Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-002 01-02-08MEETING DATE: JANUARY 2, 2008 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-002 SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment related to the proposed annexation of approximately 1.243 acres in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area, identified as Reorganization 07-01. On December 11, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve GPA 07-002. Applicant: City of Tustin RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 08-03 finding that General Plan Amendment 07-002 and Reorganization 07-01 are within the scope of the adopted FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, for the project entitled "Newport Avenue Extension, State Route 55 Northbound Ramp Reconfiguration, Valencia Avenue and Del Amo Avenue Widening." 2. Adopt Resolution No. 08-04 approving General Plan Amendment 07-002 for Reorganization 07-01. FISCAL IMPACT: General Plan Amendment 07-002 is aCity-initiated project. There is no direct significant fiscal impact associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment. The annexation of approximately 1.243 acres to the City of Tustin would have an insignificant fiscal impact consisting of additional property tax revenues and additional expenditures for public services. ENVIRONMENTAL: On December 17, 1990, the Tustin City Council certified Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. On May 5, 2003, the City of Tustin City Council certified the City Council Report January 2, 2008 GPA 07-002 Page 2 Final Environmental Report 90-1, as revised by Final Supplement #1, for the project entitled "Newport Avenue Extension, State Route 55 Northbound Ramp Reconfiguration, Valencia Avenue and Del Amo Avenue Widening." The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization are consistent with the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and the development intensity previously considered for Planning Area 5 in the certified FEIR. As the FEIR is a Program EIR under CEQA, if the City does an analysis of the proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization under Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15162 and finds that no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the City can approve the Amendments as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. [Title 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15168]. Staff has prepared an Environmental Analysis checklist that demonstrates all potential impacts of the proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization were addressed by the certified FEIR and no additional impacts have been identified (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03). BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted by the Tustin City Council on February 19, 1991. Pacific Center East is comprised of approximately 126 acres and is bounded on the west by the State Route 55 Freeway, on the north by the Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel, on the east by Red Hill Avenue, and on the south by Valencia Avenue. The project entitled "Newport Avenue Extension, State Route 55 Northbound Ramp Reconfiguration, Valencia Avenue and Del Amo Avenue Widening" is within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. These significant right-of-way improvements form the boundaries of Planning Areas 5, 6, 10, and 11 within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. A portion of Planning Area 5 is within the City of Santa Ana. During the planning process for the right-of--way improvements, it has been the intent of both Tustin and Santa Ana to reorganize the City boundary to just east of the State Route 55 Freeway, such that all of Planning Area 5 would be located within the City of Tustin. The proposed project is a general plan amendment and boundary reorganization that would facilitate the cohesive development of Pacific Center East Specific Plan Planning Area 5. The development of Planning Area 5 was analyzed in Final EIR 90-1 (FEIR), as revised by Supplement #1. The proposed general plan amendment would retain the Planned Community zoning and Regional Center designation of the site, pursuant to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed reorganization includes the following actions: City Council Report January 2, 2008 GPA 07-002 Page 3 • Detachment of approximately 1.243 acres from the City of Santa Ana and annexation of the same 1.243 acres to the City of Tustin • Amendment to City of Santa Ana Sphere of Influence • Amendment to City of Tustin Sphere of Influence The area proposed to be annexed is currently developed with a public street and an on- ramp to the SR-55 Freeway at Edinger Avenue. The ramp is proposed to be abandoned and replaced with a new on ramp at another location. Caltrans is the current owner of most of the land that is proposed to be annexed. The remaining portion is within the public right-of-way. Caltrans has submitted a property owner consent form stating that the Agency consents to the boundary reorganization. The City of Santa Ana is currently reviewing documentation pertaining to the proposed reorganization. Concurrence from the City of Santa Ana is expected during the LAFCO application processing period. The boundary reorganization would improve the delivery of public services such as law enforcement and waste collection to the annexed area. The reorganization would also place Planning Area 5 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan entirely within one city rather than split it illogically between two cities. Presently, the proposed annexation area is somewhat isolated from the rest of Santa Ana because it is separated by the State Route 55 Freeway. Prior to taking action on the proposed reorganization, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFCO) requires