Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3781l0 ]4 15 18 20 24 ?-6 RESOLUTION NO. 3781 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15993, AND ADOPTING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW 00-046, HILLSIDE REVIEW 00-001, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 01-001 AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: Ao That Tentative Tract Map 15993, DeSign Review 00-046, Hillside Review 00-001, and Administrative Adjustment 01-001 are considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and distributed for public review. The Initial Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the proposed project. C,' D. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Final Negative Declaration and determined that, with incorporation of the mitigation measures, the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. II. A Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A (attached Negative Declaration), has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to adopting for Design Review 00-046, Hillside Review '00-001 and Administrative Adjustment 01-00, and recommending approval of the Tentative Tract Map 15993, and found that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public hearing process, the Planning Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect as a result of the project. l0 13 ]4 l? 2O 21 23 24 Resolution No. 3781 Page 2 In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no potential for any adverSe effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Games Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the' Tustin Commission, held on the 14th day of May, 2001. Planning ESLIE A. PONTIOUS Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3781 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of May, 2001. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (7 ~ 4) ~ 7~-~ ~ oo NEGAT VE DECLARATION Project Title' Tentative Tract Map 15993, Design Review 00-046, Hill Side Review 00-001, and Administrative Adjustment 01-001 Project Location' Citywide Project Description' A request for development of twenty-two (22) estate-density residential units and architectural design of three models for Phase III of Tustin Ranch Estates and Administrative Adjustment 01- 001 for an increase in the permitted height of entry walls and pilasters to a maximum height of nine (9) feet. 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 point where clearly no significant effects woul'd 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 14, 2001. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92 780 (714) $73-3100 INITIAL STUDY ho BACKGROUND Project Title: Tract 15993, Phase III 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 twenty-two (22) single family residences Surrounding Uses' North: Residential and Peters Canyon Regional Park South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential Other public agencies whose approval is required' [-] Orange County Fire Authority [~ City of Irvine [--] Orange County Health Care Agency ~ City of Santa Ana ~ South Coast Air Quality Management [--] Orange County District EMA Other 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 [--]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 environmem, 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 "Potemially 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 envir°nmem, 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. Preparer: Minoo Ashabi (- . Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Title Associate Planner Date Aoril, 25, 2001 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 rapture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project wilt not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-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 '..nay 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 1'5063 (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. 6) 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. 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? 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 [3 [3 E] 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 sewe~ s 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 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incort~oration 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 wildland 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 river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion nr 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 nmoff 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 [3 O. [3 Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less 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 woul.d 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 established 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 groundbome 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 With Mitigation Incorporation [3 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 [2] Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant 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 fi~om 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? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ATTACHMENT A TIERED INITIAL STUDY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15993, DESIGN REVIEW 00-46, HILLSIDE REVIEW 00-001, ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT 01-001 (STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES) BACKGROUND The applicant, Standard Pacific Homes, is requesting approval to construct twenty-two (22) single family detached residential units on an 18.95-acre site that was previously approved for subdivision of sixteen (16) units and an equestrian center (Tentative Tract Map 14396). In accordance with the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) Estate Residential development, a maximum of thirty-seven (37) units may be constructed on this site based on a two (2) units per acre ratio. The applicant has revised the original Tentative Tract Map 14396 to eliminate the equestrian center and include six (6) additional residential units. The request also includes an increase in the height of pilasters at the entrance to the site. The proposed development is located within Sector 4 of the ETSP to the west of Peters Canyon Road. The site is bordered by Peters Canyon Regional Park to the north, existing single-family homes on the east and south, and single-family homes within the County of Orange jurisdiction on the west. Rough grading, erosion control, and tree clearing of the site have been started in accordance with the approved Tentative Tract Map 14396. 