Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3752 RESOLUTION NO. 3752 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TIERED 4 INITIAL STUDY FOR DESIGN REVIEW 00-031 AND ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN 5 INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA s ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. ? s The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 9 I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ]0 A. That Design Review 00-031 is considered a. "project" pursuant to n the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and ~2 B. A Tiered Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared ~3 for this project and distributed for public revie~v. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the construction of 51 home ~4 sites and incorporated, by reference, the environmental analysis included in EIR 85~2 for the ETSP (certified on March 17, 1986) and subsequently amended by Addendum 7. C. Whereas, the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has ~? considered' evidence presented by the Community Development is Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. D. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Final 20 Negative Declaration and determined that with incorporation of the 21 mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. 22 23 If. A Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A (attached Negative Declaration), has been completed in compliance with CEQA and 24 state guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered · the information contained in the Negative Declaration pdor to approval of 25 the proposed project, and found that it adequately discusses the 26 environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received dudng the public headng process, the 27 Planning Commission finds that although the proposed project could have 2s impacts, there will not be a significant effect because mitigation measures identified in the Final Negative Declaration have been incorporated into 29 the project which mitigate any potential significant effects to a point where cleady no significant effect would occur. The mitigation measures are Resolution No. 3752 Page 2 1 identified in Exhibit-A and are recommended as conditions of approval in Resolution No. 3752. 3 in addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on 5 wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Games Code. ? PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held g on the 9th day of October, 2000. ]0 /S'¢Ir:I~Cj~N V. KOZAK 12 Chairperson 14 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK ~5 Planning Commission Secretary 16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~s COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) ]9 20 I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, CalifomiaLthat Resolution No. 3752 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 9th day of October, 2000. 23 24 26 ELIZABETH A. BINSACK 27 Planning Commission Secretary 28 29 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Tract 14396, Phase II Tustin Ranch Estates Development Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: 714/573-3126 Project Location: Sector 4 of East Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Thom Olson Standard Pacific Homes of Orange County 15326 Alton Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 General Plan Designation: Planned Community Residential Zoning Designation: Planned Community Residential East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) Project Description: Construction of fifty one (51) single family residences Surrounding Uses: North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential Other public agencies whose approval is required: Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other City of Irvine City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FA(. i'ORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. Land Use and Planning OPopulation and Housing Geological Problems Water Air Quality Transportation & Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Hazards ONoise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers Minoo Ashabi Title Associate Planner Date September 19, 2000 Elizabeth A. Binsac ,Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Directions 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VL GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ mess Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® o ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not. support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) .Result in inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ATTACHMENT A TIERED INITIAL STUDY DESIGN REVIEW 00-031 (STANDARD PACIFIC) BACKGROUND The applicant, Standard Pacific, is requesting approval to construct 51 single family detached residential units on lots that were previously subdivided under Tentative Tract Map 14396, Hillside Review 96-002, and Design Review 96-054. The proposed development is located within Sector 4 of the ETSP (Lots 17-67 of Tract 14396) to the west of.Pioneer Road north of Pioneer Way. The subject site is bordered by existing single-family homes on the north, south, east and the Orange County jurisdiction on the west. The subdivision of this property is governed by the regulations included in the ETSP, as amended. The East Tustin Land Use Plan and Sector Level subdivision (Tract 13627) designates the project site as Estate Density Residential (E), which authorizes single-family development at a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed density is 1.67 units per acre. On August 17, 1998, Addendum 7 of EIR 85-2 was approved for the subdivision and site development of the property. This document is a tiered initial study for residential pad development of the site. Rough grading of the project is currently in progress. The tiered initial study is evaluating the construction of 51 home sites and incorporates, by reference, the environmental analysis included in EIR 85-2 for the ETSP (certified on March 17, 1986) and subsequently amended by Addendum 7. 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 or Addendum 7. EIR 85-2 identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City for the entire ETSP area. For the purpose of this initial study check list, an evaluation has been made to ensure that impacts previously identified have not been intensified. Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to minimize the impacts that would be applicable to this project have been identified. EIR 85-2 also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. Each of these impact categories were analyzed to ensure that no new project impacts associated with the project would occur that were not identified in the Program EIR. Impact categories not identified to have a potential impact in EIR 85-2 have been reviewed and identified in the initial study check list appropriately to ensure that the project would not create any additional significant impacts which were not considered by EIR 85-2 or Addendum 7 and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. I. AESTHETICS Items a-d "Potentiall~Signifcant Unless Mitigated": The project would create 51 single-family detached dwellings at a density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre. Four different floor plans are proposed which range in size from 3,283 square feet to 4,950 square feet. Three different elevations are proposed for each floor plan type which include architectural features, detailing, colors and materials consistent with the Tustin Ranch theme. In conjunction with the approval for Tentative Tract Map 14396, Hillside Review 96-002, and Design Review 96-054, the impact to existing eucalyptus trees and coastal sage scrub was addressed. The property is enrolled in the State of California Resources Agency Natural Community Coastal Plan (NCCP), however the site lies outside the reserved area. A Eucalyptus Preservation Plan is being implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Reforestation Plan prepared by the Urban Forestry Consultants dated December 1990 and updated July 1996. With construction of Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 2 Phase I of Tract 14396 (Tract 15563), reforestation has been implemented either by incorporation within the open space areas or home pads. The applicant is proposing to retain natural areas within the development. Mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential adverse aesthetics impacts associated with of the natural open space areas to adjacent properties and public rights-of--way. Mitigation/MonitoringRequired.