HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 378310
]4
15
]6
]7
]8
20
2,]
23
3_4
?-5
27
?.8
?.9
RESOLUTION NO. 3783
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING
THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-
007 AND DESIGN REVIEW 99-006, AND
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS
ADEQUATE FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
99-002 AND ZONE CHANGE 99-003, 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'
A.
That the General Plan Amendment 99-002, Zone Change 99-003,
Conditional Use Permit 99-007, and Design Review 99-006 are
considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
B.
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for
this project and distributed for public review. The Initial
Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the implications 'of the
proposed development.
C.
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.
D.
The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed 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, 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 recommending approval of the
proposed project 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
14
20
24
27
Resolution No. 3783
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. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the Final Negative
Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 99-007 and Design Review
No. 99-006 and recommends that the City Council adopt the Final
Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment 99-002 and Zone
Change 99-003.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Commission, held on the 14th day of May, 2001.
Planning
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary.
· PO~TIOUS
Chairperson
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
!, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution
No. 3783 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
Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3783
Exhibit A of Resolution 3783
Final Negative Declaration
GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003, CUP 99-007 and DR 99-006 ·
Table of Contents
A. Initial Study
B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
C. Determination
D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
E. Response to Comments
F. Mitigation Measures Monitoring Schedule
INITIAL STUDY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92 780
(714) 573-3100
Ao
BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit 99-007, Design Review 99-006, General Plan Amendment
99-002, and Zone Change 99-003.
Lead Agency:
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency
Contact Person:
Justina Willkom
Phone: (714) 573-3174
Project Location'
1101 Sycamore Avenue
Project Sponsor's
Name and Address:
N/A
General Plan Designation:
Public and Institutional (P&I)
Zoning Designation:
Suburban Residential (R-4)
Project Description:
Construction of a fifty-four (54) unit senior affordable housing project, a General
Plan Amendment to amend the existing land use designation from Public &
Institutional (P&I) to High Density Residential to provide for residential
development on the project site, a Zone Change to change the zoning designation
from Suburban Residential (R-4) to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to provide
for multiple family residential development, a Conditional Use Permit to
conditionally permit the proposed project in the R-3 Zoning District, and a
Design Review for the review of building design, site planning, and site
development.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Hospital
South: Offices and Multi-Family Residential
East:
West:
Multi-family Residential
Hospital Parking Lot
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
0
0
Orange County Fire Authority
Orange County Health Care Agency
South Coast Air Quality Management
District
Other
City of Irvine
City of Santa Ana
Orange County
EMA
Bo
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
[---lWater
[-']Air Quality
[~]TransPo~mion & Circulation
[-'lBiological Resources
[~Energy and Mineral Resources
[--]Hazards
[-]Noise
["-lPublic 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 prepared2
[-] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[-'] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ehvironment, 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: Justina Willkom
· ' nt Director
Title
Associate Planner
Date APRIL 19, 2001
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
De
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
D&ections
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 hnpact" 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 mad 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, an 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 thm~ 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 analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
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 significm~ce.
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) Conver~ 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 Califomia 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 plan9.
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
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 Califomia
Department ofFish 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 def'med 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 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
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 wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net defici, t in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
,Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
W~th
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 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 established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
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
[3
Less Than
Significant
With
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
W~th
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 from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with'sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations,related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or'
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects,' and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
SECTION D
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-007, DESIGN REVIEW 99-006, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 99-002, AND ZONE CHANGE 99-003.
AMERICAN SENIOR LIVING
1101 SYCAMORE AVENUE
BACKGROUND
The project includes the construction of a fifty-four (54) mt senior affordable housing project, a
General Plan Amendment to amend the existing land use designation from Public & Institutional
(P&I) to High Density Residential to provide for residential development on the project site, a
Zone Change to change the zoning designation from Suburban Residential (R-4) to Multiple
Family Residential (R-3) to provide for multiple family residential development, a Conditional
Use Permit to conditionally permit the proposed project in the R-3 Zoning District, and a Design
Review for the review of building design, site planning, and site development.
The property is currently vacant and is surrounded by apartment complexes to the East, a local
hospital to the North, a parking lot to the West, and an office complex and apartment complex to
the South.
