The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC RES 86-28~. 10 15 18 19 20 i. ..i II ii. i.. .iI RESOLUTION NO. 86-28 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR 85-2, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the city-of TustiQ does hereby resolve as follows' I. The City Council finds and determines as follows' A. That an Environmental Impact Report would be requlred due to potential effects identified in an initial questionnaire done for the General Plan Amendments, Zone Change, and Specific Plan for the East Tustin area. (Collectively referred to hereafter as the "Pro ject" ). B. That a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR 85-2) for the proposed Project has been prepared for the city of Tustin by Michael Brandman Associates. C. That distribution of the Draft 'EIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft E IR. E. That the public review period for the Draft EIR ended on January 31, 1986. That incorporated within the EIR are comments of the public, Planning Commission, staff and other agencies, and responses thereto. F. That the Draft EIR is a program EIR and is subject to the following provision of the State Guidelines for the California £nvironmental Quality Act: "That subsequent activities shall be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional 'environmental document must be prepared." The City shall use an initial questionnaire to document the evaluation of subsequent activities to .determine whether the environmental effects of the activities are covered in the Program EIR. G. That the Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of the city of Tustin. H. That the Draft EIR including comments and responses has been reviewed by staff, and represents their independent evaluation and analysis. I. That the Draft EIR was distributed to t~e Planning Commission and that they reviewed this document, received public testimony and considered comments and responses thereto in their review of the Project involving the East Tustin area, as shown in adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2300. i, 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 27 ii i. .. Resolution No. pa ge two 86-28 O · That the Draft EIR comments, responses, and attachments have been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in Draft EIR, comments, responses, and attachments; and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding. This statement of overriding considerations and all environmental'effects and mitigating measures are listed in the attached document, Exhibit "A". Mitigation measures are speci fled as conditions in this resol uti on. K. That the Draft EIR 85-2, plus comments, responses and attachments, constitute Final EIR 85-2. II. The City Council of the city of Tustin does hereby certify that Final EIR 85-2 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Qual i ty Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 17th day of March, 1986. the Tusti n City Counci l, , 1986. held on ATTEST' FRANK GREINKE, MAYOR MARY E. ~N~~,' EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDIN~ AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSE'D AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLAN The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State. EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identified one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding" (Section 15091). The finding and statements of facts delineated herein are organized in the following manner: ~igni[i_¢ant~ffeet - Each finding is prefaced by a brief description of the relevant significant effect which is identified within EIR 85-2. Finding- Specific to the significant effect Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. is a finding made pursuant to Fac.ts. in. S~upp~0rt_.0f_Finding - Following each finding is a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The order in whieh the significant impacts are identified herein follows the order in which issues are addressed Within the DEIR. The City of Tustin proposes to approve amendments to the Tustin General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Seismic Safety Element, as well as a zone change and a specific plan for the area referred to as the East Tustin Specific Plan ! site. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Tustin has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Final EIR 85-2 has identified certain significant cf{cots which may occur as a result of the project proposal. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR and desires to approve the project with the following findings and statement of overriding considerations. FINDINGS s_ignifieant _Effect - Existing terrain within the study area will be modified as a result of earthwork and grading operations for the proposed project. Resultant alterations will be directed towards the creation of developable areas for the construction of homes and offices; commercial, public and recreational facilities; and other land uses permitted by the specific plan and associated support facilities (roads, utilities, drainage control, etc.). FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as ide'ntified in the final EIR. Facts in Supp0.r.t of_ F!nding- The project land use plan provides for the lower intensity uses to be located within hillside portions of the site, thereby lessening the amount of hillside grading required for the creation of developable areas. Also, the land use plan provides for a potential regional park, which, if approved, would serve to substantially reduce landform alteration impacts within the northern portion of the site. The specific plan provides for the clustering of development within hillside areas to further reduce the amount of landform alteration associated with development. Hillside District Guidelines incorporated into the specific plan will serve to minimize grading and landform alteration impacts and promote the integration of development design with existing topographical features onsite (see Mitigation Measures listed in Attachment 1). Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature · of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of project design considerations and mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Faet_~i~ Support of Finding- Development of the project site under any of the project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative will result in impacts to the existing topography of the study area. It is recognized that alternatives requiring less development than the current proposal provide the potential for less impacts on the existing topography. More specifically, the Existing General Plan Alternative proposes less development and would require less area subject to grading if large lots with natural contours/features were utilized extensively. The Existing General Plan Alternative proposes less development than the current proposal (6,960 dwelling units vs. 7,950 dwelling units); however, the type - development allowed under both proposals (the existing general plan and the specific plan) is the same for the hillside portions of the site (up to 2 du/aere). Unless the Existing General Plan Alternative adopted the grading restrictions identified in the East Tustin Specific Plan, the hil.lside grading impacts of this alternative would be greater than those of the current proposal. Other alternatives, including Maximum Residential and Maximum Commercial Development would also require substantial grading. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is aeeeptaDle when ~)alaneed against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Sig~_i_.f!.cant ~ffect - Development within the project site wil[ subject future residents to the potential for seismic activity. In addition to the potential for regional seismic aeti¥ity endemic to Southern California, the E1 Modena Fault which traverses the northern portion of the site may be considered to be 8etive. .. FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. F~act_s_ in S_u~ppo_rt p_f_ Fi~nd_ing- Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see Attachment 1) require that additional detailed geotechnical investigations be conducted to further assess potential geologic hazards, including the potential active status of the E1 Modena Fault. If the E1 Modena Fault is determined to be classified as active, structural setbacks from the fault line will be required, and incorporated into the project design. Also, all structures will be designed in accordance with seismic design standards and the Uniform Building Code. As stated above, additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further digcretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. .. Facts in_.SuppoFt 0.f .Finding - Development of the project site under any of the project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, would subject future residents to the potential for local and regional seismic activity. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Signif~icant_Effects - Surface runoff and drainage flows will increase from site development. Conversion of the project site from agricultural uses to urban uses will alter the existing quality of surface runoff and water percolation. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts_ in..S~p_p0_rt of F!nding - The project proposal includes a drainage/flood control concept plan intended to provide for the development of a system which adequately accommodates increased runoff flows. Integrated with this concept plan will be detailed drainage/hydrology studies prepared at design levels of planning. The preparation, review and approval of these studies and resultant drainage/flood control improvements will be coordinated with the City of Tustin and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency and other local jurisdiction (i.e., City of Irvine), as appropriate, relative to each agency's jurisdiction for affected drainage/flood control facilities (see Mitigation Measures in Attachment 1). Similarly, detailed erosion control measures and pollution control plans will be developed and implemented as appropriate at detailed levels of planning. Design and implementation of erosion control plans will be coordinated with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Continued participation in the Upper Newport Bay Sedimentation Control Plan program by the City of Tustin and The Irvine Company being the project applicants, will facilitate the incorporation of erosion/pollution control measures into the project design and operation. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided 'have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Facts in SuDPPr~_of ~_inding - Development of the project site under any of the project alternatives, with the exception of the No Project Alternative, would result in increased surface runoff and drainage flows. Although less development is proposed under the existing general plan alternative, the absence of a golf course, and development most likelY being distributed throughout the project site would result in the amount of impervious surface being comparable, if not greater than, that of the current proposal. In such case, the associated rUnoff impacts of this alternative would be similar to or greater than the current project's impacts. The drainage/flood control improvements required for this alternative would be basically the same as currently proposed, however, the costs for such improvements would be assigned to a smaller development base. Hydrology impacts associated with other project alternatives, including Maximum Residential Development and Maximum Commercial Development, would be comparable to those of the current proposal. Relative to potential erosion/water pollution impacts, all of the alternatives proposing urban development would have impacts similar in nature. The No Project Alternative would allow continued operation of agricultural activities~ within the project site. Continued agricultural land uses would also cause ongoing water quality impacts resulting in erosion/sedimentation and surface runoff/percolation (i.e., pesticides, herbacides, etc.) even under current agricultural Best Management Practices. Consequently, water quality impacts would not be lessened under this alternative. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in At tachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant'effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. BioloL~ Significant- Effg?t- Development of the project site will result in the removal of much of the existing onsite vegetation and the associated loss of wildlife habitat. Existing onsite vegetation associations which would be impacted include agricultural; eucalyptus groves; grassland; coastal sage scrub; riparian brush; and freshwater marsh. This project, in itself and in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on existing biological resources in the project vicinity. FINDING i - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts .__in_ Support_..0.f_~Finding - The most notable biological resources are located primarily in the northern portion of the project site. The project land use plans propose lower intensity land uses in the northern portion of the site which enhances the potential of retaining existing vegetation/habitat to the extent possible and feasible. Specific Plan provisions allowing the clustering of development further enhances this potential for retaining biological resources. The Specific Plan provides for a potential regional park within the site which, if approved, would significantly reduce the amount of vegatation/habitat removal associated with the project. Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see Attachment 1) delineate other measures which serve to reduce potential impacts to biological resources. Several of these measures provide general direction and guidance for the development and implementation of more specific mitigation measures at detailed'i~~-0-~'"~ri-/iing. For example, the preservation of existing biological features will be considered in ,.. the future selection and design of neighborhood parks. Although such determinations would typically be made at more detailed levels of planning, some design/land use concepts for retaining existing biological resources are included in current project plans. These include retaining the onsite redwood grove in a neighborhood park,'and increasing the water supply to the onsite freshwater marsh to enhance the biological and aesthetic value of the local area. As noted below, future studies associated with the project proposal may require additional measures for mit{gating potential impacts. For example, any alterations and/or development proposed in the riparian areas adjacent to the two natural stream channels onsite would first require obtaining a 1603 permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. The 1603 permit process includes a'thorough investigation of potential biological impacts and the development and implementation of mitigation measures as appropriate. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with· subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in At tachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Additional changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies. F_ac~ts _in Su?P~0~- o~f. Findi~ngs - The determination of specific measures to mitigate impacts on wetland and riparian areas along the two onsite stream courses will occur through the 1603 Permit process, and, if required, the 404 Permit process. These processes are within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, respectively. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. F_acts in Sup~_p~rt of Fin~i~ng- Implementation of any of the urban development alternatives would require removal of most of the existing onsite vegetation. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project 'alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Cultural Resources s_ignifieant Effect - Development of the project site presents the potential for impacts to five archaeological sites located within the study area. Also, a portion of The Irvine Company Agricultural Headquarters complex, which may be of historic significance, is located within an area proposed for urban uses and could be impacted. FINDING i - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. F~aets in. S~pp_of~t of Finding- Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see Attachment 1) require that additional detailed studies of the archaeological sites and of the agricultural headquarters complex' be conducted to clearly identify the nature and extent, as well as the significance, of these cultural resources. These studies will provide the basis for developing and implementing appropriate specific mitigation measures in accordance with Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. o · F__ac~ts~=]~_Supp_~r~t p~_F!nding- With the exception of the No Project Alternative, development under any of the project alternatives presents the same potential for impacts to onsite cultural resources. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. .Said project ~alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Consi(~erations attached hereto. Land Use Si~ni~fi_c~a. nt Effee~_(a) Development of the project site will result in the gradual conversion of existing agricultural and open space uses onsite to urban uses. This · project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, w~l! have a significant cumulative impact on the intensity of land use ~n the project vicinity. FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the· final EIR. Fac_ts in Sup~o~~f Fin. ding - The land use plan, regulations and design concepts incorporated in the specific plan serve to facilitate land use compatibility both within the project site and adjacent to the project site. Land use and design features incorporated into the project proposal are intended to be responsive to the existing residential uses adjacent to the western boundary of the site. Similar to nearby existing development, the uses proposed along the western portion of the site are limited to single-family detached residential development with densities progressively decreasing from south to north. The proposed density ranges are generally comparable to the existing densities within the subject area. · o · · · ,. All significant environmental effects tha{ can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2- Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Fac_ts in Supp..ort .of Finding- The conversion of the project site from open space and agricultural uses Would only be avoided under the No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative, however, would be inconsistent with the General Plan objective of developing urban uses within the project site. The Maximum Residential and Maximum Commercial Alternatives would result in land use intensities comparable to or greater than those of the current proposal. The Existing General Plan Alternative provides for a lesser intensit~ of development than currently proposed. However, the reduced development associated with this alternative would make the provision of 150 acres of open space and recreational uses infeasible, and Would increase the per capita share of infrastructure/improvement costs. Development under the Existing General Plan Alternative would also not provide the commercial and employment opportunities which are provided by the current proposal. Relative to the compatibility of proposed uses with existing uses along the western boundary of the site, the Existing General Plan alternative would not offer much advantage over the current project proposal. Along the western border of the site, both proposals allow up to 2 du/acre in the northern hillside areas; and in the central and southern portions the allowable density would only be reduced by 1 du/acre under the existing general plan (5 du/acre vs. 4 du/acre). These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal 'for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations Attached hereto. iI sj~g~.jf~eant_~Effect~(b~)- Development of the p~oject site will expose future residents to potential impacts from military flight operations within the corridors, particularly the Browning Corridor. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Suppo~r.t-~pf_..F_inding- The project land use plan includes a 150-acre golf course beneath the Browning Corridor. This land use concept reduces the. extent of urban development in close proximity to flight operations within the Browning Corridor, and also provides a relatively safe emergency landing area, should the need arise. Also, the Specific Plan incorporates provisions of the Browning Corridor agreement which is intended to enhance the compatibility of military flight operations with nearby urban uses. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Fac_t__s~ .in _S. upp~rt .of F~ind~i~ng_- With the exception of the No Project Alternative, development under any of the project alternatives would expose future residents to potential impacts from military flight operations. Although the Existing General Plan Alternative proposes less development than the current proposal, the Existing General Plan Alternative would allow greater proportion of development located beneath or near the Browning Corridor due to the absence of a large golf course or open space area. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives .were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above, as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining unavodable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. S_ig~n~ifie.ant~..Effeet- This'project, in itself and in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will exceed SCAG growth projections for the area. As such, the project, both individually and cumulatively, will have a significant adverse impact on planning programs which are based on the SCAG growth projections. Specifically, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan is based on the SCAG 82A Growth Forecasts. FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding- Mitigation measures incorporated into the project (see Attachment' 1) include the requirement that during the preparation and review of subdivision maps for the project, measures which can provide for reductions in air pollution emissions (i.e., ridesharing, alternative transportation modes, public transit) be identified and incorporated into subdivision map conditions, as feasible and appropriate. Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated Or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. F.a~t~s~i~n ~upport .of~_F. inding- With the exception of the No Project Alternative, development under any of the project alternatives would exceed the SCAG growth projections, both individually and cumulatively. Even the Existing General Plan Alternative which allows up to 6,950 dwelling units would exceed the SCAG projection for Tustin which indicates an increase of 5,942 dwelling units in 1985- 2000. · '" . ." . . ...: .~.~': . ' .~ ..i'. ....... ""Z .,. iii ....... . · . . .. . ... .. .. . o . . , .... · .. . , .. .. .". .. .'.. . iI . .. . .. .. As discussed in Sections 5.0 and 8.0 of the DEII{, the project .provides significant housing resources in proximity to major employment centers. On a regional basis, this can significantly reduce regional VMT by providing housing for workers who would otherwise have to commute from Southern Orange County or Riverside County residential areas. This concentration of housing in close proximity to major employment centers thus carries out SPecific SCAG regional development policies reviewed in other ' environmental documents (i.e., Irvine Center EIR). Similarly, the inclusion of employment and commercial centers in the project proposal allows for a more balanced plan with potential traffic impacts correspondingly reduced (see De__~l M_ar_~s.~ S.an D.i~go (1982) 183 Cal. App. 898 and 905-905). Project alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable Significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Signi_fiean~tEffect- Implementation of the project proposal will ultimately result in the elimination of existing agricultural activities and loss of farm[and. This project, in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on farmland and agricultural production in the project vicinity. FINDING I - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. Fa. et.s. ~in Supp0rt~_of Finding - The only project alternative or mitigation measure which would avoid the loss of farmland and elimination of agricultural activities is that of No Project. However, this alternative is not consistent with the city and county general plans which designate the site for' urban development. Furthermore, maintaining the project site ~ farmland with continued agricultural production activities is not considered to be a long-term v.iable use of the site. Several faetors currently limit the agricultural potential of the site, including, but not limited to, the economic lifespan of existing crops and orchards, market demand conditions and operation costs, particularly water costs. Ail other project alternatives which were evaluated in EIR 85-2 would have, basically, the same agricultural impacts as the current project proposal. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Trans ~porta tigon/,C~eulati on Signifiea.n.t E.f.f..e~t _(a) - This project, individually and in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant' adverse impact on traffic and circulation. With the addition of up to 166,077 average daily trips at buildout, roadways and intersections in the project vicinity will be impacted. FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts..i.n Supp. o_rt 0f__Finding - The East Tustin Specific Plan includes a circulation ' plan intended to provide an adequate circulation system for project traffic, and mitigate imp~tets on the existing eireulstion system. Circulation system improvements proposed as part of the project will serve to lessen project impacts as well as mitigate cumulative traffic impacts expected to result from area-wide traffic increases (see Attachment 1). Speeifieal. ly, the proposed I-5/Jamboree Road interehsnge will lessen project impacts on the existing I-5/Red Hill interchange, as well as lessen cumulative impacts on the interchange. The project's fair share contribution to .the costs of improving Irvine Boulevard from four to six lanes, from .., w,.. ,. · · .... · Newport Avenue to Browning, will serve to mitigate project traffic impacts on the subject roadway. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and ~ncorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Additional changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted by such. other agencies. Fac_t_s_inSup__p?_rt .o_f__Finding - A number of regional circulation system improvements which will ultimately influence the nature and extent of East Tustin traffic impacts are currently being studied. Most notably, the Eastern Transportation Corridor Study and the Bottleneck Study address regional transportation facilities which are in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Both studies are currently considering numerous alternatives relative to future roadway alignments and the utilization and/or improvement of existing circulation facilities in the project vicinity. The project plan does reflect efforts to accommodate Bottleneck options as evidenced in the proposed retention of right-of-way for the Old Myford overcrossing (see Mitigation Measure 31 of Attachment 1). The ultimate selection and implementation of preferred alternatives would influence the distribution of project traffic, and could influence land use patterns within the project site as well. The subject studies are only in conceptual stages at this time, and the responsibility for the studies lies primarily with the County of Orange and the Orange County Transportation Commission. As such, it is not possible at this time for the City of Tustin to incorporate changes or alterations into the project which respond directly to these future regional circulation system improvements. FINDING 3 - SPecific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. F_aets_i~ _Support.~f Fi.n.d_ing- With the exception of the No Project Alternative, all of the project alternatives would generate a substantial amount of traffic. Of the development alternatives, the Existing' General Plan Alternative would generate the least amount of traffic. This alternative would generate approximately 103,000 daily trips as compared to the 166,000 daily trips generated by the current proposal. Traffic from .this alternative would still have a significant impact on surrounding streets and intersections. Cumulative impacts associated with this alternative would also be significant. Due to this alternative's smaller development base as compared to the current proposal, impacts relative to the funding of circulation improvements, both exclusive to the project site and in fair-share contributions to offsite improvements, would be more adverse. The potential inability of a smaller development base to fund proposed major circulation improvements, such as the I-5/Jamboree Road interchange would result in greater impacts on existing facilities, both from project traffic and area-wide traffiC, should these improvements not occur. Other project alternatives, including Maximum Residential Development and Maximum Commercial Development provide a greater potential for funding traffic · system improvements, but would generate traffic volumes comparable to the current proposal. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public 'review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Signifiean.t_ .Effee_ts__(b_) - The proposed easterly extension of Lower Lake Drive, Foothill Boulevard and La Colina will result in a substantial increase in non-project related through traffic over current levels neat- the roadway~s existing termini. . . .. .. . .. · . · .. · . . .. .. ..... FINDING 2 - Additional~changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted · by such other agencies. Facts_i_n_Su_p_~pgrt_ of .~i. nding- The easterly extension of Lower Lake Drive, Foothill Boulevard and La'Colina within the study ama provides for' consisfency with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. It is assumed that in designating these roads as commuter level facilities, the County of Orange has undertaken the necessary planning studies to ensure thst such designation is appropriate. The improvement of these roadways as through streets as dictated by the Orange County MPAH will inet'ease non-project related through traffic neat- the existing roadway termini. The resultant traffic volumes are within the capacities of the roadways~ designations as determined by the County of Orange. The City of Tustin can and will make efforts to minimize impacts, to the extent possible, at the proposed westerly connections (i.e., requiring as part of subdivision review and approval, that the proposed circulation design and roadway alignments are of a character which discourages through traffic and serves only neighborhood traffic). However, the ultimate responsibility for mitigating impacts associated with - implementing the MPAH lies with the Count7 of Orange. Air Qua ty _ _ _ S_ig_n_i_f_i~a~t Ef_fee~- This project individually and in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in an incremental degradation of air quality. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or ineorporhted into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Faets.~in Support qf Fi~ndin~_- Mitigation measures for the project require that steps to reduce air pollution emissions be evaluated 8nd integrated in the project as p~t of subdivision map review and approval (see Attachment 1). .. .. : ... All significant environmental effects th.at can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives.identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support ~f Fish.ding - With the exception of the No Project Alternative, each of the alternatives considered for the project will result in an incremental degradation of air quality. The extent of such degradation will depend on the intensity of development proposed by each alternative. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. Aeoustie Environment Signif]c.a.n~_t ~Effeet- Development of the project site will result in short-term construction noise impacts and a long-term increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site. This project, in itself and in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on roadway noise levels in the area. FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding- In the event that construction noise becomes a significant problem, the city can limit' eonstruetion hours to normal weekday working .. ..... . ..... hours. Preliminary noise barrier recommendations are included in the mitigation measures for the project (see Attachment 1), and will be considered and refined as necessary, at detailed levels of planning. Also, a condition of approval for the project requires documenting that development is adequately mitigated from significant noise impacts. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature of such'studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the.project or further discretionary actions set forth above. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR'. Faetsi~Su??0. r~.~o~ Find~i~ngs - Noise impacts to or from the project would only be - avoided under the No Project Alternative. Due to the existing vacant status of the project site, any of the development alternatives would result in a significant increase in ambient noise levels in and around the project site. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. · · Public Se~riees and Utilities S_igp~__fi~eant:_E~fect - Implementation of the project proposal in itself and in conjunction with other past, present and foreseeable future projects will result in a significant increase in the demand for and utilization of Public services and utilities. More specifically, the project' proposal will: require the addition of police and fire protection personnel and facilities; increase demands on library facilities; require the provision of additional parks and recreation facilities; generate substantial quantities of solid waste and wastewater; increase the demand for and consumption of resources such as eleetieity, natural gas and water; increase demands for public school services; and facilities and increase demands for public transit. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. F.aqt. sin Support of Findings - Numerous mitigation measures are or will be as part of future approvals incorporated into the project to mitigate impacts on public services and utilities (see Attachment 1). Such mitigations include the provision of infrastructure concept plans (i.e., water and sewer plans) as part of the Specific . Plan, conservation measures and close coordination with affected 'agencies. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship to the project proposal are described in Attachment 2. Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Additional changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City of Tustin. Such changes can and should be adopted by such other agencies. F~a?t_s.~i~Sup~o~. 0_f__ ~F_inding- The responsibility for measures to mitigate potential impacts on schools ultimately lies with the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). Such mitigation measures would include the following: 1. Potential impacts on TUSD facilities can be mitigated through the provisions of the School Facilities Mitigation Agreement of August 5, 1985, and the mitigation agreement of January 27, 1986. Mitigation through, the latter agreement will occur by the following: A. TIC and TUSD will cooperate in the expeditious completion of a mitigation agreement which shall provide for housing of students generated by the ETSP area (mitigation agreement). Should this mitigation agreement not be completed prior to the first tentative tract map approval, TUSD and TIC agree to cooperate in developing a separate mitigation agreement covering the development which the subject of the first tentative tract map which will satisfy the conditions as outlined in 5C below. B. Should the mitigation agreement not cover all areas of the ETSP, TIC and TUSD will cooperate to develop subsequent mitigation agreements as necessary. 2. The following mitigation measures are recommended by the State Departments of General Services and Education and the State Allocation Board as feasible measures to be considered by school districts to minimize school district impacts: A. Operational Measures o Reopen and renovate previously closed school district facilities tl maximize utilization of existing facilities. o Insure maximum utilization of existing school space through possible reorganization. o Implementation of extended day or year schedules. o Utilizing available neighboring district space. Il _ Il . · . B. Financing Alternatives o Implementation of developer (SB 201) fees or impact fees to provide for interim educational facilities, as a result of overcrowding. o Sale or lease of excess school district property to finance renovation or new construction of required facilities. o Implementation of the Leroy Green State School lease/purchase law. The emphasis of the act is to reconstruct or replace those existing school buildings which are educationally inadequate or which do not meet present-day structural safety requirements and to acquire new school sites and buildings for the purpose of making them available to local school districts for the pubils of the public school system o Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. This act involves the formation of a community facilities district to finance school . facilities construction through the use of bond' monies. This type of district must be approved by a majority of the registered voters living within the Mello-roos district. · FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the final EIR. _Facts in Suppo..rt of..Findi_ng?- With the exception of the No Project Alternative, all ' of the project alternatives would result in a demand for public services and utilities. It is recognized, however, that the level of demands will depend on the development intensity of the project alternstives. These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the ~f pul}lie review process. Said project alternatives were reieeto_~:~or of the current proposal for the reasons e~d-~v~.~'~ well 8s for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the. Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. FINDING 4- Specific legal considerations make infeasibie the mitigation measures . for school facilities identified in the final EIR.. Facts in Support of .Fi.n. ding- As a provision of the School Facilities Agreement of i Ill JI January 27, 1986, The Irvine Compnay ("TIC") and the Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD") agreed that a condition be included in the ETSP by the City of Tustin that final residential maps shall not be approved by the City until such time as TUSD and TIC entered into the necessary agreements ~;o enable TUSD to obtain financing for the aequisition~ construction or use of the necessary school facilities to aeeomodate students ~enerated by residential development of such maps. TUSD agreed that its approval would not be unreasonably withheld. The foregoing provision is identified as a mitigation measure in the Final EIR. As an alternative, measure: the Planning Commission proposed the following mitigation "TUSD and TIC shall enter into the necessary agreements 'to enable the School District to obtain financing for the acquisition, construction, and/or use of school facilities necessary to aceomodate the students generated by the East Tustin residential development. Final approval of the residential maps shall be contingent upon the agreement or in the absence of such an agreement, upon the determination of the City Council". Subsequently, TIC and TUSD have agreed to amend the School Facilities Agreement to provide that TIC shall not cause a final builder residential map to be approved by the City until such time as TUSD and TIC have entered into the necessary agreements to enable TUSD to obtain financing for the acquisition, construction or use of the necessary school facilities to accommodate students generated by r~{de.ntial development if that map. Under the State Constitution and State law, the City of Tustin has discretionary approval power over land use development within its jurisdiction, and may not legally delegate such legislative power to third parties, such as TUSD. The adoption of the mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR would, in effect, give TUSD veto power over. the approval of final residential maps based on some determination by TUSD as to whether or not "necessary agreements" had been entered into. This condition would'amount to an unlawful delegation of the City's legislative powers. o The Planning C'ommission's proposed mitigation measure would involve the City in a determination as to whether "the necessary agreements" had been entered into.. However, according to the School Facilities Agreement, as amended, this is a determination to be made by TIC and TUSD, not by the City. Instead, the mitigation measure adopted by the City Council acknowledges the School Facilities A~eement, as amended, and allows the City to review the status of the implementatioon of that Agreement at subsequent levels of project review and to retain its full discretion as to all the factors, including the impact on schools, that must be taken into account in determining whether to approve subsequent levels of project development. Aesthetics and Visual Resources .S. ignif!ean..t Effect - Development at the project site in itself, and in conjunction with o past, present and foreseeable future projects, will alter the visual character and aesthetic qualities of the area. · FINDING I - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The land use plan, development regulations and design guidelines incorporated in the East Tustin Specific Plan are intended to provide for an aesthetically pleasing development and integrate development with the natural, rural qualities of the area. Development in the northern hillside areas will be of a low intensity and will be subject to hillside district guidelines which are intended to help maintain the existing character of the area (see Attachment 1). The extension · of the proposed golf course through the central and southern portions at the site is intended to maintain a significant open space character near areas of higher ... intensity land uses. In addition, the p~ovision of extensive landscaping throughout the site will enhance the aesthetic eha~aete~ of future development. Additional specific mitigation measures may be required in conjunction with subsequent technical studies required for further discretionary actions. The nature of such studies and relationship 'to the project proposal are described in .. Attachment 2. Ail significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project or further discretionary actions as set forth above. FINDING 2 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the .final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding- With the exception of the No Project Alternative, development of the project site under any of the other project alternatives would substantially alter the visual character of the study area, as well as the current project proposal. The overall development character of the project site would most- likely be less intense under' the Existing General Plan Alternative, as compared to the current proposal, but would lack the aesthetic benefits of having a 150-acre golf course integrated with urban development. · These alternatives were evaluated in the EIR and considered during the course of the public review process. Said project alternatives were rejected in favor of the current proposal for the reasons cited above as well as for reasons noted in Attachment 3. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto. A'I~ACH M ENT ! LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES Landf ~or ~f!~, opo~ _ _,aph¥ le Detailed grading plans (in conformance with established city procedures) further 'defining project earthwork requirements, will be developed during subsequent, more detailed levels of planning (i.e., site plan or tentative tract map preparation stages) and will be subject to the review and approval of the city. ® All applicable policies of the Hillside District Guidelines in regard to landform modifications will be applied in order to achieve a design concept that minimizes grading and landform alteration impacts. (See Section 2.13 and 2.14 of the Specific Plan text for a complete listing of applicable policies). A partial listing of such concepts include the following: Cluster development to minimize grading impacts and/or retain natural features. Design roadways to conform to existing topography, where feasible; consider modified road standards to reduce adverse grading impacts. Grading should incorporate openslope areas (graded or natural) which are landscaped and provide an appearance of a natural hillside. All graded slopes (cut or fill), including roadsides, should undergo permanent re-vegetation in a timely manner to minimize chance of erosion and siltation. The natural profile and landform character of the onsite knoll shown on Exhibit 7 of the DEIR should be maintained. The mitigation measures for geologic impacts are principally engineering recommendations and will encompass the following: standardized 3~ Removal of eolluvium, alluvium, topsoil, landslide debris and artificial fill to suitable foundation earth materials will be required prior to placement of fill in areas where these deposits occur. Specific grading recommendations for removal depths will be determined as part of future, more detailed geotechnical studies (see No. 3 below). e Further slope stability investigaiions, as recommended by the geotechnical consultant, will be conducted pu~uant to required future geotechnical studies for the areas of potential slope instability within the proposed limits of development. The leCel of detail will vary with the local geologic conditions. In most eases~ a subsurface geologic investigation will be required to evaluate critical lithologie and structural geological interpretations. In general, conclusions pertaining to slope stability in these preliminary studies should be clearly presented 8nd supported by adequate geologic maps, cross-sections, and supporting engineering data. Technical review for adequacy of 811 such reports should be accomplished in 8eeordanee with current practice. Reviewing agencies have found that compliance with Chapter ?0 of the Uniform Building Code~ which regulates earthwork 8nd grsding, is important in the mitigation of slope instability during the actual ~radin~ phase of development. Should unfavorable slide conditions be eneountered~ they may be removed during grading or stabilized by means of buttressing or reorientation of slope direction. Detailed geotechnieal and soils engineering reports ,~ill be prepared subsequent to development of preliminat~ desigg layouts and final grading plans (e.g., at the tentative"traet map preparation stages). This report will provide further, more detailed measures for treatment of excavational (ripping) difficulties, surfieial material removals, cut and fill slopes~ expansive soils~ faults and liquefaction hazards (influencing the design of roadway stream crossings). · o 6, As part of the subsequent geotechnieal studies currently in process, additional analysis is being conducted to determine the exact status of the E1 Modena fault. If it is concluded that the fault can be considered to be active, additional detailed analysis shall be conducted to determine the exact location and extent of the fault. This investigation will serve to define the location and width'°f a structural setback zone for the fault. 7. Ail structures will be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Codes to promote safety in the event of an earthquake. 8. Erosion potential can be reduced by utilizing rapid developing planting techniques (e.g., hydroseeding), replacement with cohesive soils not subject to erosion, and construction of terrace drain systems. Hy dro og /wa er quaU 9. The East Tustin Specific Plan-Drainage/Flood Control Concept Plan incorporates improvements designed to alleviate existing onsite drainage/flooding problems, as well as accommodate increased runoff flows associated with proposed land uses. Many of the plans for onsite and offsite drainage improvements are at a conceptual state only, due to the absence of detailed project data at this time. At more detailed levels of project planning (e.g., tentative tract map level), detailed dra!nage/ hydrology studies will address existing onsite drainage flooding problems and increased runoff flows associated with proposed land uses, and will incorporate proposed specific mitigation measures addressing these drainage needs. Said studies shall demonstrate that proposed improve- ments will ensure that the proposed development will not be subject to drainage/flooding hazards, and the proposed improvements are integrated and compatible with adjoining drainage facilities. These studies and measures shall be submitted for review and approval by the Tustin Public Works Department. As the overall plan is finalized, specific drainage improvements for Peters Canyon Wash (FO6), E1 Modena-Irvine Channel (FOT) and tributary county facilities (FO7SO2, FO7P35 and FO7POS) shall be subject to r~vie.w Management Agency - Flood Control District. Also, drainage improvements proposed at the Santa Aha Freeway shall be subject to review and approval by ~altrans, as appropriate. 10. Erosion control measures will be developed and incorporated into final gr. ading plans for the project t-o minimize potential increases in erosion and .sediment transport during the short-term construction phases. Such measures could include the timel7 seeding of graded slopes, scheduling major ~rading phases dur!ng the non-rainy season and the use of temporary control measures, e.g., perimeter sandbagging. Said construction erosion and sediment control plans for minimizing construction erosion will be submitted to the City of Tustin for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. 11. Development of appropr, iate pollution control plans (e.g., a street sweeping program, periodic storm drain system cleaning and developing landscape plans which control the use of fertilizer and pesticides)'will be prepared and implemented as a condition of subdivision map approval by the Planning Commission. Long-term erosion and sediment control within proposed development areas will be provided with the installation of - downdrains, terrace drains and brow ditches as necessary, and the continued maintenance of slope vegetation. Biology 12. As provided for in the specific plan, developments within the northern portion of the site, and especially in the hillside district areas, should include open space areas left in a natural state where feasible. 13. Landscaping guidelines provided in the specific plan should be adhered to in an effort to preserve notable floral features (e.g., including but not limited to eucalyptus windrow groves) where feasible; and supplement remaining vegetation with similar or complementary plant species. 14. Several neighborhood parks are proposed.within the specific plan, however, th,~.~r ex,.~t lo, cation has not been determined at this time. Consideration '4 .' 'o '. should be given to selecting locations where notable biological features can be incorporated into the park site. One example of such preservation of biological features whiela is already incorporated into the project proposal is the specific plsn requirement that the onsite redwood ~ove be retained in a neighborhood park or other public right-of-way. 15. · Deed restrictions regulating the operation of motorized off-road vehicles and limiting trail access into any open space areas should be considered for protecting open space areas from potentially adverse influences. 16. If determined to be sound and feasible from a hydrology and engineering standpoint, increasing the water supply of the freshwater marsh will occur in order to increase the extent, health and diversity of this regionally uncommon habitat. A fUnctional freshwater marsh will enhance the' wildlife and aesthetic value of the local area. 17. Additional analysis regarding potential impacts to riparian habitat will occur through the 1603 permit process (Streambed Alteration Agreement-- State Department of Fish and Game). This analysis will include identifying specific measures intended to minimize impacts on significant biological resources. The implementation of such mitigation measures can serve to preserve significant or unique riparian habits. In addition to meeting, 1603 permit requirements, this process would also respond to the policy of the Tustin Conservation-Open Space Element to "identify, designate and preserve significant or unique riparian habitats." 18. Consideration should be given to leaving specimen-sized eucalyptus trees in place wherever possible for their value as roosting and perching sites for birds. 