HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 08-03RESOLUTION 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:
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.
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: Amante, Davert, Bone, Kawashima, Palmer (5)
COUNCILMEMER NOES: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0)
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT A
OF
RESOLUTION NO.08-03
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO.08-03
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
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 07-01.
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
^Population and Housing
^Geology and Soils
^Hydrology and Water Quality
^Air Quality
^Transportation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Mineral Resources
^Agricultural Resources
^Hazards and Hazardous Materials
^Noise
^Public Services
^Utilities and Service Systems
^Aesthetics
^Cultural Resources
^Recreation
^Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signif cant 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.
Preparer: Date: 11-29-07
Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner
Date: 11-29-07
Elizabeth A. Binsack, 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 may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
^ ^
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
^ ^
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
^ ^
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
^ ^
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
^ ^
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 Ciean 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?
No
Substantial
New Change
Significant More Severe From
Impact Impact Previous
Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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
Signif cant More Severe From
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Impact Impact Previous
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map Analysis
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?
a ^
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?
^ ^
c) 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?
n n tszt
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- oroff-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?
No
Substantial
New Change
Significant More Severe From
Impact Impact Previous
Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
D ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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?
YT N(1TQF -
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
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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
Analvsis
No
Substantial
New Change
Significant More Severe From
Impact Impact Previous
Analysis
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
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
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 impacts 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
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/1Vlonitoring 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 wa#er 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 Pfan 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?
bj 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 stree# 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 Final
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 Specifc 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, that 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:1Cdd1SCOTiIEnvironmental\GPA 07-002 PCE Boundary Reorg Initial Study Evaluation.doc