1. AESTHETICS
Items a & b- No Impact:
The subject property is not located on a scenic vista. The subject property is 1.82 acres of
vacant land surrounded by developed parcels. The proposed project would not disturb any
trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings, and the site is not located on a State scenic
highway.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None Required.
Item c - Less Than Si~znificant Imoact with Mitigation Incorporation:
The property is currently vacant. The construction of a three-story senior housing project on
vacant land would change the visual character of the site and its surrounding. However, the
impact would be less than significant since the site is surrounded by a four story medical
plaza and a one-story hospital building to the North, two-story apartment complexes to the
East and South, and a commercial parking lot to the West, and the project would be designed
in a residential style that is consistent with the development standards and the landscaping
standards for the area.
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 2 of 13
Mitigation MeasuresfMonitoring Required:
Roofing materials shall be full dimensional architectural composition shingles with
color and manufacturer to be approved by the.Community Development Director and
the Redevelopment Agency.
All rooftop equipment shall be fully screened from public view.
A minimum of four (4) inch trim on all windows shall be provided.
The foam strips shall be treated with hard surface to create a grade separation between
the two different stucco types.
A minimum six (6) foot high decorative block wall shall be constructed along the east,
north, and west property lines with the exception of the front setback area where the
wall shall be reduced to a maximum of three (3) feet. The block wall shall be treated
with anti-graffiti materials.
The wrought iron fence along the from shall be painted a flat green color to
complement the landscape area.
No fence or walls within the required front yard setback shall exceed three (3) feet in
height.
The site shall be landscaped consistent with the City's Landscaping and Irrigation
Guidelines. Landscaping shall consist of a combination of berming and sufficient
numbers of shrubs and trees to provide adequate screening, subject to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Director.
Perimeter landscape materials adjacent to the carports shall include a minimum of four
(4) feet to six (6) feet high shrub hedges.
A precise landscape and irrigation plan including landscape grading, backflow
preventors, and timers shall be reviewed and approved by the C'ommunity
Development Director prior to issuance of a building permit.
Sources'
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Field Inspection
Item d- Less Than Significant Imr~act with Miti~tation Incon)oration:
The proposed new apartment complex would bring new lights to the area. However, the new
source of light would not adversely affect day- or night-time views in the area since the
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 3 of 13
project would be required to have all lights arranged so that no direct rays would shine onto
adjacent property.
Sources'
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Field Inspection
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required'
Parking lot lighting shall be arranged so that direct rays do not shine on adjacem
properties. Lighting fixtures and intensity of' lighting shall be subject to the review and
approval of the Community Development Director. At Building Plan Check,
manufacturer's details of all lighting fixtures, and a lighting plan which identifies the
location, type of fixtures, and intensity (photometric study) of all exterior building-
mounted and free-standing lighting shall be provided. All light fixtures shall be
architecturally compatible with proposed structures.
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a, b & c- No Imvact:
The proposed project will be located on a site that is vacant and surrounded by developed
residential apartment buildings, hospital and medical office buildings and a parking lot.
The proposed project will have no impacts on any farmland, nor will it conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project will
not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None Required
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Field Inspection
Submitted. Plans
Tustin City Code
3. AIR @UALITY
Items b - Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation:
The project would temporarily increase the amount of short-term emission to the area due to
the grading of the property and construction activities. Since the site is relatively flat, only
minor grading would be required. Short-term emissions associated with grading, construction
and operation of the proposed project are subject to regulation by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual which, includes
requirements for dust control. Mitigation measures will be required for the project to minimize
construction activity dust generated as part of this project. With implementation of the
American Senior.Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 4 of 13
mitigation measures and conditions of approval, impacts related to air quality would be
reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
All construction activity shall comply with the requiremems of the City of Tustin
Grading Manual which requires frequent watering of the'project site to control dust and
prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15
miles per hour.
Item a, c, d & e- No Imvact:
The project would also increase emissions in the area due to new vehicle trips, use of
landscape maintenance equipment, etc. The project would construct 54 .new apartment units
for seniors. In accordance with Table 6-2 (Screening Table for Operation) CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, the construction of 54 senior housing units is considered insignificant.
