Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 SPA 11-001ITEM #2 TUSTIN ,~~~ Infier-Com ~~ i ~? DATE: MARCH 8, 2011 r,-< ~ _ M FiXY TO: PLANNING COMMISSION BUILIJING OtIR 7UTURE I~IUNQRLNG OU0. PAST FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 11-001, IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4167 recommending that the Tustin City Council find that Final Environmental Impact Report 90-1 ("FEIR"), as revised by Supplement #1, is adequate to serve as the Project EIR for Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11-001, and adopt Ordinance No. 1391 implementing minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council adopted the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (See Attachment A). 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 (See Exhibit 2 in Attachment A). The Tustin City Council certified Final EIR (FEIR) 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan on December 17, 1990, and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted 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. Specific Plan Amendment 11-001 (Ordinance No. 1391) has been proposed by the City of Tustin to implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 would revise existing specific plan language to: 1) modify the allowable square footage within Planning Areas 5 and 6 to reflect the approved transfer of a hotel use from Planning Area 6 to Planning Area 5 and ensure compliance with development thresholds identified in the Specific Plan and Program EIR; and 2) make other minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 is administrative in nature, does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Planning Commission Report SPA 11-001 March 8, 2011 Page 2 A summary of the minor text amendments proposed in SPA 11-001 follows: 1. Subsection 5 of Section 3.8 - Signage Plan -Pacific Center East Specific Plan "project," "freeway" and "center" identification signs are currently restricted to 30 square feet and a maximum height of five feet from grade. The permitted locations of all Pacific Center East Specific Plan area signs is generally depicted in Exhibit 16 of the Specific Plan document. Staff is recommending the proposed text amendment to provide additional flexibility and reasonableness to the review and approval of project, freeway and center identification signs within the Pacific Center East project area. 2. Table 4 -Maximum Square Footage Authorized In The Specific Plan -Table 4 within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan summarizes the acreage, floor area ratio, and development limitations (square footage maximums) for each Planning Area within the Specific Plan. The source of these limitations and other development regulations can be found within Chapter 4 (Land Use and Development Regulations) of the Specific Plan. Specific Plan Table 6 also provides additional use limitations for individual Planning Areas. Staff is recommending replacement of Table 4 to reflect the square footage changes proposed in SPA 11-001. The modifications proposed do not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. 3. Secfion 4.3.C. -Permitted Uses and Conditionally Permitted Uses -Minor text amendments are proposed in this section to support the approved transfer of a hotel use from Planning Area 6 to Planning Area 5, and to clarify that multiple hotels may occur in the area. 4. Section 4.3.F -Site Development Standards -The minimum site building area is proposed to be reduced to support potential corporate ownership of a future retail and/or office building on a smaller pad. In addition, minor modifications are proposed to building and landscape setback areas along Edinger, Newport and Del Amo Avenues. 5. Table fi -Use Limitations -Table 6 within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan identifies certain development limitations affecting specific Planning Areas within the Plan. Currently, a 250+ room hotel is required in Planning Area 6 or 7. The approved transfer of the planned hotel use to Planning Area 5 necessitates the replacement of Table 6 to support the changes proposed in SPA 11-001. 6. Secfion 4.8. G -Child Care Requirements -The Pacific Center East Specific anticipated high density urban development outpacing the private market's ability to provide affordable, quality child care to area employees. Development projects of 100,000 square feet or more were required to either provide a child care/daycare facility and provider on or off the site, or pay an in-lieu fee used by the City to foster expansion of and ease of access to affordable child care facilities in the community. The current requirement for the provision of child care is not mandated by state law and is not reflected in any other Specific Plan Planning Commission Report SPA 11-001 March 8, 2011 Page 3 in the City of Tustin. In addition, the City of Tustin provides some of these facilities through its parks and recreation after school programs, and the Tustin Zoning Code promotes child care uses in all residential and commercial zones, including specific plans such as the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Staff is recommending the proposed elimination of the current child care requirements. SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 90-1 was adopted December 17, 1990 and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted 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. An Environmental Analysis Checklist, attached as Exhibit 1 to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4167 (Attachment B), 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 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area. 5PA 11-001 (Ordinance No. 1391) is attached as Exhibit 2 to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4167. PUBLIC NOTICE The required public notice was published in the Tustin News on February 24, 2011, informing the public of proposed SPA 11-001. Also, notices were mailed to every property owner within 300 feet of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, including property owners