19. Revegetation should be accomplished on all graded and cut-and-fill areas where structures or improvements are not constructed. Consideration should be given to the use of drought-tolerant plant materials, especially species native to the foothills and coastal plains of Southern California. NatiVe plant materials should be derived from local stocks. .. .. · .. .. : · · . . . Cultural Resources _ . _ _~_: _- _ _____-~- _ _- _- _ - Archaeolo~ 20. Additional testing of the five recorded archaeological sites located within the study area will be conducted to determine the areal extent and significance of the sites. Based on the findings of such testing, specific mitigation measures will be developed and implemented as appropriate. Mitigation measures utiUzed for cultural resources typically include one or more of the following: Avoidanee/Proteetion: Avoidance of a cultural resource can be the most desirable form of mitigation from the perspectives of the devel- oper, archaeological and Native American communities, however such mitigation often poses a significant eonstrsint to development plans. Data Recovery: A second form of mitigation may be the excavation of a large' enough subsurface sample to provide an adequate sample of the resource in question. If an adequate sample exists to characterize the archaeological site, mitigation, in some eases, is deemed complete. This data collection phase at some sites may actually be accomplished as a result of the preliminary test phase if the site is small. Excavation/Preservation: A third mitigation of archaeological resources is a combination of both excavation and partial preservation of a resource. 21. Should human remains of native American Indians be encountered during the project, the County Coroner's office will be contacted pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section '/0.50.5 of the Health 8nd Safety Code. BistoHeal A~~teetum 22. The City of Tustin, County of Orange, and the applicant will'evaluate the historic district documentation to determine: (a) the precise boundary approved for the district; and (b) the historic significance of structures located within the district. 23. Prior to issuance of any building, grading, or demoliton permits, a comprehensive documentation of the affected structures and area shall be prepared by a qualified historian. 24. Prior to issuance of any building, grading or demolition permits, the local historic society shall be notified and permitted to remove any artifact or ephemora that illustrates the historic significance of the area or structures. Use 25. Implementation of provisions within the Eas~ Tustin Specific Plan which allow for the continuation of agricultural production activities within portions of the site not subject to immediate development will serve to delay the ultimate conversion of farmland/open space to urban uses (see Section 3.8, Agricultural Resources). 26. Adherence to and compliance with the guidelines and provisions of the East Tustin Specific Plan will facilitate the orderly development of the project and mitigate the potential for land use conflicts. 27. Provisions within the East Tustin Specific Plan allow agricultural production activities to continue outside of areas of development, which could serve to incrementally reduce and postpone impacts associated with the loss of agrieulture. 8oeioeeonomies 28. Housing program objectives presented in the Tustin Housing Element include the construction of 600 affordable units (100 low income and 500 moderate income) wi.th~ .... the East Tustin Specific Plan area by 1088. In .. ...... · . · . . .. .. .. preparing more detailed development plans for th.e project (i.e., tentative tract.map), the project sponsor should work closely with the City of Tustin in identifying and implementing programs to achieve this objective. Programs which should be considered in such efforts include: Bonding programs of the' state and county to enable below market interest rate construction and long-term financing of residential development projects. Programs sueh as HUD Section 235 and California Housing Finance Agency which provide interest reduction/below-market interest mortgage loans for the purclmse of new homes. ,~,. ~~rta_tion/Cireulati~ on Table A provides a summary of the traffic mitigation measures proposed for the project. A more detailed description of each mitigation measure is presented below. 29. Development of the East Tustin arterial street system should occur in accordance to the proposed circulation plan identified in Section 3.10.2, Impacts. This plan calZs for the widening of existing arterials and the construction of new facilities. The resulting system will support East Tustin development and will also provide capacity for other traffic. In concert with the Jamboree interchange noted below, it will also provide relief to other city streets such as Red Hill Avenue. 30. An overcrossing of 1-5 by Jamboree Road is currently on the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) and the City of Tustin Arterial Highway Plan. This interchange is proposed as a key mitigation measure for East Tustin. The interchange will provide more capacity than will be used by East Tustin and hence will help relieve potential deficiencies on the parallel Red Hill Avenue arterial corridor. 31. The discussion in the previous section noted that without through traffic, the current four-lane section of Irvine Boulevard would be adequate for City of Tustin traffic (including East Tustin). However, with the exception of this section, Irvine Boulevard is a major arterial and as such has a functional role of carrying a certain share of regional traffic. Since East Tustin contril)utes to the increase in traffic on this facility, the mitigation measure is for some fair'share contribution for its improvement to six lanes to be provided by the project. 32. North-south ~raffie demands indicate that additional freeway erossings, such as Browning and Old Myford may be needed to supplement Red Hill, Jamboree and Myford. The need for Old Myford will largely depend on the level of regional capacity that will be provided by the Eastern Transportation Corridor (ETC) and on the selected bottleneck solutions. To a lesser extent, it will also depend on whether the Browning overerossing is retained in the city's circulation system. Hence, it is recommended as a mitigation measure that adequate right-of-way for Old Myford to be reserved north and south of I-5 until a final need determination can be made. At that time, a suitable fair share finding mechanism can be devised if the facility is needed, or the right-of-way could revert to other uses if it is not needed. 33. The East Tustin land use plan places residential uses adjacent to the. existing residential areas bordering East Tustin. The intent is to provide a continuity between the two areas rather than reinforce the present . border. One of the reasons for proposing two-lane connections from East Tustin to the existing circulation system is to encourage this continuity, providing convenient access into East Tustin from the existing residential , areas. 34. The degree to which thru traffic will use this route will depend on how convenient it is to use the facility. Since the recommended plan leaves La Colina as a local street then every effort should be made to discourage thru traffic. A mitigation measure, therefore, is to implement a thru traffic deterenee program as a condition of subdivision map approval. At the Tentative Tract stage, the City and County will prepare a joint study, examining the impacts and mitigation measures of the connection and recommending specific measures to deter, thru traffic on this local street o · TABLE A SUMMARY O12 TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES Location East Tustin Arterial Street System Widening: Mitigation Measure Irvine Boulevard Bryan Avenue . Myford Road (I-5 to Irvine) (6-lane major) (4-lane primary) (6-lane major) New Highways: Jamboree Road Myford Road (Irvine to Portola) Myford Road (North of Portola) Laguna Road Portola Parkway (6-lane major) (6-lane major) (4-lane primary) (4-lane collector) (4-lane prim ary) Jamboree/I-5 Interchange 6-lane overerossing and'full directional interchange. Irvine Boulevard, Newport Avenue to Browning Avenue Proposed in city Traffic Study to be widened to 6-lane major arterial. East Tustin to contribute fair share of east. Old Myford Overerossing of I-5 Potential futurelink- depends on outcome of ETC and Bottleneck studies. East Tustin to preserve right-of-way until need for the link is determined. La Colina Traffic operations strategies to minimize thru traffic (if the Bottleneck Study does not select La Colina as a thru route). · 34a. "That prior to the connection of Lower Lake Drive and Foothill Boulevard in the specific plan area to existing roadways, a joint study be prepared by the County of Orange and the City of Tustin to address the need for those connections and, if such a need is found to exist, the impacts and proposed mitigation measures associated with those connections." ,~r~~ty 35. In the review of subdivision maps for the East Tustin Specific Plan the City of Tustin will review the need and provisions for measures incorporated into the project which serve to mitigate air pollutant emissions. Such measures Which may be appropriate for the proposed project include: A® Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities should be provided within all projects so as to facilitate and provide direct connections to project and neighborhood activity modes and to citywide bicycle trails, and through footpaths for pedestrians. Be Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public transit usage and providing se(~ure bicycle facilities. Ce Provide mass transit accommodations; such as bus turnout lanes, park and ride areas and bus shelters. De Construction activity dust generation shall be reduced through regular watering as required by the ScAQM'D' Rule 403. Ee Ail projects within the East Tustin project area should comply with "reasonable available control measures" of the South Coast AQMP which include: H-4 Flexible Work Schedules (for offices located in the project area). ® H-23 Increased Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities. ® H-35 Traffic Signal Synchronization. · N-4 Energy-Conserving Street Lighting. Fe Provisions for and the encouragement of ridesharing would reduce air quality impacts (and transportation/circulation impacts). _ _ I I i Acoustical Environment 36. The preliminary noise barrier recommendations delineated in Table 30 shall be considered within the development of more detailed project plans (i.e., site plan, tentative tract map). Barriers used within the project site could be berm, wall or a combination berm and wall. Walls should not contain holes or gaps, and should be constructed of slumpstone or other masonry material. The noise barrier heights projected may be reduced considerably through site design, such as setbacks from the roadways, grade separations and exterior living area orientation. Final noise barrier heights should be determined when final grading plans are developed that' show lot locations, house setbacks and precise pad elevations. PRELIMINARY NOISE BARRI'ER RECOMMF_.NDATIONS Ro~~ay Bryan Avenue Irvine Boulevard Myford Road Jamboree Road Foothill Boulevard Lower Lake Drive Barrier. Height~ (fee_t) 4to6 5to8 5to8 5to8 0to5 0 os Residential indoor mitigation measures can not be formulated until more detailed site specific information is available. However, it should be noted that areas along roadways listed in table above are of concern. Typically buildings with open windows only provide 12 dBA outdoor and indoor noise reduction. In.areas where the noise level exceeds 57 CNEL the interior standard of 45 CNEL will be achieved without additional measures. These houses will be required to have eloseable windows and mechanical ventilation must be provided to replace the loss of natural ventilation. Mechanical ventilation or a "summer switch" system as it is commonly referred to, allows the use of the heater fan to circulate the room air with f~'esh air. Additionally, buildings upgrades may need to be required, such as admt~onal glamng or wall construction. 