Therefore, no mitigation for emissions related to new vehicle trips is necessary.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required'
None Required
Sources:
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations
City of Tustin Grading Manual
Project Application
Field Inspection
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, c, d, e & f-No Imvact:
_
The subject site was developed with a twenty-six (26) unit apartmem complex. The
apartment complex was demolished in 1987 to accommodate a temporary parking lot for the
hospital. The site is surrounded with commercial and residential properties developed with
pavement and structures. The site is not inhabited by any known species of animals. The
proposed project would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species or
migratory patterns. The project would include the removal of local trees (eucalyptus trees)
along the northern property line to accommodate the development. New trees and landscape
materials will be provided in accordance to the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation guidelines.
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 proposed project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None Required
Sources:
Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 5 of 13
Tustin City Code
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, c & d- No Imf>act:
The subject property is not located within the City's Cultural Resources Overlay District, nor
are there any identified cultural, historic, or archaeological resources identified on or around
the site. The project would have no impacts on cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin Zoning Code
Tustin City Code
6. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Items a-ii & a-iii - Less Than Significant Imr~act with Mitigation Incomoration:
The topography of the site is relatively flat and would require minor precise grading activity
to prepare the site for new construction. Compliance with current codes will ensure that the
design and construction of the proposed project reduces any potential impacts related to fault
ruptures, ground shaking, ground failure, liquefaction, or unstable soils to a level of
insignificance.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
All grading, drainage, vegetation, and circulation shall comply with the City of' Tustin
Grading Manual. All construction activity shall comply with the Tustin Grading Manual
which requires frequent watering of the project site to control dust. All street sections,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, lighting, and storm drain shall comply with on-site
improvement standards. Any deviations shall be brought to the attention of' the Building
Official and request for approval shall be submitted in writing prior to any approval.
Items a-i, a-iv, b, c, d & e- No Imvact:
The project site is not located within an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami, volcanic
hazards, landslides, or mudflows, erosion, subsidence, or expansive soils. No unique
geological or physical features are present within the area.
With implementation of a condition of approval that requires the applicant to obtain all
necessary approvals from the Community Development Department, the project design and
construction will reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 6 of 13
Sources'
Tustin General Plan
City of Tustin Grading Manual
Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
7. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a throuah h - No Imvact:
The proposed project involves the construction of a senior affordable apartment Complex:
Development or use of the proposed senior housingis not anticipated to result in exposure to
hazardous substances or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. All grading and
construction would be subject to compliance with the all applicable Uniform Building and
Fire Codes. The project is not in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required'
None Required.
Sources:
Uniform Building and Fire Codes
Submitted Plans
Tustin General Plan
Mitigation/Monitoring Reouired: None Required
8. HYDROLOGY & WATER ~ UALITY
Items e & f- Less Than Significant Imr~act with Mitigation Incorporation:
The project site is relatively flat and would require minor grading. The project would not
expose people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding, change the course or
direction of waters movements, or affect the quantity of groundwaters. During construction
the project will be conditioned to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) storm water regulations.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Drainage, vegetation, circulation, street sections, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and storm
drains shall comply with the on-site Private Improvement Standards.
Ail site drainage shall be handled on site and shall not be permitted to drain onto adjacent
properties.
The applicant shall comply with the following conditions pertaining to the requirement for
a Water Quality Managemem Plan:
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 7 of 13
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for approval by the
Community Development and Public Works Departments, a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that will be used on site to control predictable pollutant m-off.
e
This WQMP shall identify the following: structural and non-structural measures
specified detailing implementation of BMPs whenever they are applicable to the
project; the assignment of long-term maintenance responsibilities (specifying the
developer, parcel owner, property maintenance, lessee, etc.); and, reference to the
location(s) of structural BMPs.
All necessary precautions and preventive measures shall be in place in order to prevent
material from being washed away by surface waters or blown by wind. These controls
shall include at a minimum: regular wetting of surface or other similar wind control
method, installation of straw or fiber mats to prevent rain related erosion. Detention
basin(s) or other appropriately sized barrier to surface flow must be installed at the
discharge point(s) of drainage from the site. Any water collected from these controls shall
be appropriately disposed of at a disposal site. These measures shall be added as general
notes on the site plan and a statement added that the operator is responsible for ensuring
that these measures continue to be effective during the duration of the project
construction.
Appropriate controls shall be installed to prevent all materials from being tracked off site
by vehicles or other means. These controls may include gravel exits or wash-down areas.