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) designate 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 1.162 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. The tiered initial study is evaluating the construction of twenty-two (22) 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 was 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 "Potentiallv Significant Unless Miti~,ated": The project consists of the development of twenty-two (22) single-family detached dwellings at a density of 1.162 dwelling units per acre. Three different floor plans are proposed which range in size from 4,430 square feet to 5,007 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. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 2 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 and April 2001. With construction of Phase I of Tract 14396 (Tract 15563) and Phase II (Tract 16184), reforestation has been implemented either by incorporation within the open. space areas or home pads. The reforestation associated with this phase would be included in the open space common areas. There are approximately 4,517 eucalyptus trees preserved within Tract 15993, and 1,500 additional trees (i.e., California Pepper tree, and Sycamore trees) would be planted with this phase of the project. The applicant is proposing tO retain natural areas within the development. Mitigation measures are necessary to reduce potential adverse aesthetics impacts associated with the natural open space areas to adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. Mitiltation/Monitorin~ R ea uired: 1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan for review and approval by the Community Development Department, with enhanced "natural landscaping areas" including additional trees and shrubs to minimize the weedy appearance of natural vegetation in the areas visible from Peters Canyon Road. 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 plant materials. 2) A note shall be placed on the grading plan stating that all terrace drains and down drains shall be tinted with a permanent earthtone pigment prior to pouring. 3) Consistent with the Tree Preservation Survey Plan prepared by Integrated Urban Forestry, Inc., dated April 2001, a total of 4,517 eucalyptus trees shall be preserved within Tract 15593, consistent with Tentative Tract Map 14396. In addition, a minimum of 1,500 additional trees (Sycamore and Califomia Pepper trees) shall be planted within Tract 15993 to enhance the open space areas. A final certification of the number of trees preserved and installed within Tracts 15563, 16184, and 15993 shall be submitted upon completion of the project prior to final inspection of the landscaped areas of Tentative Tract 15993. If less than 20,000 trees are identified, the applicant shall install additional trees in Tract 15993 to equal 20,000 trees as required for Master Tract 14396 containing Tracts 15563, 16184, and 15993. 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 in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 3 III. AIR QUALITY Item a, b, and c- Potentially Siznificant Unless Mt'ti~ated": EIR 85-2 identified impacts that will result in an incremental degradation of air quality in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable furore 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 d and e - "No Imlmcts": 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/Monitoring Re: uired' 1) Construction activity dust generation shall be reduced through regular watering as required by SCAQMD Rule 403. The applicant shall comply with all City policies regarding short- term construction emissions, including periodic watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour that will be monitored by the Building Division when construction commences. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a, b, d, e and f- "Potentially Siznificant Unless Mitigated": A rough grading and erosion control permit has been issued for the project site 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. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2603 approving Tract 13627 was adopted in May '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 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 Phase II and applicable to this phase of the project. 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 Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 4 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. The mitigation measures are included to alleviate the impacts associated with development and removal of the native eucalyptus trees for development. Sow'c¢s : Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Rettuired: 1) Consistent with the Tree Preservation Survey Plan prepared by Integrated Urban Forestry, Inc., dated April 2001, a total of 4,517 eucalyptus trees shall be preserved within Tract 15593, consistent with Tentative Tract Map 14396. In addition, a minimum of 1,500 additional trees (Sycamore and California Pepper trees) shall be planted within Tract 15993 to enhance the open space areas. A final certification of the number of trees preserved and installed within Tracts 15563, 16184, and 15993 shall be submitted upon completion of the project prior to final inspection of the landscaped areas of Tentative Tract 15993. If less than 20,000 trees are identified, the applicant shall install additional trees in Tract 15993 to equal 20,000 trees as required for Master Tract 14396 containing Tracts 15563, 16184, and 15993. 