that the City of Tustin adopt a General Plan Amendment for the territory to be annexed. A Prezone is not required because the Pacific Center East Specific Plan already includes the area to be annexed to the City of Tustin, and the associated Planned Community zoning was established in 1991. General Plan Amendment 07-002 General Plan Amendment 07-002 would establish the General Plan land use designation of "Planned Community Commercial/Business" for the territory to be annexed as Reorganization 07-01. The proposed general plan amendment also includes the revision of some text and several maps in the Tustin General Plan to reflect the adjustment to the City boundary. These revisions would maintain internal consistency within the General Plan. On December 11, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 07-002. Boundary Reorganization Process The boundary reorganization is one component of the project and is addressed in the environmental analysis to be considered by the City Council. On December 4, 2007, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution 07-67, authorizing staff to submit an application to, and requesting that, LAFCO initiate proceedings for the reorganization of territory currently in the City of Santa Ana within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan City Council Report January 2, 2008 G PA 07-002 Page 4 Area (Reorganization 07-001.) If the City Council approves General Plan Amendment 07-002, LAFCO would schedule their public hearing for the boundary reorganization and related sphere of influence amendments provided they have received the required application. LAFCO staff anticipates that the application can be processed in four to six months. The general plan amendment will become effective once LAFCO has taken action and the annexation is complete. A decision to approve General .Plan Amendment 07-002 may be supported by the findings contained in Resolution Nos. 08-03 and 08-04. Scott Reekstin Senior Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Location Map B. Area Map C. Resolution No. 08-03 (Environmental Findings) D. Resolution No. 08-04 (General Plan Amendment) S:\Cdd\CCREPORIIGPA 07-002 PCE Boundary Reorganization.doc ATTACHMENT A LOCATION MAP $ ~ ~../.~ W W V/ ((~' W ~O ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ tlJ . S /~I p Z i~ Xx ~i w< W ~ y F<~< J< V 'N',~L~7 `' t' 0 W ~ = S W ~ N d ~s dvw 1~ ananv TM mr w of x w ~~ a 0 ~a... 0 oL ATTACHMENT B AREA MAP } W Z N Z ~ ~ W Z ~ J Z W ~ ~ U V Z N Z W W W ~ ~ ~ ~~ \ ~o a o~~ v v\ Z ~~ •a a o z m . , X w N J 0 O o p o. ~p~rvNi~^O N pp C~NQRDj4jOC~V ' ~ ~o jai N " y~ W W s~s~~s~s a~~~~'°~ x~ ===a ~ ~ a. Q Z V_ i~= ;, o~zc o~?ti I~.Op N~N~ OO~C, w ~~~F I a~ ~ ~~^ ~~I L\i~l l ., x~~ ' - ~, aa~ ,0 ~ z~ N ~ ~ I ~xtit t~ p ~i ~ ~~z ~~~~ I~I ~~-il ~~ I w I ~~ ~ I W Z 10 ~ M zI Ig IZ I W U Z~ N O h Z ~~ ~ . ~~ w F_- ~3^V 121pdM3N ~ SS~~S O Z p v1 aD W Z~mi O p ~p } BOZO -- Z ~ ~ ~o N V1 ~ c a ~ ~ O ~ N~ Z U Q O W VN1 =pZ~O~ ~ N ~~a~zo N CO o W 00 JU ~ W ~ _ ~ -~ 6 Z O Z Z Z V W O ~ O~ Z p a w ~d & Q ~ a U N m W H W C~ ~~ O =~ ZOOC~Z=W3 Q a ~~OW~ ~c.~ ~ o ~ W ~ W3 .. o Zsa N ~ ZZZ ~ W W O W 2 W~~ 0 0~ r O W O V ~ F p W ~ ~c°~~a~ac°~o o ~ ~ I o i I N N 1 I ~ a Z ~ ` ----- eo~o~t Avg g N49'20'30'w g 09 a 0 Z $: z~ ~ ~~~ - _ ~_y ~ I ~ 1~~ ~ V 1; ~ ~ I L ~" `i ~_,~ sad $ ~ `q~ O 4 `,~,~ O •nw~ ~ wz~ ~ ray ~, ~~ ~ _ ~ :~ ~ ~ o I s ~ ^ 5 ~ .`,, ~ y ~ ~ ~ j ~ I \ e Z y ^ I ;? J ; ~ ~ ~ ~ V I w ct+ ¢ 2 a' t ~lt d o r I I p O ~ I za ~Oa ~'~ly sc gt ~ I I S I ~ \ ~ I O l a p Q ~ W a ,O ~ O a ~ z a I m I I Z I W ZO ~ ~ I Z 1 ~~ I INS I ?' ~ v~ ~n I a N ~~ ~'~ I a'i ` ~~'~~~ 3~ ~~ IVfN i~~ i I ~ j ,L-• 0o I~ia 30 30' ~ ~ ~ I X W \ NOW ~W Z - ~~ I~~ VALENCIA AVENUE i- n O ~ N O ~ °0 0 p ~ II z ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ N ~~ Q O E ~~ c7 w ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ o `Y o Y C Y ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. 08-03 (ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS) RESOLUTION NO. 08-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN FINDING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90-1 ("FEIR"), AS REVISED BY SUPPLEMENT #1, IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIR FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07- 002 AND REORGANIZATION 07-01. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That General Plan Amendment 07-002 and Reorganization 07-01 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. B. That the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was certified by the City Council on May 5, 2003. The FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA.") The FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. C. That an Environmental Analysis checklist, attached as Exhibit A hereto, was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated .with the Project. The Environmental Analysis checklist demonstrates that all potential impacts of the Project were addressed by the certified FEIR, no additional impacts have been identified, and all applicable mitigation measures in the FEIR will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on the area to be annexed to Tustin. II. The City Council hereby finds find that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. Resolution No. 08-03 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 2nd day of January 2008. JERRY AMANTE, Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 08-03 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 2nd day of January 2008, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 08-03 EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION N0. 