Any materials tracked off site must be removed as soon as possible, but no later than the
end of the operation day. This material shall be disposed of at an appropriate disposal site.
These measures shall be added as general notes on the site plan and a statement added that
the operator is responsible for ensuring that these measures continue to be effective during
the duration of the project construction.
Sources:
Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Item a, b, c, d, ~, h, i & j · No Impact
The project would not violate water quality standards or waste-water discharge requirement
as conditioned. The project would not deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge. The project site is relatively flat where no substantial alteration
to the drainage pattern in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or
flooding on or off site. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard areas as
mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map, nor is the project
located within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows.
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 8 of 13
Mitigation Measures'
None Required.
Sources:
Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
9. LAND USE PLANNING
Items a, b & c- No Imvact:
.,
The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Public and
Institutional (P&I) and zoned Suburban Residential (R-4). Prior to 1986, the property was
improved with a twenty-six (26) unit apartment complex and was designated by the General
Plan as Multi-family Residential and zoned Multiple Family Residential (R-3).
In 1986, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment from Multi-family
Residential to Public and Institutional (P&I) and a zone change from Multiple Family
Residential (R-3) to Public and Institutional (P&I) at the request of the hospital owner to
accommodate a temporary parking area for the hospital. In 1994, as part of the citywide
General Plan Amendment, the property was inadvertently rezoned to Suburban Residential
(R-4) inconsistent with the General Plan land use designation of Public and Institutional
(P&I).
The proposed project would require a change in land use designation and zoning of the
property to the original land use designation and zoning of High Density Residential and
Multiple Family Residential (R-3), respectively. With these changes, the proposed use
would be consistent with the applicable land use and zoning regulations.
The proposed project would not divide an established community. The proposed project is
not located in the conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed
project would not conflict with any applicable conservation plan.
Mitigation Measures'
None Required.
Sourcesl
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Map
10. MINERAL RESOURCES
Items a & b - No. Impact:
The proposed project is not located in the mineral resource recovery site and Would not use
nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99,002, ZC 99-003
Page 9 of13
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
None Required
11. NOISE
Items c & d- Less Than Sienificant Impact with Mitieation Incorporation:
The development would result in short-term construction noise impacts. However, the Tustin
City Code requires compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction hours.
Long-term noise would be increased due to increase in vehicle trips, air conditioners,
landscape maintenance equipment, and any other noise associated with residential
development. However, any development within the City would be subject to the Tustin
Noise standards. The increase in vehicle trips is not anticipated to exceed the City's noise
standards of 65 CNEL for exterior noise level and 45 CNEL for interior noise level.
The proposed project is three (3) story in height. Although the project is not located within
the John Wayne Airport flying path, it is in close proximity to the incoming flights over the
State Route 55 freeway to John Wayne Airport. The City, County and. State criteria for
Community Noise Equivalent (CNEL) for residential uses is 65 dB consistent with the Tustin
Noise standards. In accordance to the California Airport Noise Standards, Jolm Wayne
Airport performs quarterly noise monitoring at several locations. Based on the quarterly
noise abatement reports, the project is not located within the 65 CNEL area/noise impact
area. As a result, no specific method of construction would be required to mitigate the
unanticipated aircraft noise impacts. The project, however, would be cOnditioned to meet
City's noise standards.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required'
The applicant shall comply with Tustin Noise Ordinance to limit all exterior and
interior noise levels to the established standards.
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
Community Development Director and/or Building Official. Construction activities are
prohibited on Sundays and City observed Federal holidays.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin Noise Ordinance
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 10 of 13
Tustin General Plan
Item a, b, e & f-No Impact:
The proposed project would not create excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a
permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the established standards. The
site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a public or
private airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
12. POPULATION & HOUSING
Items a, b, and c- No Imvact:
The proposed project would construct a fifty-four (54) unit senior housing project and
increase the density in the area. The increase, however, would not be substantial in that new
streets or new public services would need to be created. Nevertheless, the applicant has
agreed to dedicate a ten (10) foot strip of land as a condition of approval for future street
widening to accommodate the anticipated increase in vehicle trips. No growth impacts to the
area are anticipated due to the widening.
