. The solid waste product is transported by the hauler
to the Material Recovery Facility (MRF). Once at the MRF, the
waste is manually and mechanically separated and the
recyclable materials are recovered. This program has been
implemented by the City in effort to meet the State
requirements identified in the Source Reduction and Recycling
Element related to the 25 and 50 percent diversion
requirements.
It is anticipated that the amount of solid waste wilI be
accommodated within the City's existing solid waste handling
programs and will not have a significant .impact on the City's
Solid Waste Handling services. The City's existing solid waste
handling program and contracts have been established to
accommodate the development and expansion of new businesses
and residential developments within the City. No additional
impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program
EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
SubmittedPlans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
.East Tustin Specific Plan
Great Western Reclamation Inc.
Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Those measures identified in
certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum, related to
the removal of solid waste, have been incorporated into the
project as submitted or will be incorporated as conditions of
approval. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum related to solid waste will be
conditioned with this project and will also be implemented at
the time subsequent specific development plans are considered.
These mitigation measures would include the future to contract
for a fee with the City' contracted solid waste hauler.
19. AESTHETICS
"No"' The proposed 69 single family dwelling development
would consist of 2 story residences with red S-tile roofs,
stucco siding in light beige tones with details such a boxed
soffits, shutters and pot shelves. Design Review of the
project has been completed by the Community Development
Department, and has been recommended for approval. The
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 20
20.
project is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR
85-2, it's supplements and addendum 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, it's supplements and addendum and
recommended for implementation. 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 occur beyond those identified in the
Program EIR.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Those measures identified in
certified EIR 85-2, it~'s supplements and addendum which relate
to this development such as. those stating that grading reflect
the natural topography of the site, and architectural and site
design reflect the Urban Design Guidelines section of the ETSP
have been incorporated into the project.
RECREATION
"No": The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and
the certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed
development and the resultant negative effects to recreation.
Parkland dedication of .7083 acres has been provided by the
site to adequately provide parkland as 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.
Sources:
Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements an~ addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan
Exhibit A - Initial Study
VTTM 14168, DR 93-030
February 16, 1994
Page 21
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: There are no mitigation
measures required for this project.
21. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items A through D - "No": The subject site is within the
Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2, it's
supplements and addendum 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.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Certified EIR 85-2, it's supplements and addendum
East Tustin Specific Plan.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required:
measures required for this project.
22. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
There are no mitigation
Items A, B, C and D - "No": The project in and of itself will
not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat nor achieve any
short-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, it's
supplements and addendum, addressed all of these concerns and
this project is fully within the scope of that discussion.
Source: Submitted plans
As previously stated
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As previously stated.
PART IV - DETERMINATION
EXHIBIT B
INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES
FOR LOT 28 OF TRACT 12870
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 14168
DESIGN REVIEW 93-030, CALIFORNIA PACIFIC HOMES
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project HAS utilized all feasible
mitigation measures as identified in Final Environmental Impact
Report 85-2 certified on March 17, 1986, and subsequently adopted
supplements and addenda. The program EIR 85-2, it's supplements
and addendum for the East Tustin Specific Plan is adequate to serve
as the program EIR as significant impacts were identified and
corresponding mitigation measures were recommended to be
incorporated into the approval process for individual projects.
Therefore, no additional documentation is required.
BS: br :vtm14168.env
10
11
12
13
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~8
RESOLUTION NO. 94-47
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 VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 14168, AND ALL FEASIBLE 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:
A·
That Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 and
respective development plans are considered
"projects" pursuant to the terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
Be
That the projects are covered by a previously
certified Final Environmental Impact Report 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 andaddenda,
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
feasible 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. 3241 recommending to the City Council approval of
Vesting Tentative Tract 14168.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 94-47
Page 2 ·
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin,
at a regular meeting on the 2nd day of May, 1994.
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
~Mayor
Mary E. Wynn,
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 94-47
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify
that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing
Resolution No. 94-47 was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on the'2nd day of May, 1994.
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER:ABSENT:
MARY E. WYNN
City Clerk
10
11
12
13
14
~5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
RESOLUTION NO. 94-48
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 14168
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
ae
That Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14168 was
submitted to the City Council by California
Pacific Homes for consideration;
Bo
Ce
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed
and held for said map on March 28, 1994 by the
Planning Commission and on May 2, 1994 by the
City Council;
That an Environmental Impact Report (EIR 85-2
for the East Tustin Specific Plan) has been
certified in conformance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act
for the subject project area;
Do
That the proposed subdivision is in
conformance with the TustinArea General Plan,
adopted East Tustin Specific Plan, Development
Agreement and Subdivision Map Act as it
pertains to the development of single family
detached dwellings;
E.. The .7038 acres of parkland required for this
development was previously dedicated with
recordation of Tract 12870;
Fe
That the City has reviewed the status of the
School Facilities Agreements between the
Irvine Company and the Tustin Unified School
District. The East Tustin Specific Plan, EIR
85-2 with subsequently adopted supplements and
addenda, the impact of Vesting Tentative Tract
14168 on School District facilities, and
reviewed changes in State law, and finds and
determines that the impacts on School District
facilities by approval of this map are
adequately addressed;
Ge
That the site is physically suitable for the
type of development proposed;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 94-48
Page 2
He
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 improvement proposed are not likely
to cause serious public health problems.
II. The City Council hereby approves Vesting Tentative
Tract Map 14168, subject to the conditions
contained in Exhibit A of Planning Commission
Resolution No~ 3241, incorporated herein by
reference.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
City Council, held on the 2nd day of May, 1994.
THOMAS R. SALTARELLI
Mayor
MARY E. WYNN
City Clerk