within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area. A copy of the staff report and proposed SPA 11-001 was also forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce prior to the Planning Commission's hearing on the matter. Dana L. Ogdon Assistant Director ~~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Attachment A: Pacific Center East Specific Plan Attachment i3: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4167 Exhibit 1: Environmental Analysis Checklist. Exhibit 2: SPA 11-001 (Ordinance No. 1391). Attachment A A copy of the previously approved Pacific Center East Specific Plan has purposely not been attached to save on printing costs. Any person interested in obtaining a copy may access an electronic version at the following City of Tustin, Community Development Department web page: http://www.tustinca.orq/departments/commdev/i ndex. html#planningZoning, Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. 4167 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90-1 ("FEIR"), AS REVISED BY SUPPLEMENT #1, IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIR FOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 11-001, AND APPROVE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 11-001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1391 } IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That on February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council approved the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. B. That Specific Plan Amendment 11-001 has been proposed by the City of Tustin to implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 would: 1) modify the allowable square footage within Planning Areas 5 and 6 to reflect the approved transfer of a hotel use from Planning Area 6 to Planning Area 5 and ensure compliance with development thresholds identified in the Specific Plan and Program EIR; and 2) make other minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 is administrative in nature, does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. B. That Specific Plan Amendment 11-001 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. C. That Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) 90-1 was adopted December 17, 1990 and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted 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. D. That an Environmental Analysis Checklist (Exhibit 1) was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the Project including implementation of Ordinance 1391 (Exhibit 2). 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 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area. Resolution No. 4167 Page 2 E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on SPA 11-001 on March 8, 2011, by the Planning Commission. F. That SPA 11-001 (Ordinance No. 1391) is consistent with the policies of the Tustin General Plan Land Use Element which identifies the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area as Planned Community Commercial/Business which encourages mixed uses of professional office and commercial uses. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Tustin City Council find that FEIR 90-1, as revised by Supplement #1, is adequate to serve as the project EIR for Specific Plan Amendment 11-001, and adopt Ordinance No. 1391 implementing minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan as shown in Exhibit 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 8th day of March, 2011. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) City of Tustin ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California, that Resolution No. 4167 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of March, 2011. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit 1: Environmental Analysis Checklist Prepared For 5PA 11-001. Exhibit 2: SPA 11-001(Ordinance No. 1391 }. Exhibit 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 C'enlennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an envuonmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Gtudelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Specific Plan Amendment (SPA} 11-001 Lead Agency: City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana Qgdon Phone: (714) 573-3109 Project Location: 300 Centemiial Way Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Same as above. General Plan Designation: PC Commercial/Business Zoivng Designation: SP-11 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Project Description: Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11-001 would revise existing specific plan language to: 1) modify the allowable square footages within Planning Areas 5 and 6 to reflect the approved transfer of a hotel use from Planning Area G to Planning Area 5 and ensure compliance with development thresholds identified in the Specific Plan and Program EIR; and 2} make other minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. Surrounding Uses: Northerly -Planned Development (PD) and Planned Community (PC) Residential uses. Easterly - lndustrial (M} and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan uses. Southerly -Industrial (M), Planned Community (PC) hndustrial, and SP3 -International Rectifier Specific Plan uses. Westerly - Industrial and commercial uses within the City of Santa Ana. Previous Environmental Documentation: Final. EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan adopted December 17, 1990. Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan adopted 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. Use and Planning ation and FIousing ~gy and Soils logy and Water Quality rtation & Circulation al Resources Resources oral Resources ^Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Aesthetics ^Cultural Resources ^Recreation ^Mandatory Finclings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the 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 ptu•suant 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 NEGATIVF. 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, U. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached CVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: ]n determinuig whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant envu•onmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land F,valuation 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 Williamso~~ 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? II1. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the sia iificance 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 ui a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable tederal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? dj Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? NO S1l6Slanhal New Ma•e Change Fro»r Significant Severe Previous Impact bnpacls Anaiysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IV. 131OLOGICAL 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 }~abitat or other sensitive natural community identilied 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, tilling, 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'? ~ Canflict 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 More Chunge From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts 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 l,~round shaking? ui) Seismi.c-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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are riot available For the disposal of waste water? Vli. 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) );mit 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 whicl-- 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 signi ficant hazard to the public or the environment? e) l±or 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 au•port, 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? No Substantial New More Change From Signi~icanl Severe Previous Impcrcl Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g) Impav unplementation 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? VIlI. HYDROLOGY AND WATCR QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or n~terfere 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- existingnearby 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 sheam or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or oft=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? t) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood I-Lazard 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 ievee or darn? j) Inundation. by seiche, tsunami, or mudtlow? [X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project a) Physically divide an established conmiunity'? Nv Su6stantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Irn,~act Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ 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 enviromnental 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 growidborne 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 ain•port 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 vicuuty of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? ~CILPOPULAT[ON 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, dn-ough extension of roads or other infrastructure)'? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Signifrcarrt Severe Previous Inapacl Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous 1-rtpacl I-npacts Analysis c) Displace substantial cumbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ^ ~ X111. l'UI3LlC STRVICI'uS a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical ilnpacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the coiLStruction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for a~iy of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ X1V. RCCREATION - 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) >;xceed, 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, iucluduig 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 featw•e (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? t) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Sarbstantial Neu More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)`? XVI. UTILITIhS AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Requu•e or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant enviromnental effects? c) Require or result in the consh•uction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SICNIF[CANCE 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 co~mectiou with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cun-ent 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 71-001, PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN 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 (FEIR) 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan on December 17, 1990 and Supplement #1 to Final EIR 90-1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan was adopted 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. Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11-001 would revise existing specific plan language to: 1) modify the allowable square footages within Planning Areas 5 and 6 to reflect the approved transfer of a hotel use from Planning Area 6 to Planning Area 5 and ensure compliance with development thresholds identified in the Specific Plan and Program EIR; and 2) make other minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined 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. 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? Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 2 SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the Pacific Center East project is not located on a scenic highway, nor will SPA 11-001 affect a scenic vista. Future 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. 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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 future development of the site. 