The project site is currently vacant and the construction of a new apartment complex on a
vacant land would not displace existing housing or displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
13. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a- No Im~)act:
The proposed project would construct fifty-four (54) unit senior housing project. Although
the project would increase the density within the area, the increase is not substantial in which
new streets, public services, or infrastructure would need to be created. Nevertheless, the
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 11 of 13
applicant has agreed to dedicate a ten (10) foot strip of land as a condition of approval for
future street widening to accommodate the anticipated increase of' vehicle trips.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
14. RECREATION
Items a & b- No Imoact:
The project is not located in proximity to recreational facilities. The project would not
increase the use of existing parks such that substantial deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated, nor would the project include recreational facilities that would have
an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Items b, c, d~ e & f-No Imvact:
The proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 216 weekday trips. The
project would generate nine (9) AM peak hour trips and fifteen (15) PM peak hour trips.
These anticipated trips were added to the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) at the
Newport Avenue and Sycamore Avenue intersection, and the increase does not cause an
appreciable increase in the ICU value. Hence, the Level of Service for Newport Avenue and
Sycamore Avenue is basically unchanged. Nevertheless, the applicant has agreed to dedicate
a ten (10) foot strip of land as a condition of approval for future street widening to
accommodate the anticipated increase in vehicle trips.
The proposed project would 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.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required:
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 12 of 13
Dedication of ten (10) feet of additional street right-of-way along Sycamore Avenue
will be required for future street widening consistent with the Orange County and the
City's Master Plan of Arterial Highway. The dedication shall be provided through an
irrevocable offer of dedication and shall be recorded prior to issuance of building
permits. Provide legal descriptions and sketches as prepared by a Cali£omia Registered
Civil Engineer or California Licensed Land Surveyor to the Engineering Division for
review and approval.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Parking Analysis
16. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a, b, c, d, e, f & a- No Impact:
The proposed project would not require modification to existing utilities or need for
additional utilities to serve the site. All necessary utilities are in place to serve the subject
property. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project would utilize the existing storm drain
system and thus would not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility.
Adequate water supply from existing resources would be available to serve the proposed
project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a, b & c- No Impact:
The project design, construction, and operation will comply with the regulations of the
Community Development Department, Air Quality Management District, and 'Orange
County Fire Authority which reduces any potential impacts related to geological problems,
water quality, air quality, hazards, and noise to a level of insignificance. The project does not
have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of' the long-term. It does not have impacts that are
individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse
impacts on human beings.
American Senior Living
CUP 99-007, DR 99-006, GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003
Page 13 of 13
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
S:\CDD~JUSTINA\¢urrent planning~Environmental~SL Attachment A.doc
- ._
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
NEGATIVE ]ECLARATION
Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 99-007, Design Review 99-006, General Plan Amendment 99-002, and
Zone Change 99-003.
Project Location: 1101 Sycamore Avenue
Project Description:. Construction of a fifty-four (54) unit senior affordable housing project, a General Plan
Amendmem to amend the existing land use designation from Public & Institutional (P&I) to High Density
Residential to provide for residential development on the project site, a Zone Change to change the zoning
designation from Suburban Residential (R-4) to Multiple Family Residential (R-3) to provide for multiple
family residential development, a Conditional Use Permit to conditionally permit the proposed project in the R-
3 Zoning District and a Design Review for the review of building design and site planning.
Project Proponent: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom
Telephone' (~ 14) 5 73-3174
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 evldence 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 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
Date APRIL 19, 2001
MAY '8, 2001
· ,
...
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director
Section E of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3783
Comments and Responses ..
Environmental Review for
GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003, CUP 99-007 and DR 99-006
1. A notice of the public review period required by California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) for the Negative Declaration was published on April 19,
2001 in the Tustin News and mailed to property owners on May 4, 2001. The
notice also indicated that the Planning Commission will consider the project
on May 14, 2001.
Section 15073 of the California Environmental Quality Act indicates that the
lead agency shall provide a public review of not less than twenty (20) days.
Section 15072 indicates a notice of intent to adopt a Negative Declaration
shall be made available to the public by one of the following methods: 1)
publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general
circulation; 2) posting notice by the lead agency on or off site in the area
where the project is to be located; and, 3) direct mailing to owners and
occupants of the property contiguous to the project.
