Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 01-056RESOLUTION NO. 01-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR CODE AMENDMENT 01-002 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Code Amendment 01-002 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. C. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin co.nsidered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration, and on May 14, 2001, recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. D. The City Council of the City of Tustin considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration, and determined that the Negative Declaration is adequate and complete. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. Further, the City Council finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively,, on wildlife resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact finding related to the California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4. Resolution No. 01-56 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21 st day of May, 2001. PAMELA STOKER City Clerk Tracy vyfl~s worley Mayor~' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CiTY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 01-56 PAMELA STOKER, 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. 01-56 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of May, 2001. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: WORLEY, THOMAS, BONE, DOYLE, KAWASHIMA NONE NONE NONE PAMELA STOKER City Clerk 29 Exhibit A- Resolution No. 01-56 Initial Study/Negative Declaration COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92 780' (714) 573-31'00 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title' Code Amendment 01-002 - Side and Rear Yard Setback Requirements Project Location: Citywide Project Description: An Amendment to Tustin City Code Section 9271 to allow residential structures listed in the City's Historic Resources Survey maintian the existing side yard and rear yard setbacks for a new addition if the'Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. Project Proponent: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Telephone: (714) 573-3174 The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds' That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect On the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a poim where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON May 21,2001. Date "<ff' ',.~¢'¢ / ¢"'"'~--~';7'~-?',~k"~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director INITIAL STUDY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way,. Tustin, CA 92780 .. (714) 5 73-31 O0 A~ BACKGROUND Project Title: Code Amendment 01-002 Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Project Location: Citywide Project Sponsor's Name and Address' City of Tustin Phone: 714/573'3126 General Plan Designation: Residential Land Use Designations Zoning Designation: Residential Zoning Districts Project Description: A Code Amendment to establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences listed on the City's Historic Survey that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. Surrounding Uses' North: N/A South: N/A East: N/A West: N/A Other public agencies whose approval is required: [3 Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management ' District Other [--] City of Irvine ['-1 City of Santa Ana ['-] Orange County EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. [~]Land Use and Planning [--]Population and Housing [~Geological Problems [--]Water ~-]Air Quality ~-]Transportation & Circulation [--]Biological Resources ['-]Energy and Mineral Resources [--]Hazards '['-']Noise [--]Public Services [-']Utilities and Service Systems [--~Aesthetics I-']Cultural Resources [--]Recreation [--]Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [-] I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached 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, bm 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 effeci on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potemially 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. Preparer: Minoo Ashabi Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Associate Planner Date May 1,2001 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Directions 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 flae 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 a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, .construction, and operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical .impact may occur, 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. "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). Earlier m~alyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been ad~.quately 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 ref'med from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 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. "' Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 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. 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 Williarnson 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 OUALITY' Where available, the significance criteria established b'y 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 p lan? 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? Potentially Significant Impact [3 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation · Less Than Significant 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 stares species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department offish 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? VI. 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: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant 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? VII. HAZARDS 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 creme 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 wi!dland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: -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 riwr, ha 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 ofi-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: a) Physically divide an established community? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation JLess Than Significant Impact 'No Impact 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 a locally-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 establis[~ed in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome 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? XII. POPuLATION 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant W~th Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? Potentially Significant. Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact [3 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 furore projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ATTACHMENT A. ~ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS' CODE AMENDMENT 01-002 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITION TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES BACKGROUND The purpose of this Code Amendment is to include a new setback requirement related to additions to historic residences. The minimum side and rear yard setback for single- family residential district is typically five (5) feet for interior lots and ten (10) feet for corner lots. Them are a number of historic structures that are not built according to the zoning standards. Currently, addition to these structures would need to maintain the minimum setback requirement of the applicable residential zoning.. This code amendment would allow historic homes that are located closer to the property line than the required setback to maintain the same building line for additions (not accessory structures) if the requirements of the Uniform Building Code can be met. There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a result of 'the adoption of this code amendment. Impacts of. potential future projects would be evaluated in conjunction with each future project. 1. AESTHETICS !'tems a.throu.qh d -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions.to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No physical improvements are currently.proposed in conjunction with the adoption of this code amendment. The proposed code amendment will have no effects on aesthetics in the area including scenic vistas or scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rocks outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The proposed code amendment will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the plan area or its surroundings. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific' project. Sources: Tustin Zoning Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monit0rin.q Required' None Required 2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a through c- "No Impact": The' proposed code amendment WoUld establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear yard setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amendment Ol-O02t - Initial Study Attachment A Page 2 of 7 , code amendment. The proposed code amendment will have no impacts on anY farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The code amendment will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural 'use. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: _ Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitorin.q Required' None Required AIR QUALITY Items a through e -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic' residences that were built with less than the required side or rear yard setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. As such, the code amendment will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts related to any future project would be evaluated when a specific Project is proposed. Sources' South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules and Regulations Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required' None Required . BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a through f-"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life .identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by. the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this code amendment. Impacts related to any future project would be evaluated when a specific.project is proposed. Sources: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required' None Required Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amendment Ol-O02t - Initial Study Attachment A Page 3 of 7 , . e CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a through d -"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. However, no physical improvements, are currently proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The code amendment will not adversely affect any historical resources or archaeological resources or destroy or disturb a unique paleontological resource, human remains, or geological feature. Impacts related to any future project would be ide.ntified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources. Cultural Resources District Tustin Zoning Code General Plan Miti.aation/Monitoring Required: None Required GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a ('1), a (ii), a ('iii), a (iv), b, c, d and e- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the .Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. The proposed code amendment will not expose people to potential adverse geologic impacts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, soil erosiOn, or loss of top soil, nor is the project on unstable or expansive soil. Impacts related to .any future project would be identified and · evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources' Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required' None Required HAZARD AND HAZARDOUS .MATERIALS Items a through h- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain · the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. The proposed code amendment will not result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans, wildland fires, etc.), nor is the project area located within an airport land use plan Or vicinity of a private airstrip. Impacts related to any future project would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. ' Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amendment Ol-O02t- Initial Study Attachment A Page 4 of 7 . . Sources' Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Agency Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitorin.a Required' None Required HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a through j-"No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum, side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district; however, no physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The code amendment will not result i'n any change in the amount or direction of surface or groundwaters. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific.project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Miti.qation/Monitoring Required' None Required LAND USE AND PLANNING · Items a throu.ah c- "Less than Significant Unless Mitigated": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. Any proposed addition would require review and approval of a design review request. Impacts in relation to each specific project would be considered'with design review, and appropriate .mitigatiOn measures would be incorporated as conditions of approval. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not physically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. The proposed amendment would provide for establishment of'setbacks for historic residences listed in the City's Historic Resources survey through a case-by-case design review process. Land use impacts would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project and potential impacts would be. mitigated with conditions of approval in conjunction with approval of a specific project. Sources' Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code Alcoholic Beverage Establishment Guidelines Mitigation/Monitoring Reauired' None Required Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amendment Ol-O02t - Initial Study Attachment A Page 5 of 7 10. 11. 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setback of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in loss of a known mineral resource or availability of a locally important mineral, resource recovery site delineated on the general plan or other applicable land use maps. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources' Tustin General Plan Miti.qation/Monitoring Required' None Required NOISE Items a through f- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in' conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan, noise code amendment, or excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase 'in the existing ambient noise levels. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required' None Required POPULATION AND HOUSING Items a, b, .and c- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum' side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic · residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. As such no impact associated with the increase in population and housing is anticipated. Sources: Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitorin.q Required' None Required Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amendment Ol-O02t - Initial Study Attachment A Page 6 of 7 13. 14. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES · Item a-" No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not create demand for alteration or addition of government facilities or services (fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc.). Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Miti.qation/Monitoring Required' None Required RECREATION Items a and b - "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic .residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in Conjunction with the code amendment. The code amendment would not increase demand for neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evalUated in conjunction with a' specific project. Sources' Tustin General Plan Mitigati0n/Monitorin.cl Reauired' None Required TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a through g- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard 'setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. No alteration in the traffic generation and · circulation patterns within the project area would be affected by the proposed code amendment. The proposed code amendment will not result in changes to air traffic' patterns, emergency access; level of service standards, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan Side and Rear Yard Setback - Code Amendment Ol-O02t - Initial Study Attachment ,,t Page 7 of 7 Mitigation/Monitorin~ Required' None Required 16. UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a through g - "No Impact":. The proposed code amendment would establish minimum side and rear yard setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were not built according' to the applicable side or rear yard setback of the zoning district. No physical improvement is proposed in conjunction with the code amendment. The adoption of the code amendment will have no impacts to water treatment, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. Impacts related to any future project would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources' Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a through c- "No Impact": The proposed code amendment would 'establish setback requirements for additions to historic residences that were built with less than the required side or rear setbaCk of the applicable zoning district to maintain the same setback if the Uniform Building Code requirements can be met. There would be no physical improvement or changes in the environment as a result of the adoption of this code amendment. Impacts of potential future projects would be evaluated in conjunction with each future project. The code amendment does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short- term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, nor produce significant negative indirect or direct effects on humans. S:\CDD\Neg dec\ neg dec-CA 01-002attachment A.doc