2) All conditions of approval related to mitigation measures identified in the Tree Survey and Analysis, for Sector 4 and 5 of East Tustin Specific Plan, prepared by Integrated Urban Forestry, December 1990 and updated July 1997, shall be implemented and incorporated in the landscaping plans. The reforestation plan for the entire site (previously approved as Master Tract 14396 and subsequently divided into three phases of Tract 15563, 16184, and 15993 shall contain a minimum of 20,000 trees to replace the previously existing 20,000 trees on the site. Item c.- "No ImJact": The project is located on a site with no wetlands and no close proximity to any body of water. As such, the development would not affect 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. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Item a, b,c and d- "No Inmact": 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 Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 5 Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation/Monitoring: None Required VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items (a) iv, (b), (c) and (d) - "Potentially Si~ni~qcant Unless Mitigated": The site contains moderate natural slopes that vary from 10 to 27 percent; however, most of the sloped areas would be preserved. The site would be graded so that the home sites are relatively flat and pad elevations vary from approximately 330 feet at the lowest home pad to approximate 350 feet at the highest home pad. The hillside areas range from approximately 310 feet at the lowest point to approximately 385 feet at the highest point. The tentative tract plan, 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 ascend and descend with the slopes, varying in gradient thereby providing open slope area and complimentary building pad locations The builder would be required to execute a slope warranty agreement with the City pursuant to the Grading Manual. This Agreement would cover all manufactured 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 Homeowners' 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 proposed residential structures 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. Mitigation/Monitoring: 1) Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed soils engineering report shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official conforming to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, City grading requirements, and all other applicable state and local laws, regulations, and requirements. 2) The applicant shall submit a grading plan subject to approval by the Department of Community Development delineating the following information: Methods of drainage in accordance with all applicable City standards. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 6 , A drainage plan and necessary support documents, calculations, to comply with the following requirements' such as hydrology Elimination of any sheet flow and ponding. bo Provision of drainage facilities to protect the lots from any high velocity scouring action. 3) 4) The grading plan should include the final pad/finished floor elevations and key elevation for all site grading. All pad elevations to be a minimum of 1.0 foot above base flood elevation as defined by FEMA. A note shall be placed on the plans that a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist, as appropriate, shall be present during rough grading operations. If resources shall be excavated or preserved as deemed appropriate or as recommended by the paleontologist/ archaeologist subject to review and approval by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. All "finds" shall be reported immediately to the Department of Community Development. The paleontologist/archaeologist shall attend the pregrade construction meeting to ensure that this condition and necessary procedures in the event of a'"find" are explained. 5) The applicant shall prepare a sedimentation and erosion control plan for all construction work related to the subject tract including a method of control to prevent dust and windblown earth problems. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 6) Grading of the hillside areas shall be consistent with the East Tustin Specific Plan Hillside District, Tustin Grading Ordinance and Grading Manual. 7) Cut and fill slopes in excess of 200 feet in length should have curvilinear configurations consistent with recommendations of the soils engineer and engineering geologist. The bank and/or top of slope shall be curved in a convex or concave manner to provide a variety of slope ratios. s) A variety of slope ratios and horizontal radii shall be used to blend manufactured slopes into the adjoining natural terrain to provide adequate transition and to avoid abrupt changes between manufactured and natural slope banks. At intersections of manufactured and natural slopes, a gradual transition or rounding of contours with a minimum radius compatible with the existing natural terrain shall be provided. 9) Prior to issuance of a rough grading permit on the site, the subdivider shall execute and implement a Slope Repair Agreement as required by the City's Grading Manual for new proposed slopes and slopes currently covered under the Slope Repair Agreement for Tract 13627 subject to review and approval of the City Attorney and Community Development Department. Item (a) i, ii, iii, and e- "No Imt~act": The proposed development will not expose people to potential seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard. Sources' Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code, Grading Manual Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 7 EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a, b, d, e, fand ~- "No Im Jact": 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. Items c and h - "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 £umre residences, which would be planted and irrigated to provide a transition from the natural area to the furore 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. SouFces : Submitted Plans Uniform Building and Fire Codes Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Orange County Fire Authority _Miti~atio~onitorin~ Ret uired: 1) All constmction shall comply with the 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 Orange County Fire Authority, 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 Orange County Fire Authority, that portion of the approved fuel modification plan determined to be necessary by the Orange County Fire Authority 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 Orange County Fire Authority. Further, the installed fuel modification plant pallet shall be established to a Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-00 I, AA 00-001 Page 8 degree meeting the approval of the Orange County Fire Authority. 