Consistent with the CEQA guidelines, the notice was published in the Tustin
News on April 19, 2001 (see attached proof of publication).
In addition, consistent with the Government Code Section 65091 (Planning,
Zoning, and Development Law) regarding providing notice of a public hearing,
a notice of the public hearings was mailed to property owners with'in three
hundred (300) foot radius and the property was posted with a notice of public
hearing on May 4, 2001, ten (10) days prior to the.public hearing on May 14,
2001. This notice also referred to the public review period.
Source'
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Planning, Zoning, and Development Laws
2. Item No. 11 of Section D of Exhibit A of Resolution No, 3783 analyzes noise
impacts that may result from the construction of a senior housing project. The
analysis 'discusses short-term and long-term construction noise impacts.
The development would result in short-term noise impacts associated with
construction activity. However, the Tustin City Code requires compliance with
the City's Noise Ordinance and construction hours. Condition No. 1.15
restricts all construction operations, including engine warm-up and deliveries
of materials subject to Tustin Noise Ordinance to 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. Construction activity is not anticipated to
Section E' of Exhibit A of Resolution No, 3783
Comments and Responses
GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003, CUP 99-007, and DR 99-006
Page 2 of 4
generate significant noise
Ordinance.
levels beyond limits imposed by the Noise
Long-term noise would increase slightly due to increases in vehicle trips, air
conditioners, landscape maintenance equipment, and any other noise
associated with residential development. The increase in vehicle trips is
projected to be 216 'weekday trips and the noise anticipated from air
conditioners and landscape maintenance equipment is expected to be Similar
to normal residential uses. The increase of the noise level resulting from the
project is not anticipated to exceed the City's noise standards of 65 CNEL for
exterior noise level and 45 CNEL for interior noise level. As such, the noise
associated with the project is not anticipated to be significant.
The proposed project is three (3) floors in height. Although the project is not
located within the John Wayne Airport flight pattern, it is in close proximity to
the incoming flights over the State Route 55 freeway to John Wayne Airport.
In accordance to the California Airport Noise Standards, John Wayne Airport
performs quarterly noise monitoring at several locations. Based on the
quarterly noise abatement reports, the City's Acoustical Consultant (Wieland
Associates, Inc.) estimates the aircraft-generated CNEL experienced at the
project site is 55 dB, well belOw the City's noise standard of 65 dB (see
attached Noise Contours). He further indicates that it is possible, under the
right conditions to reflect aircraft noise off the proposed three-story building.
This could increase single event aircraft noise levels by I or 2 dB. Under
these "worst case" conditions, the aircraft-generated CNEL might increase to
57 dB. This is still well below the City's standard of 65 dB. Theref°re, no
specific method of construction would be required to mitigate the
unanticipated aircraft noise impacts. However, Condition No. 1.13 has been
placed to ensure that the project complies with Tustin Noise Ordinance to limit
all exterior and interior noise sources and levels to the established standards.
Based upon analysis on potential noise, all impacts could be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report is not
required.
Source'
John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Quarterly Report.
David Wieland, Inc. findings dated May 10, 2001.
3. The Newport Avenue eXtension project and SR-55 freeway ramp
reconfiguration have been delayed in the past primarily due to funding
constraints and right-of-way acquisition issues. The construction of these
projects was scheduled to begin in 2002,' however, the City is currently
reviewing its Capital Improvement Program budget and these projects may be
further delayed due to funding and right-of-way constraints.
Section E of Exhibit A of Resolution No, 3783
Comments and Responses
GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003, CUP 99-007, and DR 99-006
Page 3 of 4
Source' Doug Anderson, City of Tustin Engineering Division..
4. Sycamore Avenue currently serves as a route to three schools in the area. It
also serves as a link to the SR-55 freeway. Sycamore Avenue is designated.
as a four-lane secondary arterial highway on the Orange County Master Plan
of Arterial Highways and on the City's Arterial Highway Plan in the General
Plan. As such, Sycamore is planned to accommodate approximately 25,000
vehicles per day in the future. Currently, there are 7,100 vehicles per day on
Sycamore Avenue, which indicates an acceptable, level of traffic service.
There are occasions during the school drop-off and pick-up times that
Sycamore Avenue is highly congested with vehicles as well as pedestrians.