08-03 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) S 73-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 90-1, as revised by Supplement #1, for the project entitled "Newport Avenue Extension, State Route 55 Northbound Ramp Reconfiguration, Valencia Avenue and Del Amo Avenue Widening." This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4076) takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): General Plan Amendment 07-002 for Reorganization 07-01 (Pacific Center East) Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573-3016 Project Location: The site is located within a portion of Planning Area 5 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue and the State Route 55 Freeway. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Designation: None Zoning Designation: City of Tustin -Planned Community, Pacific Center East Specific Plan - Regional Center Land Use Designation Project Description: Approval of General Plan Amendment 07-002 to establish the General Plan designation of "Planned Community Commercial/Business" for the annexation of approximately 1.243 acres identified as Reorganization 07-O1. Surrounding Uses: North: Vacant -Pacific Center East Planning Area 1 -Technology Center Designation East: Commercial business, Pacific Center East Planning Areas 5 and 6, Regional Center Designation South: State Route 55 Freeway West: State Route 55 Freeway Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR), as revised by Supplement #1 for the project entitled "Newport Avenue Extension, State Route 55 Northbound Ramp Reconfiguration, Valencia Avenue and Del Amo Avenue Widening" (State Clearinghouse # 1989091320) certified by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^Population and Housing ^Noise ^Geology and Soils ^Public Services ^Hydrology and Water Quality ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Air Quality ^Aesthetics ^Transportation & Circulation ^Cultural Resources ^Biological Resources ^Recreation ^Mineral Resources ^Mandatory Findings of ^Agricultural Resources Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to .the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect'is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers: Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Date: 11/29/07 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Date 11/29/07 Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New Change Significant More Severe From I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: Impact Impact Previous Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ^ ^ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ^ ^ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ^ ^ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? ^ ^ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ^ ^ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? ^ ^ III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ^ ^ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ^ ^ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ^ ^ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ^ ^ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ^ ^ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New Change Significant More Severe From Impact Impact Previous Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? New Significant More Severe Impact Impact No Substantial Change From Previous Analvsis No Substantial New Change Significant More Severe From Impact Impact Previous Analysis g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ^ ^ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ^ ^ VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ^ ^ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ^ ^ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? ^ ^ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? ^ ^ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ^ ^ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ^ ^ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ^ ^ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ^ ^ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ^ ^ j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? ^ ^ 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable .land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? No Substantial New Change Significant More Severe From Impact Impact Previous Analysis c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? No Substantial New Change Significant More Severe From Impact Impact Previous Analysis XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Substantial New Change Significant More Severe From Impact Impact Previous Analysis No Substantial New Change Significant More Severe From Impact Impact Previous d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Analysis project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ^ ^ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ^ ^ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ^ ^ g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ^ ^ h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? ^ ^ XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ^ ^ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ^ ^ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ^ ^ ATTACHMENT 1 OF EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 08-03 ATTACHMENT 1 TO EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 08-03 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07-002 FOR REORGANIZATION 07-01 (PACIFIC CENTER EAST) BACKGROUND On February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council adopted the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Pacific Center East is comprised of approximately 126 acres and is bounded on the west by the State Route 55 Freeway, on the north by the Santa Ana-Santa Fe Channel, on the east by Red Hill Avenue and on the south by Valencia Avenue. The Tustin City Council certified Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan on December 