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, SPA 11-001 would not convert prime farmland, unique Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 3 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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: 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, 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 Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 4 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. Proposed SPA 11- 001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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: 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? Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 5 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mifigafion/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General 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 formal cemeteries? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 6 FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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, recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault State Geologist for the area or based o of a known fault? Refer to Division of Publication 42, • Strong seismic ground shaking? as delineated on the most Zoning map, issued by the n other substantial evidence Mines and Geology Special • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • 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 wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, 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 90-1. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 7 changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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? 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? Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 8 SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan Tustin General Plan 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 far 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 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? Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 9 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Future development will include 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 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. Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 10 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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) Confilict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Genter East Specific 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. Future development will meet the requirements of the 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 11 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the proposed project 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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: 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? Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 12 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, 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 could result in implementation activities that generate noise. Proposed SPA 11- 001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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: 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 13 increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Therefore, there is no direct increase to the City's population resulting from the project. The Pacific Center East Specific Plan has previously been determined to be consistent with the Tustin General Plan. Proposed SPA 11- 001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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: SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. 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. Future development of the site will require Tustin public services such as fire and police protection services, and recreation facilities. Police protection services and recreation facilities for the site would be 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. Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 14 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 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, Final EIR 90-1 did identify potential impacts related to the quality of recreation resulting from development of the Specific Plan area. Future development of the site would not generate a significant increase in the use of existing parks. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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. Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 15 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)? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The table below compares the proposed project with the previously approved project and indicating that the proposed modifications to square footage in Planning Areas 5 and 6 result in no additional vehicle trips being generated. PA 5 Current Sq. Ft. Trips Proposed Sq. Ft. Trips ~ Hotel @ 10.19/room 0 0 300 Rooms 3,057 3,05' Commercial @ 74.31/TSF 6,050 450 7,000 520 70 Office @ 12.62/TSF 114,950 1,451 ~ 30,000 379 -1,07 TOTAL 1.901 3.800 2.05. PA 6 Current Sq. Ft. Trips Proposed Sq. Ft. Trips ~ Hotel @ 10.19/room 25D Rooms 2,548 0 0 -2,54 Commercial @ 74.31/TSF 75,000 5,573 75,000 5,573 0 Office @ 12.62/TSF 287,400 3,627 ~ 326,466 4,120 493 TOTAL 11,74$ 10.298 -2,05 Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 16 However, 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 Consideratian 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 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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? Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 17 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 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)? SPA 11-001 would implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed refinement is administrative in nature and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. However, 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. Proposed SPA 11-001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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 Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 18 XVII. MANDATORY FINDING5 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? 