However, this is typical of traffic near all schools at these times of the day and
is a temporary condition, which lasts approximately 30-minutes in the morning
and 30-minutes in the afternoon during the weekdays.
According to the Tustin Police Department there have not been reports nor
citations of double parked vehicles to accommodate drop-off or pick-up
activities near the schools o.n Sycamore Avenue.
Source:
Doug Anderson, City of Tustin Engineering Division.
City-of Tustin Police Department
5. Legally parked vehicles on Sycamore Avenue do not block nor restrict traffic
flow on the roadway. Vehicles attempting left-turns may slow and could stop
traffic momentarily to complete turns but cause only minor inconveniences for
drivers on Sycamore Avenue.
Source: Doug Anderson, City of Tustin Engineering Division.
6. The traffic proposed to be generated from the American Senior Living project
equates to 216-weekday trips as indicated in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The project is anticipated to generate 9
AM peak hour trips and 15 PM peak hour trips. When these trips are added
to the existing traffic volumes on Sycamore Avenue there is a negligible
change in the level of traffic service on the roadway. The volumes from the
project were also added to the Sycamore Avenue/Newport Avenue
intersection volumes and the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) was
reviewed for possible impacts. The result was a negligible change in the ICU
numbers. In conclusion, the added trips attributable to the proposed project
will not result in a decrease in traffic levels of service to Sycamore Avenue or
the intersection of Newport Avenue/Sycamore Avenue.
Section E of Exhibit A of Resolution No, 3783
Comments and Responses
GPA 99-002, ZC 99-003, CUP 99-007, and DR 99-006
Page 4 of 4
,.
The property is currently zoned R-4 which would allow for a twenty-five (25)
unit apartment to be built on the site. The trip generation for a twenty-five
(25) unit apartment equates to 166 weekday trips with 13 AM peak hour trips
and 16 PM peak hour trips. Compared to the proposed senior housing'
project, the weekday trip generation for a twenty-five (25) unit apartment is
· less, however, the peak hour trips are higher. For traffic 'analysis purposes,
peak hour traffics are the essential information in determining if a project
would have a traffic problem. In summary, compared to the use which would
be allowed under the existing zoning, the proposed senior housing project
would create less peak hour trips.
Based on the above information, pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, and
mitigation measures that have been made as a condition of approval, an
Environmental Impact Report is not required.
Source: Doug Anderson, City of.Tustin Engineering Division.
S:\CDD\JUSTINA\current planning~SL Comments and Responses.doc
' ~4~FHDA~T OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
) EIS.
County of Orange . ).
I am a citizen of the United States and aresident
of the County aforesaid; I am over the. age. of
eighteen years, and not a party to or interested
in the above entitled matter. I am the principal
clerk of The Tustin News, a newspaper, that
has been adjudged to be a newspaper of general.
circulation by the Superior Court Of the County
of Orange, State of California, on August 24,
1928, Case No. A-601 in and for the City-of
Tustin, County of Orange, State of California;
that the notice, of which the annexed is a tree
printed copy, has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to
wit:
April 19, 2001
"I certify (or declare) under the penalty of
perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is tree and cermet":
Executed at Santa Aha, Orange County,
California, on
Date: April 19, 2001
The Tustin News.
625 N. Grand Ave.
Santa 'Aha, CA 92701
(714) 796-7000 ext. 3002
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
'rhi~ ~ ~ f~ th~ County q~
Proof of Publication, of
......... II!1~111' I
..
II
I__ .
I .
.... IIIll iii Il ,n I
a, ' I'P Ifil q '~I-
WIE. LAND
~4SSOCIA TES, INC.
.... .1~ _ _l I Illllll
.
· I" '
-~ ]II I ' Il Ill I I
· JohnWayne Airport' Noise Contours, 2000
.... .;.,.,s ~ ,
, ~,/,?/;.~./// /.
JOHN WAYNE
AIRPORT
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT
2000 ~J~iNU~ 60, 65, 70 and 75
CNEL NOISE CONTOURS
Mestre Greve Associates
Leonard "Mark" Markwitz
14761 Del Arno Ave.
Tustin, CaH£ 92780
· (714) 544-8584
mnarkl~paebelLnet
R,:CEI'/ED
HAY 0.. 9 20t)!