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, or more often if deemed necessary. Vlll. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a, b, d, e, f, t~, h, I and i - "No Imt~act": 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. No additional impacts are anticipated. Mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR 85-2 including plans to accommodate increased runoff flows associated with the proposed development by incorporating on-site and off-site drainage improvements, providing erosion control measures and developing appropriate pollution control plans would be incorporated into the project as conditions of approval. The project has been reviewed and construction of residences and related structures may have the capacity to further erode surface water quality. Compliance with Regional Water Quality requirements and Best Management Practices 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 Item c -"Potentiallv Si~nitffcant Unless Mitigated": The proposed project will alter the drainage pattern of the site. The open space and landscaped areas would contain a majority of the sloped areas. Terrace V-ditches would be installed throughout the site to direct the drainage away. from the home sites and into extension of a private storm drain system previously installed for phase II of the project and connected to the public system at Peters Canyon Road. The sloped areas would be treated by native hydro-seed ground cover to minimize erosion and mn-off into the storm drain. Mitieation/Monitorinll Required: 1) Prior to the recordation 'of the final map, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Community Development and Public Works Departments a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that identifies the application and incorporation of those routine structural and non-structural BMPs and detailing implementation of BMPs not dependent on specific land uses. 2) Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant shall post with the Community Development Department a minimum $2,500 cash deposit or letter of credit to guarantee the sweeping of streets and clean-up of streets affected by construction activities. In the event this deposit is depleted prior to completion of development, an additional incremental deposit will be required. 3) All sloped areas should be planted and treated for erosion control in form of revegetation mats or hyroseed to minimize erosion and control run-off in accordance with the City's Grading Manual and subject to approval of the Community Development Department. Erosion Control measures shall be in place on all slopes steeper than 4:1 prior to planting as recommended by a soils engineer and landscape architect and approved by the Community Development Department. Plants selected and planting methods shall be Attachment A " Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 9 suitable for soil and climatic conditions and validated by a landscape architect and soils engineer. 4) 5) Slopes required to be planted shall have a system of irrigation designed to cover all portions of slope after rough grading. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Source (NPDES) Statewide Permit for General Construction Activities from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained shall be submitted to the Building Official. LAND USE & PLANNING Items a, b - "No Imt~act": 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 a single-family detached product at a density of 1.162 dwelling units per acre consistent with the land use requirements that would allow up to two (2) units per acre. The proposed project would not alter existing or furore land uses. The average lot size varies from (0.23 acre) 10,018 square feet to (0.28 acres) 12,196 square feet. 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 80 feet, which meets the minimum standard. ETSP requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet with an average width of 90 feet. Items c- "Potentiallv Significant Unless Mitieated": 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 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/3Ionitoring Required: 1) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a 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. Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 10 X. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a, b - "No Im'~act": 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 for development of sixteen (16) residential units. The perimeter of the project has not been significantly revised. 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 Miti~, ation/Monitorin~ Retluired: None Required. XI. NOISE Item a ,b, and d "Potentially Si~nil~cant Unless Miti~,ated": Development of the site would result in short-term construction noise impacts, and a long-term increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site. These impacts were originally considered as part of certified EIR 85-2 and Tract 14369. Although t. he 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 required 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 Mitillation/Monitoring Reauired: 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 £- "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 result from pad development of the sites. Attachment A' Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 11 XIH. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a, b, and c- "No Imlmct": The proposed project would provide twenty-two (22) single- family detached dwelling units on the site at a density of 1.162 dwelling units per acre. The Estate Density designation would allow a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per acre or a maximum of thirty-seven (3 7) units. 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/Monitorin~ Reauire& None Required. 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. The site may be approved for up to thirty-seven (37) units at a density of two (2) units per acre. Impacts to public services were originally considered as part of EIR 85-2 and Tract 14369 for development of sixteen (16) units on this site. There are six (6) additional units with the proposal which is not significant to 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 Miti~,ation/Monitorine Required: None Required. RECREATION Item a- "No Imt~act": 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. There are twenty-two (22) residential units proposed with this project. The project will not significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Sources: Submitted Plans Addendum #7 of EIR 85-2 Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan. Item b - "Potentially Significant Unless Mitillated" : Section 2.8 of the East Tustin Specific Plan refers to the City's Park Ordinance (Ordinance No. 921) for park dedication that specifies for each 1,000 persons, three (3) acres of parkland shall be dedicated. The number of persons per unit in the Estate residential density is determined at 4.2 Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 12 persons per unit; therefore, for the entire Tustin Ranch Estates project that is proposed to contain 119 units, 1.5 acres of Parkland dedication would be required. The Initial Study and Addendum #7 to Final EIR 85-2 prepared for Tract Map 14396, which anticipated a total of 113 units, refers to 1.423 acres of park dedication that was previously dedicated as part of Tract 13627 to satisfy the parkland required by the ETSP. This number is 3,354 square feet deficient from previously applied dedication. Miti~. ation/Monitorin~ Required: 1) The developer shall submit the park dedication fee for the difference in park land dedication required between the 1.423 acres based on 113 units approved by Tentative Tract Map 14396 and 1.5 acres based on 119 units proposed by Tentative Tract Map 15993 (3,354 square feet) in accordance with the Tustin City Code Section 9331 and Section 2.8 of the East Tustin Specific Plan. Prior to recordation of the final map, the dedicated land or in-lieu fee, which would be determined based upon the fair market value of the amount of land' shall be submitted. Fair market value of the land shall be determined by a Master Appraisal Institute (MAI) appraiser acceptable to the City and at the expense of the developer. The determination shall consider the value of a buildable acre of land at the time the final map is to be recorded. All park land dedication and/or fees shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits and recordation of the final map and according to Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code. XV. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION Item a - "Potentially Si~ni[icant 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 vehicular circulation on the site is provided by three roads that connect to the main-road entrance at an intersection approximately fifteen (15) feet from peters Canyon Road. The northerly road (Tumleaf Lane) is thirty-six (36) feet in width and provides access to thirteen (13) units with street parking on both sides. The southem portion of Tumleaf Lane and Si. lverado Terrace to the west are thirty-two (32) feet in width and provide access to the remaining nine (9) units with street parking on one side. The ETSP requires three (3) enclosed garage spaces and two (2) guest spaces per unit. Guest parking spaces are provided on private streets of the site. The project will include a sidewalk on one side to separate pedestrian circulation. Phases I and II of the project were developed without sidewalks to create a rural environment. The proposed residences in Phase III are smaller in size and lot size in relation to the previous phases. Considering the small number of' the homes, the project will not generate significant pedestrian traffic, and construction of the sidewalk on one side would accommodate separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Items b-~- "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. Site design deviations are not significant within this phase of the project, since a sidewalk would be installed and the streets are designed with minor curves and relatively flat. No additional impacts to the circulation pattern of the area in general 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 Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 13 into either the submitted plans or would be included in the conditions of approval, where applicable, for the subject project. ~ollFces : Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Mitieatio n/Mo nito rine Require& 1) Forty four-(44) on-site guest parking spaces shall be provided on private streets at a rate of two (2) spaces per unit within a reasonable distance to the unit served. 2) A five-foot sidewalk shall be installed on one side of the private roads in accordance with the City's Private Improvement Standards subject to final approval of the Building Official and the City's Traffic Engineer. XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a-~- "No Imt~act": The project will increase the demand for utilities. The program EIR was prepared for higher density at this site. 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: 1) 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 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 concems and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. SOIlTces : Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2, as amended East Tustin Specific Plan Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TT 15993, DR 00-046, HR 00-001, AA 00-001 Page 14 Mitigation/Monitoring Reauired: None required. ma:Negative Dec\tract 15993-phase III