Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 27481 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2748 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA RECERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-01 WITH ADDENDUM 90-01 FOR AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED PLANS FOR A 56,000-SQUARE FOOT ACUTE CARE (MEDICAL REHABILITATION) HOSPITAL EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING WESTERN NEURO CARE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY AT 165 N. MYRTLE AND 14851 YORBA STREET, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: ae That an application was filed on behalf of Continental Medical Systems, Inc. (Use Permit 88- 01 and Design Review 88-10) requesting authorization to amend previously-approved plans for an acute care (medical rehabilitation) hospital facility. B. That an Initial Study was prepared during the review process which determined that no significant environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed amendments and that an addendum to Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 88-01 was required for this project. Ce That the City provided public notice of its initial study and its intention to prepare an Addendum for the project. De Than Addendum 90-01 to (EIR) 88-01 was prepared by the City of Tustin. In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA guidelines. Ee That pursuant to CEQA, EIR 88-01 has previously been prepared and certified and adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the project, its significant environmental impacts, and the alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant environmental effect, and that no additional environmental impacts or mitigation measures were identified in Addendum 90-01, attached as Exhibit B. Fe That Addendum 90-01 prepared for the project addresses only minor technical changes or additions and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines have occurred. 3 4 5 6 7, 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2748 February 12, 1990 Page 2 Go That all impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the previously-certified environmental document have been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified. It is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding. This Statement of Overriding Considerations and all environmental effects and mitigating measures are listed in the Resolution No. 2485, attached as Exhibit A. Mitigation measures are specified as conditions in this resolution. II. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby recertify that Final EIR 88-01 with Addendum 90-01 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of February, 1990. DONALD LE JEUNE % ~ Chairman PENNI FOLE~ Secretary EXHIBIT A of Resolution No. 2748 2 3 4 5 8 11 12 14 IG 17 2O 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 RESOLUTION NO. 2485 A RESOLDTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 88-01 FOR THE PROPOSED 56,000 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION OF THE WESTERN NEUROCAR£ CENTER HOSPITAL FACILITY AT 165 N. MYRTLE AND 14851 YORBA STREET, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as fol 1 ows- I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows- A. That an application was filed on behalf of Continental Medical Systems (Use Permit 88-01 and Design Review 88-10) requesting authorization to expand an existing hospital facility. B. That an Initial Study was prepared during the preliminary review process which determined that significant environmental impacts could occur as a result of the proposed construction and that an Environmental Impact Report was required for this project. C. That an Environmental Impact Report {EIR) No. 88-01 was prepared by the City of Tustin. D. That distribution of the Draft EIR was made to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation. · .. That the public review period for the Draft EIR ended on April 11,' 1988. That incorporated within the EIR are comments of the public. Planning Commission, staff and other agencies, and responses thereto. F, That a public hearing for the EIR was duly called, noticed and held on April 111, 1988. G, That the 'Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, State Guidelines, and the policies of the City of Tustin. He That the Draft EIR including comments and responses has been reviewed by staff, and represents their independent evaluation and analysis. 2 3 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 1'3 14 15 17 19 21 22 23 24 :25 26 27 Resolution No. 2485 Page two I. That the Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission and that they reviewed this document, received public testimony and considered comments and responses thereto in their review of the Project involving the East Tustin Area, as shown in adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2300. J. That the Draft EIR comments, responses, and attachments have been reviewed and considered, and that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in Draft EIR, comments, responses, and attachments; and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding. This Statement of Overriding Considerations and all environmental effects and mitigating measures are listed in the attached document, Exhibit "A". Mitigation measures are specified as conditions in thisI resolution. K. That the Draft EIR 88-01, plus comments, responses and attachments, constitute Final .EIR 88-01. II. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby certify that Final EIR 88-01 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regul~ ~eting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the /~'/~ day of~ , 1988. PENNI FOLEY, Secretary KATHY WEIL, 0 Chairman Resolution 2485 EXHIBIT A APRIL 11, 1987 CEQA FINDINGS AND ~-TATEMENT OF FACTS EIR B8-01 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER. ,Ba,ckl)round The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide' "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed and which identified one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of. the rationale for each finding" (Section 15091). The finding and statements of facts delineated herein are organized in the following manner: Significant Effect - Each finding is prefaced by a brief description of the relevant significant effect which is identified within EIR 88-01. Findtn0 - Specific to the significant effect is a finding made pursuant to Section ~509i of the CEQA Guildlines. Facts in Sup_port of Finding - Following each finding is a brief explanation of the rationale of each finding. The order in which the significant impacts are identified herein follows the order in which issues are addressed within the EIR. The City of Tustin proposes to approve Conditional Use Permit 88-01 and Design Review 88-10 for the 56,000 square foot expansion of Western Neuro Care Center at 14851 Yorba Street and 165 N. Myrtle Avenue. Because the proposed actions consttute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, the City of Tustin has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIR 88-01 has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of the project proposal. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and desires to approve the project with the following findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Resolution No. 2485 Exhtbtt A Page two FINDINGS NOISE Significant Effect - This project could have a significant impact in relation to increasing the noise levels in the area. This noise is created by the construction activities necessary to grade and build the proposed facilities. Finding I - The noise related impacts are temporary and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance as identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings - The conditions of approval for Use Permit 88-01 and the Tustin Noise Code, (Section 4600) require that certain measures be taken to reduce the noise related impacts associated with the project. The conditions of approval contained in Resolution 2484 include: Should any complaints of noise exceeding the requirements of the Tusttn Noise Ordinance be received, the developer shall bel required to install muffling equipment which reduces construction related noise to levels in conformance with the Tustin Noise Ordinance. As requtr~d by the Tustin Noise Code, all construction activities will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays only. All significant effects .can be feasibly mitigated by the actions required of the applicant as identified above. --- TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Significant Effect - The project alone does not specifically create a significant adverse impact upon the transportation/circulation systems in the area. However, this project, in conjunction with .other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have a significant adverse impact on traffic and circulation. Finding I -That the required mitigation measures for the transportation/circulation {mpacts as listed in EIR 88-01 are beyond the fiscal/economic means of the applicant and pursuant to Section 15901-3 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted. Facts in Support of Findings - Kunzman and Associates has prepared a detailed traffic study for the I project which identifies the following mitigation measures for the cumulative impacts identified in the EIR. These mitigation measures include: I · Improve Irvine Boulevard to 6 lanes east of Yorba Street. Improve Yorba Street to 4 lanes between Irvine Boulevard and 1st Street. Provide an additional through lane on 1st Street at Tustin Avenue and at Yorba Street. Resolution No. 2485 Exhlbtt A , Page three . At Tusttn Avenue/4th Street provide an additional through lane on Tustin Avenue and right turn on 4th Street. Provide a second northbound left turn lane on Yorba Street at Irvine Bou]evard. Installation of these improvements requires substantial monetary investment by the applicant. Additionally, Mitigation Measure No. 4 requires improvements in an are outside of the Tustin city limits. Due to the nature of the alternatives identified in the EIR, these impacts cannot be avoided and eventual mitigation must occur. As identified by Section 15091-3 of CEQA a Statement of Overriding considerations must be adopted for these impacts. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ') CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Plan,n~ng Commission of the City of Tustin, California; tha-t Resolution No. e~.~/~.~ was duly passed and .adopted at ~4'egular meeting of the~stln Planning Commission, held on the ///~L day of ~_~2~'/ ., 198L' - / - Recording Secretary Exhibit B of Resolution No. 2748 ADDENDUM 90-01 TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88-01 WESTERN NEURO CARE CENTER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF TUSTIN FEBRUARY 12, 1990 ADDENDUM 90-1 TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 88-01 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this environmental assessment has been prepared as an addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 88-01. This addendum, in conjunction with final EIR 88-01, is intended to fully address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendments to the project scope. The proposed discretionary actions covered by this addendum incl. ude an amendment to Conditional Use Permit 88-01 and Design Review 88-10. Section 15164 of the State CEQA guidelines allows the preparation of an addendum to an EIR when only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR adequate under CEQA, and when the changes or additions do not raise important new issues about significant effects on the environment. This addendum evaluates proposed revisions to the project that was considered in EIR 88-01. No new significant environmental issues other than those that were raised in final EIR 88-01 have been raised by the proposed changes. An addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in, or attached to, the final EIR. CEQA requires that a local decision-making body consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Final EIR 88-01 is hereby incorporated