• I) Prior to issuance of building permits, a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval which demonstrates enhanced "natural landscaping areas" with additional trees and shrubs to minimize the weedy appearance of natural vegetation in the areas visible from Peters Canyon Road and Pioneer Road and residential areas within the County of Orange. In addition, revegetation of landscaping materials shall be provided on graded and cut/fill areas where structures or improvements are not considered, with consideration given to the use of drought tolerant plan materials. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Items a - c - "No Impacts": The site is currently vacant and undeveloped; development will not convert farmland, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or cause changes to the environment resulting conversion of farmland tonon-agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY Item a, b, and c -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated ": EIR 85-2 identified impacts that will result in an incremental degradation of air quality in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The project has been reviewed and will not worsen previously identified impacts on air quality other than those previously identified in the Program EIR 85-2 or Addendum 7. However, Program EIR 85-2 and Addendum 7 required project level mitigation which is incorporated by reference and included below. Items dand e - "No Impacts": The development will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitoringRequfred: 1) Construction activity dust generation shall be reduced through regular watering as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 3 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a, b, d, a and f - "No Impacts ": The project site has been rough graded in accordance with the approvals for Tentative Tract Map 14396, Hillside Review 96-002, and Design Review 96-054. The site is within the ETSP area for which certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the ETSP area as a whole related to the resultant negative effects to plant and animal life. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to plant and animal life into either the submitted plans or will be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in the Program EIR or Addendum 7. The descriptions in the ETSP for Sectors 4 and 5 establish a policy to develop a Eucalyptus Grove Preservation Plan. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 2603 approving Tract 13627 was adopted in May of 1989 to require that a Eucalyptus Preservation Plan be prepared to identify where preservation is feasible and techniques for revegetation of the Eucalyptus grove. In December of 1990, Urban Forestry Consultants prepared such a report. This report was updated in 1996 to reflect the approved site development under Tentative Tract Map 14396, Hillside Review 96-002, and Design Review 96-054. Design Review 96-054 required the 20,000 trees contained within the project site to be either preserved or replaced at a one-to-one replacement ratio. This requirement has been implemented during Phase I and is still applicable to Phase II. No additional impacts to biological resources are associated with pad development on the site. The City of Tustin is a participant in the State of California Resources Agency's Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), which was adopted to protect and manage natural habitat supporting a broad range of plant and animal populations that are found within the region. Coastal sage scrub has been identified within the site on the hillside slopes. However, the property is not located within the Reserve System, as defined by the NCCP approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on July 16, 1996. Since the property is not located within the Reserve System, removal of coastal sage scrub from this property is authorized under a permit to The Irvine Company as a participating landowner in the NCCP Program. No additional impacts are associated with pad development of the site. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitoringRepuired: None Required V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a, b,c and d - "No Impact ": The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. This project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. EIR 85-2 and Addendum 7 for Tract 14396 identified impacts related to archaeological resources related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to cultural resources. Pad development for the project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR and Addendum 7 as this project is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 4 East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation/Monitaring: None Required V I. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items (a) iv, (b), (c) and (d) - "Potentiall~Signi~cant Unless Mitigated ": Grading the site and future pads was approved in conjunction with Hillside Review 96-002 and is currently in progress. The majority of the slopes are greater than 20 percent grade. Elevations in these hillside areas range from 200 feet at the lowest point to approximately 450 feet at the highest point, as referenced in EIR 85-2. The grading plan, approved in conjunction with Hillside Review 96-002, has been designed in accordance with the criteria and guidelines for the Hillside District established in Section 10.0 of the City's Grading Manual. Generally, these guidelines require the grading to blend with the natural topography, create undulating topography on man-made slopes and preserve the integrity and character of the natural environment. The roadways throughout the project conform to the existing topography and climb and descend with the slopes, varying in gradient thereby providing open slope area and complimentary building pad locations The builder has executed a slope warranty agreement with the City pursuant to the Grading Manual. This Agreement covers all man-made slopes equal to or greater than five feet in vertical height, with an average slope of at least 25 percent, and designates the developer and/or the future Homeowner's Association as solely responsible for making emergency repairs on any failed slopes that may occur during the first three years. After that, it would be the responsibility of the actual property owner to repair any failed slopes. Minor grading is required to accommodate building pads, street alignments and proper drainage. All grading will be consistent with the City's Grading Manual. The construction of residential structures on the previously approved and graded lots will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified to the site and topography in the Program EIR 85-2 and Addendum 7. The project site is within the ETSP area for which EIR 85-2 identified impacts related to the ETSP area as a whole related to the necessary grading activity that would occur to accommodate the various types of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography of the area. The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effect. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for the specific plan. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2 have been incorporated into the project or would be required as conditions of approval which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts to grading activity other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Item (a) i, ii, iii, and e - "No Impact": The proposed development will not expose people to potential seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code, Grading Manual EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a, b, d and e - "No Impact": EIR 85-2 identified no impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects from hazards. All grading and construction would be subject to compliance with all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 5 Item c - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated": Landscaping is proposed for the manufactured slopes consistent with the City's Grading Manual. The Orange County Fire Authority is requiring a fuel modification plan for the natural and landscaped areas to protect the future residents from wildfires. Primarily, the fuel modification plan would require thinning and removal of dead native plant materials (i.e. trees, shrubs and grasses). The fuel modification plan would also establish various planting zones within specified distances to the future residences, which would be planted and irrigated to provide a transition from the natural area to the future residence. EIR 85-2 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. This development has previously incorporated those measures related to human health into the project. No additional impacts would be created beyond those identified in the Program EIR or Addendum 7. Sources: Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan MitigationlMonitoringRequlred: 1) All construction shall comply with applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes 2) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide evidence of adequate fire flow. The Orange County Fire Authority Water Availability for Fire Protection form shall be signed by the applicable water district and submitted for approval to the Orange County Fire Authority. If sufficient water to meet fire flow requirements is not available, an automatic fire extinguishing system may be required in each structure affected by insufficient fire flow. 3) A) Prior to the issuance of any precise grading permit, the applicant shall obtain the approval of the Fire Chief, in consultation with the City staff of a precise fuel modification plan and program. The plan shall indicate the proposed means of achieving an acceptable level of risk to structures by vegetation. B) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall have completed, under the supervision of the Fire Chief, that portion of the approved fuel modification plan determined to be necessary by the Fire Chief before the introduction of any combustible materials into the project area. Approval shall be subject to on-site inspection. C) Prior to the issuance of any certificate of use and occupancy, the fuel modification shall be installed and completed under the supervision of the Fire Chief. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a degree meeting the approval of the Fire Chief. The CC&Rs, or other approved documents, shall contain provisions for maintaining the fuel modification zones including the removal of all dead and dying vegetation subject to triennial inspections. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a, b, c, d , e, f, g, h, I and i - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated": The project site is within the ETSP area for which the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to surface runoff, drainage flows, water quality and water percolation. Mitigation measures identified in certified EIR 85-2 including plans to accommodate increased runoff flows associated with the proposed development Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 6 by incorporating on-site and off-site drainage improvements, providing erosion control measures and developing appropriate pollution control plans were incorporated into the project as conditions of approval for Tentative Tract Map 14396, Hillside Review 96-002, and Design Review 96-054. The project has been reviewed and construction of residences and related structures does have the capacity to further erode surface water quality. Compliance with Regional Water Quality requirements are necessary to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitoringReguired: 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant run-off. This SWPPP shall identify the: structural and non-structural measures specified detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the developer, parcel owner, maintenance association, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the location(s) of structural BMPs. IX. LAND USE & PLANNING Items a, b - "No Impact": The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Community -Residential. The subject property is zoned Planned Community Residential and is identified within the Estate Density Residential Land Use Designation of the ETSP Land Use Plan with a maximum density not to exceed two (2) dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is asingle-family detached product at a density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre consistent with the land use requirements. The proposed project would not alter existing or future land uses. The minimum lot size proposed is (0.41 acre) 17,860 square feet: The average lot size proposed is one half acre. The lot sizes exceed the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and the average lot size of 10,000 square feet in the Estate Density Residential District of the ETSP. The minimum lot width, which is measured at the building setback line of 20 feet, is approximately 100 feet which meets the minimum standard. ETSP requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet with an average width of 90 feet. The minimum lot width for flag lots is 20 feet. Items c - "PotentiallLSigni~cant Unless Mitigated ": EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects of residential land uses to ensure compatibility with existing land uses. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 85-2 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. With construction of the residential structures, measures are necessary to ensure compliance with the land use development standards of the East Tustin Specific Plan. EIR 85-2 identified that the development of the project site would result in the gradual conversion of existing open space and agricultural uses into urban use. The City Council considered the benefits of the Specific Plan and balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable effects. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for the Specific Plan. Since the subject property has been Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 7 identified for residential development, the project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitoringRequfred: 1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plan that demonstrates compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the ETSP, which address building height, building setbacks, parking requirements, and other site development standards. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a, b - "No Impact": The proposed development will not create additional impacts than those previously identified on energy conservation or mineral resources with respect to adopted energy conservation plans or loss of available known mineral resources. The project was previously approved as Tract Map 14369. This portion of the project is only applicable to pad development of the site. In the certified EIR 85-2 and amendments it was identified that implementation of this project and the ETSP as a whole will increase the demand for and consumption of energy. The project site is within the Specific Plan area for which certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to energy. However, the project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitoringRequired: None Required. XI. NOISE Item a ,b, and d "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated ": Development of the .site would result in short-term construction noise impacts, and along-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 and Tract 14369. Although the project has been reviewed and will not worsen impacts previously identified in the Program EIR or Addendum 7, adherence to the City's Noise Ordinance will be require during construction to reduce potential noise impacts to adjacent properties. The proposed development will not expose persons to severe noise levels. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 8 Mitigation/MonitoringRequired.• 1) All construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries of materials and equipment, shall be subject to the provisions of the Tustin Noise Ordinance and shall take place only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, unless otherwise determined by the Building Official. 2) Construction hours shall be clearly posted on the project site to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 3) All requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance shall be met at all times. Items c, e, and f - " No Impact": Potential noise impacts were originally considered as part of certified EIR 85-2 and Addendum 7 for Tract 14369. No additional impacts would be resulted from pad development of the sites. XII. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a, b, and c - "No Impact": The proposed project would provide 51 single-family detached dwelling units on the site at a density of 1.67 dwelling units per acre. The Estate Density designation would allow a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per acre. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR or Addendum 7. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitoringRequired: None Required. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a - e - "No Impact": Implementation of this project will result in an increase in the demand for and utilization of public services, such as fire protection, police protection, infrastructure maintenance and other governmental services, schools, parks and recreational facilities. Impacts to public services were originally considered as part of EIR 85-2 and Tract 14369. The project will not create additional impacts other than those previously identified in the Program EIR or Addendum 7. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonuoringRequired: None Required. XIV. RECREATION Items aand b - "No Imyact": The subject site is within the Specific Plan area and the certified EIR 85-2 identified impacts to the project site related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects to recreation. Parkland dedication of 1.3260 acres was previously dedicated as part of Tract 13627 to satisfy the parkland required by the ETSP. Furthermore, all parks identified by the Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 9 ETSP have been improved or dedicated to the City for the purpose of providing recreation in the ETSP. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR or Addendum 7. Sources: Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation/MonitoringRequired: None Required. XV. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Item a - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated": The proposed single-family residential project is within the density range permitted by the ETSP. The impacts from the project were previously addressed in certified EIR 85-2 and Addendum 7. The ETSP requires three enclosed garage spaces and two guest spaces per unit. Guest parking spaces are provided mostly on individual lots and in some cases on private street along the private roads of the site. The project will not include sidewalks. The request to not provide sidewalks is based upon the applicant's desire to provide a rural environment. An eight foot wide equestrian trail is proposed on the site would provide the opportunity for alternative access to pedestrian paseos through the development. The light standards would allow the applicant to establish a unique rural character for the area while still providing adequate lighting for safety. Items b-g - "No Impact ": EIR 85-2 identified impacts related to the proposed development and the resultant negative effects on traffic safety, emergency access, demand for new parking pedestrian circulation, and alternative modes of transportation. As all required parking would be provided on site, there would be no demand for additional parking. As the surrounding roads have been designed to accommodate peak traffic demands the proposed project would not have a substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, as discussed above, nor would it impact the present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. As the site plan is designed to the specifications of the ETSP, and the Tustin City Code, traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians would be mitigated. No additional impacts would occur beyond those identified in the Program EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in EIR 85-2. This proposal has incorporated those measures related to transportation and circulation into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitorinQRequired.• 1) On site guest parking shall be provided on each private lot at a rate of two spaces per unit. If guest parking is not provided on a private lot, the required number of guest parking spaces shall be located on a private street within a reasonable distance to the unit served. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 14396 & DR 00-031 Page 10 XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a-g - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated": The project will increase the demand for utilities. The project will not create additional impacts other than those identified in the Program EIR. 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 Consideration was adopted for the Specific Plan. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Orange County Sanitation District Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• I) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit plans demonstrating compliance with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Energy conservation techniques shall be considered, and insulation of walls, ceiling and floors be required, and that energy efficient lighting shall be used. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a-d - "No Impact": The project in and of itself will not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat, nor limit the achievement of any long-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. Program EIR 85-2 and Addendum 7 for Tract 14369 addressed all of these concerns and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/MonitoringRequired: None required. ma:Negative Dec\tract 14396-phase II