COMt41NITY DEVEL OPMEN 7
May 7, 2001
Ms, Justina VrOom
Community Development Dept.
300 Centennia! Way
TUstin, CA 92780
Ms.' Willkom,
I am concerned that there is not an Environmental Impact Report contemplated for the
Conditional Use Permit 99-007 Design Review 99-006 General Plan Amendment 99-002 and
Zone Cl~ange 99-003.
Let mc ask why the nearby affected homes were not provided information earlier regarding this
project. I received the Office Notice of Public Hearing flyer on Saturday May 5m showing a
mailing .date of May 4t~. Within the flyer,' it is stated that a review period was .slated for April'19
through May 8~. In that our mail delivery service is received between the hours of five to five
thirty in the evening there was nothing that could be done. until Monday the 7~ at the earliest thus
giving us just one day for the review. Why was this flyer delayed in its moiling? Was it so that
people would not bother to look into this matter and thus it could fly through without any outside
comments?
..
My coneem for this project falls into two categories. First, noise via the echo affect, and second,
the traffic.'
As a matter of history, let me state that I have lived in the above listed address since the home
was built in 1962. At that time all the adjacent properties were orange groves. John Wayne
Airport had reciprocating aircratt etc, at some time after we moved into this home; we did
receive a flyer 'infom~g us that the lot, which was located directly behind our home, was
scheduled to receive a two-story building. This, at that time, did not alarm us since we had some
two-story homes erected directly to the south of our residence. However, unbeknown to us, this
two-story structure was actually built on top of a garage. This. two-story structure is, for all
practical purposed, a three-story structure. This information was not provided tO us; thus my
concern for this new project.
As time will have it, John Wayne traffic increased and along with that the jet aircrat~
becme into play which after still ftmher growth, we are cur~. ntly forced to live with the
landing approach to John Wayne being designated directly over the Costa Mesa freeway
(55). Air traffic 'should fly directly over thc freeway- which they, at times, do not.
Aircrat~ are flying over my home, or close to my home many times during the time
allotted for their landings.
W'~ the current flight path to John Wayne Airport, and when the aircu~ are near, or at
times directly over my home, those aircraf~ are ready for landing with their landing gear
down and flaps extended. These aircraft are noisy.believe me.
With this background, I would now like to introduce the "echo affect" which I have had
to endure since the construction of the three-story structure directly behind my residence.
Every time an aircraf~ sways from its assigned flight path and wanders near of over my
home the noise has an "echo aff~t" caused by the tall structure behind me.
It is with this concern that I would like to haVe an Environmental Impact Report made.
This report should encompass a reading of the decibel noise prior to construction of this
project and again after it is completed. I feel that a decibel reading should be taken to
show what will happen and what could happen to the three story structures with the
"echoes aff~t" between the buildings.'
Traffic - Ex-Councilman Potts, during is first election advocated that he would undertake
the extension of Newport Blvd. to include the on and off romp of the Costa Mesa Freeway
(55). Mr. Potts was the elected Mayor of Tustin twice and was re-elected many times but
to thh date, no extension has constructed. This has been shelved from year to year. It is
currently scheduled to start, prior to it being postponed again, next year 2002.
Traffic on Sycamore has had to endure the vehicular uaffic for three schools, which are
located on Sycamore. Normal traffic coming off the Costa Mesa Freeway, plus traffic
from Tustin Meadows, utilizes Sycamore to gain access to the freeway. On rainy days,
when the schools are in session, traffic is terrible with parents attempting to pick up their
children from the schools. There are not enough parking spaces to do this. This has caused
. the parents to double park and thus stopping traffic.
Parked automobiles on Sycamore restrict traffic both ways so that a vehicle making a left
mm would stop all traffic behind it. This traffic will certainly increase with this new
contemplated project. 'The vehicular traffic on Sycamore would come to a crawl
It is therefore requested that a thorough Environmental Impact Report be made for the noise and
also for the traffic that this project would provide. It is also advisexl that this project should be
looked at for a possible other location since the sm~cture would require eeiling and wall
insulation plus double pane windows for the noise factor which is not the ideal situation for the
age bracket of individuals who are being contemplated as residence for this project.
Respectfully,
t-"/-Leonard Mar~tz (...)
*
.lmm
0 0
· · · · · · ·
· · · · ·