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 Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 4167 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-001, Pacific Center East Specific Plan Page 19 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 Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIR on May 5, 2003, and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Exhibit 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1391 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 11-001 IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That on February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council approved the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. B. That Specific Plan Amendment 11-001 has been proposed by the City of Tustin to implement minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 would; 1) modify the allowable square footage within Planning Areas 5 and 6 to reflect the approved transfer of a hotel use from Planning Area 6 to Planning Area 5 and ensure compliance with development thresholds identified in the Specific Plan and Program EIR; and 2) make other minor text amendments to the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. SPA 11-001 is administrative in nature, does not "substantially amend" the Specific Plan, and would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on SPA 11-001 on March S, 2011, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4167 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 11-001 by adopting Ordinance No. 1391. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on SPA 11-001 on , 2011, by the Tustin City Council. E. That the Tustin City Council has determined 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 GEQA. F. That SPA 11-001 is consistent with the policies of the Tustin General Plan Land Use Element which identifies the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area as Planned Community Commercial/Business which encourages mixed uses of professional office and commercial uses. SECTION 2. The following Sections of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan are hereby amended as follows: A. Subsection 5 of Section 3.8, "Signage Plan," is hereby amended to read as follows: "5. A master sign program may deviate from specific Tustin City Code standards for proposed/center identification and business identification signs subject to submittal and approval of a Conditional Use Permit application. Pacific Center East project area signs shall be permitted in addition to the center identification sign standards in the Tustin City Code provided they are generallyconsistent io--t#~girwith locations shown in with Exhibit 16~~re-t"~ mnvimi,n., ~ro~ „f ~zn cm~oro foo# ~r,~I movim~~m hoinh# r,f fi,ro foo# frr~m nr~rlo B. Section 4.2, Table 4, "Maximum Square Footage Authorized In The Specific Plan," is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced in its entirety with a new Table 4, in the form attached as Exhibit A (new text in bold/underline; deleted text in strikeout). C. Subsection 2 of Section 4.3.C, "Permitted Uses and Conditionally Permitted Uses," is hereby amended to read as follows: "2. Service businesses All use provisions applicable to the Commercial Center designation P/C a. Hotels (a minimum of 250 hotel rooms) P b. Racquetball/Health Clubs C c. Movie Theaters C" D. Subsection 1 of Section 4.3.F, "Site Development Standards," is hereby amended to read as follows: "1. Minimum site building area - 20,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 100 feet except for retail and/or office pad parcels which may have a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet and no minimum lot width requirement." E. Subsection 3 of Section 4.3.F, "Site Development Standards," is hereby amended to read as follows: "3. Minimum building setbacks2 .~ Crr.n# nrl c#rca# oirlo and ra~+r ~r~rrlr - `2~. fco# ~f1'VT•R GT7Cr.T[TGGTJil7~'Gffl O-rC.~C~ h In}arir+r o tir .,I hafi.r o n~ Ir_ ri fna# n :rrre crrvrS~C1 ~ruS-r~cc~~$ cn-p,a F6(~r~-~~ 6:-Re&Fy~rc~-6Fl~teriA~Siele-yard-(a~}a a°.~~~ ~ni~~~a~kictwl'li~-i'f~. ~ ') n fa a+ r~ I ~ i c '1 o rl r-J i~~ ~A~-e&6h--t~l1F9-fBe~-9~-thL-~A~B~S pn ~~~hinh avnaar~c '~F fca+ in hcinh~h~lr~h~~~ ~a6~4 f rBt~l-t~At-~I ~p~yy~e~an+ r.l~ ie nno fe y s~ e-I~N 'f~~-s26~1E three-.~ e ~ ea~ ,h``i''~``i111` a',ir „F' e ~ii ~Kvc° Q YtEY - - ~- a~v li n~~~ ~e ~n~ ~ v~cct 3 y-i ~ pun r - cv ~ ~ ~~_~~ - • - a. Edinger Avenue - 35 feet. b. Newport Avenue - 35 feet c. Del Amo Avenue - 20 feet d. All other building setbacks and distance between buildings shall be as required by the City adopted California Building Code. F. Subsection 4 of Section 4.3.F, "Site Development Standards," is hereby amended to read as follows: "4. Landscape setbacks2 Edinger Avenue - 30 feet Newport Avenue - 320 feet c. Del Amo Avenue -39-25 feet d-~~R~-55- -~~29-feet G. Section 4.8, Table 6, "Use Limitations," is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced in its entirety with a new Table 6 in the form attached as Exhibit B (new text in bold/underline; deleted text in strikeout). H. Section 4.8.G., "Child Care Requirements," is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this _ day of , 2011. JERRY AMANTE, MAYOR PAMELA STOKER, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1391 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 Ordinance No. 1391 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of 2011, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Published: Exhibit A Exhibit A of Ordinance No. 1391 Table 4 MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE AUTHOR[ZED fN THE SPECIFIC PLAN (See Table 6 for Use Limitations far [ndividual Planning Area. nue~ust I. I ~J~IU Floor 250- Room R&ll/Light TOTAL Center Planning Net Acres** Office Area Ratio 1-Intel Commercial Industrial AUTI70R[ZLD Arca* SQUARE FOOTAGE Commercial Center 7.8 0.35 ! 