17, 1990. Within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan is the project entitled "Newport Avenue Extension, State Route 55 Northbound Ramp Reconfiguration, Valencia Avenue and Del Amo Avenue Widening." These significant right-of-way improvements form the boundaries of Planning Areas 5, 6, 10, and 11 within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. A portion of Planning Area 5 is within the City of Santa Ana. The Tustin City Council certified Final EIR 90-1, as revised by Supplement #1, for the right-of-way improvements project on May 5, 2003. The proposed project to be evaluated is a general plan amendment and boundary reorganization that would place all of Pacific Center East Specific Plan Planning Area 5 within the City of Tustin and facilitate the cohesive development of Planning Area 5. The development of Planning Area 5 was analyzed in Final EIR 90-1 (FEIR), as revised by Supplement #1. The proposed general plan amendment would retain the Regional Center designation of the site, pursuant to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed reorganization includes the following actions: • Detachment of approximately 1.243 acres within Planning Area 5 from the City of Santa Ana and annexation of the same 1.243 acres to the City of Tustin • Amendment to City of Santa Ana Sphere of Influence • Amendment to City of Tustin Sphere of Influence The area proposed to be annexed is currently developed with a public street and an on- ramp to the SR-55 Freeway at Edinger Avenue. The ramp is proposed to be abandoned and replaced with a new on ramp at another location. Caltrans is the current owner of most of the land that is proposed to be annexed. The remaining portion is within the public right-of-way Prior to taking action on the proposed reorganization, the Local Agency Formation Commission of Orange County (LAFCO) requires that the City of Tustin adopt a General Plan Amendment for the territory to be annexed. A Prezone is not required because the Pacific Center East Specific Plan already includes the area to be annexed Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 2 to the City of Tustin, and the associated Planned Community zoning was established in 1991. Related environmental impacts were addressed in the FEIR and implementation and mitigation measures were incorporated into the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The applicable mitigation measures developed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development within Planning Area 5 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The site of the proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization is not located on a scenic highway, nor will the general plan amendment and boundary reorganization affect a scenic vista. The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization would facilitate development that is consistent with the permitted uses identified within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Development of the site was considered within the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site or its surroundings when mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, are included as conditions of the entitlement approvals for the site. The development of the site would require design review, which requires that the design of future development is cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties. The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization will result in no substantial changes to the environmental im-pacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development on the site. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 3 Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning- for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use. Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the allowed use involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site is not zoned or used as agricultural land; consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 4 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? As documented in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, the proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization will accommodate development that is part of a larger project that was projected to result in air quality impacts. Final EIR 90-1 determined that regional ambient air quality conditions, combined with regional cumulative traffic, contribute to the exceedance of daily State and Federal standards for several air pollutants. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1 to minimize these impacts. However, in approving the Specific Plan, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by the Tustin City Council on December 17, 1990 for cumulative air quality impacts that could not be mitigated. Since the proposed actions would accommodate development consistent with the Specific Plan, all environmental impacts related to the project and the development of the site were considered in the adopted FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. The project would not add any impacts beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. However, the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 5 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through .habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, found that implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed general plan amendment, and boundary reorganization will accommodate development that is consistent with the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 6 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities associated with future development of the site. With the inclusion of mitigation measures that require future construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 7 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to the necessary grading activity that would occur to accommodate the various types of development and the resultant change to existing landform and topography. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 8 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, found that implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan would not result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The proposed general plan amendment, and boundary reorganization will accommodate development that is consistent with the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 9 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? . j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization will allow development that would increase runoff. However, the project will not result in additional impacts beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. The project design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of the future development project. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the future development of the project site. The proposed future development will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed future development would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 10 risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the project site susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations associated with future development of the site would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to water and drainage. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1 that would reduce the potential impacts of the project to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? On February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council approved the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization will facilitate development that meets the requirements of the Specific Plan. The proposed general plan amendment and boundary Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 11 reorganization would retain the Planned Community zoning and Regional Center designation of the site, pursuant to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to land use. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Final EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to natural resources. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 12 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The full build-out of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan would result in short-term roadway and freeway ramp construction noise impacts, and a less than significant permanent increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site due to vehicular traffic. Mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1 to minimize the short term noise impacts. Future development associated with the proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization could result in implementation activities that generate noise. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 13 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No residential development is proposed in conjunction with the proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization and therefore there is no direct increase to the City's population resulting from the project. The proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization are consistent with the Land Use Plan of the Specific Plan. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to public services, including Fire and Police protection, schools and public facilities. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1. Final EIR 90- 1 did not identify any potential impacts related to general public services or other governmental services. The proposed general plan amendment and boundary organization will facilitate development of the site that will require Tustin public services such as fire and police protection services, and recreation facilities. If the proposed project is approved, police protection services and recreation facilities for the site would be Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 14 provided by the City of Tustin rather than the City of Santa Ana. All of the other services listed below would be provided by the same agencies. Fire Protection. The development of the site allowed by the proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding demolition, construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations in the areas surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of the site associated with the proposed general plan amendment and boundary reorganization would increase the need for police protection services. The future developer, as a condition of approval for the future development of the site, would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, and address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1for fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 15 Final EIR 90-1 did identify potential impacts related to the quality of recreation resulting from development of the Specific Plan area. The future development of the site associated with the general plan amendment and boundary reorganization would not generate a significant increase in the use of existing parks. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Final EIR 90-1 determined that the ultimate development of the entire Specific Plan area would generate increased traffic in the vicinity. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1 to minimize these impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted to address impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. One mitigation measure required changes in the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. A General Plan Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 16 Amendment re-designating the classification of portions of Newport Avenue and Del Amo Avenue was approved in 1991. Traffic conditions in the Specific Plan area were studied extensively during the preparation of EIR 90-1. However, due to the age of the traffic study a new study was commissioned in 2000 in conjunction with Supplement #1 to ensure that the traffic analysis and findings were based on the most current data available and consider the refinement of the roadway improvements from those described in Finat EIR 90-1. Traffic conditions and mitigation measures originally in Final EIR 90-1 were reevaluated in Supplement #1. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. However, the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 17 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient .permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to utilities. Consequently, mitigation measures identified in Final EIR 90-1 were recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a .plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 18 connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The FEIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on May 5, 2003. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIR, #hat no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-03 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 07-002, Reorganization 07-01 Page 19 Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIR on May 5, 2003, and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. S:\Cdd\SCOTT1Environmental\GPA 07-002 PCE Boundary Reorg Initial Study Evaluation.doc ATTACHMENT D RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 07- 002 TO ESTABLISH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION OF "PLANNED COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS" FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.243 ACRES IDENTIFIED AS REORGANIZATION 07-01. The City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That General Plan Amendment 07-002 is aCity-initiated project. B. That on December 4, 2007, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution 07-67, authorizing staff to submit an application to, and requesting that, LAFCO initiate proceedings for the reorganization of territory currently in the City of Santa Ana within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan Area (Reorganization 07-001.) C. Prior to taking action on the proposed reorganization, LAFCO requires that the City of Tustin adopt a General Plan Amendment for the territory to be annexed. D. The annexation of the 1.243 acres will improve the delivery of public services within the subject territory and will place Planning Area 5 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan entirely within one city rather than split it illogically between two cities. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on General Plan Amendment 07-002 on December 11, 2007, by the Planning Commission and was recommended for approval. F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on January 2, 2008, by the City Council. G. That General Plan Amendment 07-002 is consistent with and implements the following policies of the General Plan: Policy 1.4: Consider modification of present City boundaries in unincorporated areas within the City of Tustin's sphere where they are irregular and create inefficiencies. Although General Plan Amendment 04-001 would modify the City's boundaries with the adjacent City of Irvine rather than an unincorporated area, the modification would improve the provision of public services to the residents of the affected territory. Resolution No. 08-04 Page 2 Policy 13.2: Encourage a development pattern that offers a connectedness between buildings and uses, and has a strong sense of place through architectural styles and creative landscape design. Policy 13.5: Promote high quality architecture, landscaping, signage, open space design, circulation patterns, and landscape patterns distinct from surrounding areas. II. The City Council hereby approves approve General Plan Amendment 07-002 to establish the General Plan land use designation of "Planned Community Commercial/Business" for the annexation of approximately 1.243 acres (Reorganization 07-01) as identified in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 2nd day of January, 2008. JERRY AMANTE Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk Resolution No. 08-04 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 08-04 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 2nd day of January, 2008, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 08-04 o ~ } ~ ~ 2 ~ i~ N pJ~ `~ ~ 2 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ W ~~~~ ~~ ~a yRj ~ ~ ~~~ ~v1 Z n "~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ W ` W J .` ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ W ~ J ~~z ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ o~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~! N ~ N \ `, N ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~'~ © ~ a ~ ~~II ~~~ ~ , ~ ~- L-- - I g z ~ 1 Z ~ ~ m w A A 0 e 0 ~~ ~' a ~~~~~~~~ • ~~~~~ ~~:~ ~ _ ED~10lIt AVlMR N44'20']0'w ~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ a I© ~ ~ I~ ~ I I ~ - I ~,~ ~ i ~,.g ~ ~ I ~I I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ I I ~ ~~ ~ I ~~~ I I ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ I ~ ~~~ ~ I I ' ~ ~ ~~~ I ~ o N ~ ~ W •~r 1 ~_- ~3N ss-as I~ \ ~ ~ Z ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ ' I ~ ~ o ~_~ I ~~ a~ I I ~>, ~Y~eo ` ~~ 3V I ~m ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ I ~e' = ~ 13o'~~ _s~ ~~ -\ - VALENpA AV~IUE a~ w r=-• ~ ~~ i~ N ~ \ ~ N W ~~ ~~ X ,j W W ~~ Z I~ W I~~ g s $ N .. ~ ~ ~ N N 9 ~w~i~ ~~~~~ «~ ~J ~ « v '~ ~ ~ ~ * Std