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