19,000 l 19,000 Planaing Area 2 Planning Area 4 I.l 0.13 li,200 6,200 Regional Centcr Plauniug Area 5 6.2 t,r,~`n,u, I?S.O~n r,;iuu~7 jinn I+1~3A;n_nun 1--):uuu?zd oou Planning Area 6 12.0 f~:O.:i~1 I~h;Ann 75,000 ?sty-lUtll'_(i~l(i[; ;4rr(L1Q 1 a[iG Planning Area 7 4.0 O,GS i 13,300 113,300 Plarming Area l I 5.8 O.hS 8,000 132,000 140,000 Planning Area l4 52 0.40 6,000 84,600 90,600 Office Center Planning Area 8 21.2 0.50 7,000 454,700 461,700 Planning Arca 10 13.1 1.50 85,595 770,359 855,954 Planning Area 13 2.4 0.48 50,200 50,200 Technology Center Planruug Area 1 1.0 0.40 17,400 17,4D0 Plaaniug Area3 6.1 D,4D 40,920 63,380 106,300 Planning Arca 4 3.7 0.40 64,500 64,500 Planning Area 12 8.6 0.40 4,494 145,306 149,80D Planning Area 15 24.8 0.4D I2;)63 419,137 432,IOD TOTAL SQlJARL• FOOTAGE 123.0 0.61 17b,(N)RU5_000 3Zt;?~_'37:_773 ?~lt}~5U91 Jtil_o_'S 711,723 t;'t,a,+;-};.2.gp.S?U Footnotes for each planning area listing options available for development included in the specific plan are listed below: PA 2 -Office use is permitted but shall not exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area for buildout of each parcel and far the planning area. A minimum of 70 percent of the gross floor area of any development within PA 2 shall be retail-generating uses. PA 5. 6, ~r 7 -There shall be a hotel-use u# a minimum of 250 hotel rooms. PA 5 - 7 - A minimum of 75,000 sf of retail commercial use is required. The general locations shall be delineated during development processing and planning area conceptual reviews. PA 8 -Office use is limited to 80 percent of the total gross square footage if PA 6 includes the hotel and 85 percent if there is not a hotel in co l + t l ll i f~ ith th t f i ' PA 8. t~etail +r.- mmercia -use-w c- :a e b ta range rom a m n mum o {~erser~t-h+~>=,iat-a .ia;o-imum ofaU percent of ihehotel s gross floor areas. PA 11 -A minimum of 8,000 sf of retail commercial use (e.g. freestanding restaurant) shall be developed. PA 8 -Retail and service commercial use shall not exceed 3 percent of the gross floor area, as calculated for buildout of each parcel. In any event, the maximum retail and service commercial use in PA 8 shall not exceed 7,000 sf. PA 10 -Retail and service commercial use within the planning area shall range from a minimum of 5 percent but not exceed a maximum of 10 percent of the gross Floor area, as calculated for buildout of the planning area. Technology Center -Office use for new uses or alterations to existing development which creates new floor area shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area in buildings of each parcel. Accessory commercial use for new uses or alterations to existing development which creates new floor area shall not exceed 3 percent of the gross floor area of each parcel. Existing entitlements within PA 3 for the Resco properly allow 36,000 sf of retail commercial use. All Planning Areas -Consistent with authorized uses within each planning area by each land use designation, exchanges between permitted uses (e.g. commercial versus office) may be permitted oet~._v_h~n_f~lan_nng Areas subject to the Use Limitations contained in Table 6, provided such exchanges are approved by Public Works and Community Development and are subject to review of the total trips generated for the planning area. All acreage data is approximate and is based on the land use plan and urban design concept plan. Actual nef acreages will be refined during the Planning Area concept Plan and Design Review process. ** Exhibit B Exhibit B of Ordinance No.1391 Table 6 USIJ LIMITATIONS Land Plan Planning Designation Area Designations Regional Center ~, G,7 There shall be a hotel use of a minimum of 250 rooms located in PA5_.6or7. 5,6,7 A minimum of 75,000 total square feet of retail commercial use is required within PA 5-7. The general location shall be delineated during development processing and planning area conceptual reviews. 6 Office use within PA 6 is limited to 60 percent of the total gross square footage if PA 6 includes a hotel and 85 percent if there is no hotel use in PA 6. l~~la-Eange-free-n-a-n~+fa H~xtm .,f Ifl «, ~.,r .,1'ihe .inr l~t~l'~:--grass-111+~F~r-~~i~: l 1 A minimum of 8,000 square feet of retail commercial use (e.g., freestanding restaurant) shall be developed in PA 1 I . Office Center 8 Retail and service commercial uses shall not exceed 3 percent of the gross floor area as calculated for buildout of each parcel. In any event, the maximum retail and service commercial use in PA 8 shall not exceed 7,000 square feet. 10 Retail and service commercial use within the planning area shall range from a minimum of five percent but not exceed a maximum often percent of the gross floor area, as calculated far buildout of the planning area. Commercial Center 2 Office uses shall not exceed l0 percent of the gross door area for buildout of each parcel and for the 59 Tahle 6 (cont'd) USE LIMITATIONS Land Plan Planning Designation Area Designations planning area. A minimum of 70 percent of the gross floor area of any development withv~ PA 2 shall be retail-~eneratin~ uses. Technology Center 1, 3, 9, l2, l5 Office use for new uses of alterations to existing development which creates new floor area shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross floor area in buildings on each parcel. All Planning Areas Accessoryy corrunercial use for new uses or alterations to existing development which creates new floor area shall not exceed 3 percent of the gross floor area of each parcel.2 Consistent with the authorized uses within each planning area by Land Use Designations in Table 4, exchanges of square footage between permitted uses (e.g., commercial versus office) may 6e approved subject to the Use Lunitations herein in Table 6, provided that such exchanges area approved by Public Works and Conununity Development and are subject to review of the total trip generations for the planning area. ' In Planning Area 3, existing entitlements on the Resco property permit up to 36,000 square feet of retail commercial use. z Accessory uses are incidental to that of the main use of the facility or structure. 60