37. Ail residential lots and dwellings shall be sound attenuated against present and project noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. EvidenCe prepared ~under the supervision of acoustical consultant · that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted as follows: A. Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior to the issuance of grading permits, at the discretion of the city, an acoustical analysis report shall be submitted to the Tustin Community Development Department for approval° The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise envronment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise. standards may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy "B" below. B. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical analysis r report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Tustin Community Development Department for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the desgn of the project. C. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field testing in accordance with the Title 25 regulations may be reqired by the Manager, Building Inspection Division, to verify compliance with STC and IIC desgn standards. .o Public Services and Utilities Police Protection Services 38. The project sponsor shall work closely with the police department to ensure that adequate security'precautions are implemented in the project. The provision of adequate security precautions includes construction phases of the project. Such security could include construction fences and private security patrol. Police services to the development will be enha'need through the provision of adequate street lighting, clearly marked street names and building numbers and security hardware. Fire PrOteetion Services 39. The project sponsor shall work closely with the Orange County Fire Department to ensure that adequate fire safety precautions are implemented in the project. Specific fire protection needs will be evaluated and provided for at the subdivision level of project processing. 40. 41. All development in the Hillside District, generally most of the area north of Racquet Hills Drive, shall be subject to the guidelines established in the September 1976 Fire Protection Planning Task Force Report adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and entitled "Fire Hazard Background Report and Recommendations For The Reduction of Fire Hazard At The Natural Open Space/Urban Development Interface Orange County, California." If this report is amended at a later date, the most current amendments would be utilized, as appropriate. Fire retardant roofing materials, Class A minimum shall be used on structures occurring within the Hillside District. Parks and Recreation 42. Development of park and recreation facilities proposed within the East Tustin Specific Plan area will serve to minimize potential impacts on existing park and recreation facilities, while serving the recreation needs of residents of the project area. 43. The following water conservation measures will ~)e implemented as required by state law: o Low-flush toilets (Section 17921.3 of the Health and Safety Code). Low-flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Title 24, Park 6, Article 1',' T20-1406F). O. Code, Insulation of hot water, lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). The project also will comply with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code. 44. Landscape with low water-consuming plants wherever feasible. 45. Use mulch extensively, where feasible, in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied to top of soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing evaporation and soil compaction. 46. Preserve and protect existing trees where feasible. Established plants are often adapted to low water conditions and their use saves water needed to establish replacement vegetation. 47. Install efficient irrigation systems which minimize runoff and evaporation and maximize the amount of water which will reach the plant roots. Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors and automatic irrigation systems are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency. Wastewater Water conservation measures as those recommended in Section 3.13.7 would reduce wastewater flows from the site. ~le~eity 49. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 50. The following energy conservation techniques should also be considered: Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design and orientation, such as the use of solar water and space heating technologies, should be considered. Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling energy use. Walls, ceiling, floors, windows and hot water lines should be insulated to prevent heat loss or gain. Energy efficient lighting (e.g., high pressure sodium outdoors and fluorescent indoors) should be used rather than less efficient types of lighting.. Maximum use of natural lighting should be made during edaylight hours. 51. It is strongly recommended that the developer consult with SCE during the building design phase for further energy conservation measures. 52. The developers of the project will work closely development and installation of electrical facilities. with SCE on the 53. Facilities will be placed underground wherever feasible. Natural (las 54. Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 55. Energy Conservation techniques should also be considered: Energy efficient concepts in building layout, design and orientation, such as the use of solar water and space heating technologies, should be considered. Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new structures and parking lots, thereby minimizing heating and cooling energy use. Walls, eeiling, floors, windows and hot water lines should be insulated to prevent heat loss or gain. 56. It is recommended that the developer consult the Southern California Gas Company for methods of conservation during building design phases. 57. The developer will consult with SCG during the design phase to ensure efficient development and installation of natural gas facilities. 58. The developer will work with Pacific Bell Telephone to ensure adequate lead time for efficient upgrading of facilities prior to construction. Public T~~rtation 59. Setbacks should be kept to the minimum requirements in order to shorten walking distances from stops to residents for transit riders. 60. Pedestrian and handicapped access should be provided through landscaping, with accompanying breaks in barrier walls. 61. Passenger amenities, such as waiting areas, benches should be provided at each stop. Aestl~tie and Visual Resources ~--- - - .- ~--- -~ --_-- ~_~ . ~ i _ sidewalks, shelters and 62. In the hillside area measures set forth in the East Tustin Specific Plan, Hillside District Guidelines will be implemented with project development. The objective of design guidelines is to enhance the visual harmony between existing landforms and the new development. The summary below provides those district guidelines directly applicable to visual resources. The Hillside District Guidelines can be found in their entirety in Section 3.13 of the East Tustin Specific Plan. ie Consideration should be given to the preservation or enhancement of significant natural features which ean'be seen from public places. Site buildings and align roadways to maximize public visual exposure to major natural features such as the north-south Peters Canyon ridgeline, the redwood/cedar grove, the knoll and major tree stands On slope areas generally steeper than 25 percent, typical padded lot solutions should be avoided. Minimize grading by carefully siting buildings and roadways to conform with the° natural topography. Structures should be sited so that roof slope follows slope of natural grade. B. Preserve the open space values of the central Peters Canyon ridge by excluding buildings and overhead utility lines from being developed on the top of the ridgeline and by careful sit{ng of structures and landscaping adjacent to the ridgeline. Site the top of roof lines and structure so' that they .occur below the elevation of the ridgetop. Siting of proposed structures and the use of plant materials so that the maximum concealment of cut slopes is created. C. Where feasible, grading and siting practice should'reflect the natural topography of the land, and minimize creation of excessively large level areas by grading. Where level pads are required, the pads should conform to the direction of the contours when this type of solution does not conflict with desirable drainage solutions. When feasible, where level areas are needed, grading concepts should provide variety in the steepness of slopes and their configuration. Where major reeontouring is proposed, especially in the lower, more gently sloping hillsides, the concept of contour grading should be used to blend the graded slopes with the natural undulating character of the hillside landform. D. Grading on hillside areas should soften hard edges left by cut-and-fill operations where an adverse visual impact may occur. Create slopes, either cut or fill that are adjacent to roadways should be graded in such a way that an undulating appearance in the graded plane is-provided, for a more pleasing visual appearance to the road. 63. In the flatland area, measures included in the Urban Design Guidelines section of the East Tustin Specific Plan (Section 2.12), should be implemented with project development. These guidelines include landscaping directly adjacent to the street right-of-ways. Addition~..Mitigati on M ~eas.. tres 64. "Prior to approval of a development agreement by the City of Tustin for the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP) area, the development agreement shall be reviewed in light of the ETSP EIR to assess whether the associated impacts have been adequately addressed. If it is determined that additional environmental documentation is required for the development. agreement, said documentation shall be completed prior to the approval of the agreement." o. 65. The Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD") and The Irvine Company ("TIC") have entered into the School Facilities Agreement, dated January 27, 1986, as amended, which obligates both parties to cooperate in the expeditious completion of one or more mitigation agreements to enable TUSD to obtain financing for the acquisition, construction or use of the necessary school facilities to aeeoniodate students generated by development of residential subdivisions. City will review the status of the implementation of the School Facilities Agreement at subsequent levels of project approvals, such as the approval of tentative builder residential tract'' maps. City will address the impact of TIC's project on District facilities at such time as TIC submits tentative builder residential tract maps for approval. In processing any such future approvals for properties · within the. East Tustin Specific Plan boundaries, City will not object to any .. legal action taken by the TUSD on the grounds, that the CEQA statute of limitation has run, provided however, that any such future actions are brought within 30 days from the date the City causes to be filed a Notice of Determination as to the approval of any such tentative builder residential tract.map. .. ATTACHM tiNT 2 FUTURE STUDIES · Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines, EIR 85-2 discusses environmental effects in proportion to their severity and probability of occurrence. To that end, the EIR recognizes that'eertain areas of impact from the proposed project are unlikelY to occur, or if potentially occurring, can be mitigated to'a level of insignificance by imposition of conditions to further levels of project approval (i.e., subdivision maps, grading permits, etc.). Moreover it was determined in the process of preparing EIR 85-2 that, given the level of specificity of planning for the project, these impacts could be more comprehensively addressed coincident with the detail to be required as part of future discretionary actions. The following constitute the subsequent technical studies that will be needed and prepared concurrent 'with further discretionary approvals, as appropriate, with respect to the East Tustin Specific Plan development. '1. Geology and soil investigations, including additional, analysis as to. the activity status of the E1 Modena Fault. 2. Demonstration of the application of contour grading criteria. 3. Erosion and pollution (surface water) control plans. 4. Detailed hydrologic and flood control plans. 5. Archaeological/test-level investigations and final recommendations. 6. Investigation of the potential historical significance of Company Agricultural Headquarters complex. mitigation The Irvine 7. Detailed site-specific acoustical analyses. 8. Infrastructure engineering plans. The City Council therefore finds, based upon all data currently available, that while no significant adverse impacts beyond those discussed in EIR 85-2 am expected to be discovered 8s 8 result of any of these subsequent~ focused studies, the requirement for such studies as a condition to the Esst Tustin Specific Plan and the reservation of the power to incorporate any messures required to mitigate any disclosed impacts to insignificant level~".in a timely manner, is itself adequate mitigation for any impacts disclosed by such subsequent"~urveys and studies, however unlikely. ........... ATTACHMENT 3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Four alternatives to the current project proposal were identified and evaluated in EIR 85-2 (see Section 6.0 of the DEIR). The following provudes a brief description of the project alternatives and an explanation of wl~y each one was rejected in favor of the current project proposal. Alternative 6.1, No Project would prevent development from occurring onsite and would effectively preserve the existing agricultural and open space land uses at the site for a limited number of years.. As discussed in the DEIR, the continued use of the site for agricultural open space uses is not a viable long-term use of the site, nor is it consistent with the existing general plan which designates the site for urban uses. As all environmental impacts would be. avoided under this alternative, it is clearly considered to be an environmentally superior option to the project. This alternative was rejected, however, because it fails to provide for the objectives established for the project, and is contrary to the goals, objectives and provisions of the Tustin General Plan Which designate the East Tustin area for urban development. Alternative 6.3, Existing Ge~~ Plan would allow the project site to be developed . under the existing general plan land use designations. ComPared to the current project proposal, the development of uses of a lower intensity would afford the advantage of less traffic generation which in turn would result in less air pollutant emissions and roadway noise increases. Although the traffic volumes would be less under this alternative, the ability to adequately accommodate project traffic would also be less, due to a smaller development base associated with this alternative; the funding of major circulation improvements to serve the project and area wide traffic would therefore become more difficult. The existing general plan land use desgnations provide for very little commercial, employment and recreation uses to support the residential development. Development under this alternative would not provide for the variety of housing types as does the current proposal and would also make the currently proposed 150-acre golf course/open space area infeasible. Based primarily on such land use balance considerations, this alternative was rejected in favor of the current proposal. .o Alteruative 6.3, Maximum Residential Development provides for a greater number of residential units and less commercial uses than the currently proposed project. The relative 8dvantages would include less trsffie generation especially during peak travel hours~ less mobile source air and noise pollution and 8 greater contribution in the number 8nd type of units 8dded to the city's existing housing stock. The . disadvantages include greater impacts on. public services and utiliti.es especially .. public schools, greater demands on limited existing commercial and employment land uses and the exposure of more dwelling units to existing noise sources, particularly military aircraft noise. As the apparent disadvangates exceeded the advantages, this alternative was rejected in favor of the current project proposal. Alternatve 6.4, Maximum Commereual Development provides for more commercial and less residential development than the current proposal. The primary advantages of this alternative include greater loea-1 employment and shopping opportunities for project residents.and less of a demand on public schools. The disadvantages, which serve as the reasons for rejecting this alternative, include increased traffic generation especially during peak travel hours, increased mobile source air and noise pollution and a higher intensity of development character than that of the local area. BACKGROUND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA)and the State EIR Guidelines (Section 15093 of the Guidelines) promul.'gated pursuant thereto provide: .. "(a) CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against is unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but not at least substantially mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3). (e) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the state- ment should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination." The Tustin City Council proposes to approve amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Seismic Safety Element, as well as a zone change and a specific plan for the area referred to as the East Tustin Specific Plan site. Because the actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, an EIR has been prepared. The Final EIR (85-2) has identified certain unavoidable environmental risks of the project. The City Council has considered the following benefits of the proposed project, and has balanced those benefits against the project's unavoidable environmental effects. The City Council hereby finds that the following benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects and are overriding: 1. The East Tustin Specific Plan will provide a comprehensive and coordinated development plan for the 1,?40-acre study area. 2. The project responds to the city and county planning programs which designate the site for urban land uses. 3. The project represents a logical extension of urban services and facilities. 4~ The project provides for residential, commercial, public, employment and recreational uses of a greater long-term economic viability than that of the current onsite agricultural uses. e The project, upon completion, will result in a net increase in annual revenues to the city. ® . The project will provide increased housing, employment, shopping and recreational opportunities within Tustin. ge The project is complementary to existing and proposed land uses in the project vicinity and community in general. ® The project provides for a variety of single-family and multifamily housing types. The project provides for major transportation/circulation improvements which will not only serve the project site but will benefit area-wide traffic movement as well. 10. The project will provide the area with a major recreational facility, the 150-acre golf course. 11. Beyond meeting city park requirements, the project provides private recreational facilities to meet onsite needs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) § CITY OF TUSTIN ) MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin isI five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 86-28 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of'--'"-~he City Council held on the 1.Tth day of March_,_ 1986, by the fol 1 owing vote: AYES · COUNCILPERSONS' Edgar, Greinke, Hoesterey, Saltarelli NOES · COUNCILPERSONS' Kennedy ABSENT' COUNCILPERSONS' None ~~t ~ek MARY E. , CitY r City of in, Cal ornia