by reference into this addendum. In conformance with Section 15121, final EIR 88-01 and this addendum are intended to serve as documents that will generally inform the decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of the proposed project and the potential mitigation measures for the proposed project. Final EIR 88-01 is hereby incorporated by reference into this addendum. Following is a description of the project background, characteristics of the proposal, and analysis and discussion of modifications to EIR 88-10. Section 2 includes an environmental checklist that provides an overview of the potential impacts that may or may not result from project implementation. Section 3 elaborates on the information contained in environmental checklist and identifies any differences between the environmental impacts of approved land uses and plans and the proposed amendments. BACKGROUND The applicant, Continental Medical Systems, Inc. (CMS), currently operates a 59-bed skilled nursing facility for the rehabilitation of persons suffering severe disabilities as a result of a catastrophic neurological injury or illness. In January 1988, CMS applied for land use approvals to allow the construction of a 56,000-square foot, 40-bed, skilled nursing facility adjacent to the existing facility, which is to be remodeled. The Community Development Department prepared a focused, project level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address anticipated impacts of the proposal. The EIR evaluated potential land use, noise and traffic impacts. On April 11, 1988, the City of Tustin Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2485 certifying the final EIR, as required by State law. The report found that even with the specified mitigation measures, significant environmental impacts remain. However, the EIR also found those impacts unavoidable, and were outweighed by benefits of the project. The new hospital is presently under construction, the remodeling has not begun. The applicant now requests approval for modifications to those previously-approved plans which will allow the State licensing classification of the new building to be changed from a Skilled Nursing Facility to an Acute Care (Medical Rehabilitation) Hospital. The licensing classification of the existing building will be unchanged. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal for the reclassified facility will: 1) revise the floor and site plans to include larger storage areas; a bulk oxygen storage area; on-site x-ray equipment, a laboratory, and a pharmacy. (The hospital will not provide emergency care, urgent care, or surgical services) . 2) increase the number of beds in the new hospital by 20, from 40 to 60 beds. The total for the entire facility will be 119 beds. Addendum to EIR 88-01 February 12, 1990 Page 3 3) revise the building elevations for the new building and the remodel of the existing building, and phasing of construction for both structures. 4) increase staffing needs from 150 to 163 employees. The 2.49-acre site is bounded by Yorba Street and a single-family dwelling to the east and the Newport-Costa.Mesa (I-55) Freeway to the west. Multi-family dwellings and a restaurant are to the south; an existing office building is to the north. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS EIR 88-01 determined that no significant cumulative impacts, other than those identified in the traffic analysis, were anticipated as a result of the project. The revisions to the proposal will not alter those original findings. The traffic analysis of the EIR contained trip generation calculations based on several factors including employee and visitor counts. The changes to the project will only slightly affect those calculations. The EIR assumes a daily trip generation rate of 3 trips per employee, for arrivals, departures and periodic mid-shift trips, and a daily total of 260 employee trips. The changes to the facility will require approximately 13 additional employees. Based on previous trip generation assumptions, the additional employees will add approximately 40 daily trips, for a revised daily total of 300 trips. The EIR also assumed that approximately one-third of the patients are expected to have visitors on an average day. For the additional 20 beds proposed, approximately seven daily visitor trips will be generated. However, the increased trip generation by employees and visitors may be off-set by a decrease in trips generated by outside-service vendors. For example, portable x-ray equipment is currently brought to the existing facility several times a day. The proposed changes in services provided include in-house x-ray services. Therefore, a decrease in trips generated for miscellaneous purposes can be assumed. Based on analysis by the City Traffic Engineer and the Community Development Department, the net increase in trip generation will have negligibly affect previously evaluated traffic impacts identified in EIR 88-01. Addendum to EIR 88-01 February 12, 1990 Page 4 The Community Development Department further determines that 1) none of the conditions calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; 2) only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and 3) changes to the EIR made by this addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. CITY OF TL' Community Developme: I .epartment ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY FORM SECTION 2 2. A~re= and Phone Nu~ of Pro~nent I~~1 !i. e D~e of Checklist Submitted _---}~}ql)~l/~ ~5, I qlqO Agency F~equiring Checklist I N~me of Proposal, if applicable Environmental lnlxmts (Explanations 6f all "yes" and "m~ybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in g.eologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, comp.action or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface., relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or proper17 1o geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X b. Chc~ges in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or fl~w of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in. any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- 'drawaJs, or through Jntercepticx~ of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supp lies? Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding ar tidal waves? , .! X 0 .- Plant Life. Will the propo~i result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of eny species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, end aquatic plants)? b. Reductien of the numbers of eny unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into en area, or in a I~rrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reductien in acreage of eny agricultural crop? 5. Anirn~i Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of cmy species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish end shellfish, benthic orgenisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of eny unique, rare or endangered specie~ 6f enirr~ls? c. Introduction of new species of enirnois into on area, or result in a barrier 1o the migration or movement of enirr,~ls? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? · · Noise. Will the proposal result in= a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Clare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of: the pres~.;~t or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources.. Will the proposal result in= a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Yes Jvkr/4 No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? I0. Risk of Upsef. Will the proposal involve= a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (i.ncluding, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an acci~t or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evoctKrtion plan? !!. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of on area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportcrtion/Circulatian. Wi !1 the proposal result in: a. (generation of substantial additional veh icu lar. movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems2 d.. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. ldcrease in traffic ~azards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in o need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will t'he proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? · b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: o. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ' Recreation. Will the proposbl result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Yes X Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or oi~.ject? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical ~ which would affect unique ethnic cultural w31ues? Will the proposal restrict mcisting religious or sacred uses within the potential impact 21. Marxiatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, coJse a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered pi.ant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project' have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the full..re.) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where.the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? !!1. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation IV. Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 DECLAIRATION will be prepared. .J 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 J because the mitigation:measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY haw a significant effect on the environ- merit, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. · ! I The Community Development Department further determines that 1) none of the the conditions calling for preparation of a substantial EIR have occured; 2) only minor technical changes Or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and 3) changes to the EIR made by this addendum do not raise important new issues about the signif~cnat effects " on the environment. SECTION 3 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I · · · · · Earth - The proposal will have no impact on topography, geological features or soil conditions at the site. The changes are primarily interior and will not impact previously-approved grading plans. Sources: Cit~ of Tustin Building Division City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Air - Changes to the previously-approved project will not result in any degradation to the existing air quality, based on review of AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents. Sources: AQMD standards for preparing EIR documents Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Water - Revisions to the site plan and 'licensing classification will not result in any change to existing surface bodies of water or flow of steams. None exist near the site. Further, the proposal will not significantly add impervious surface area to the property, beyond that which was previously approved. Sources: Field Observation City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Plant Life - The current proposal involves modifications to the site and landscape plans, and plant material palette. However, the changes will not have adverse impacts and will improve the existing lot. No endangered or rare botanical species are known to exist on the site. Sources: Field Observations City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Animal Life - Proposed revisions to the approved plans will have no impact on any wildlife or animal habitats. The EIR states that no rare or endangered species are known to exist on the property. Landscaping will promote the use of the site by birds and other fauna. Sources: Field Observation · · · · Mitigation Measures/Monitorinq: None required. Noise - For the original project, the EIR identified noise impacts caused by construction and remodeling activities. That plan called for construction of the new facility to be completed before the start of the remodeling of the existing facility. In the revised plan, the remodeling will be simultaneous with the later phases of construction of the new building. Consequently, the proposal may shorten the duration of noise disturbances. Sources: city of Tustin Community Development Department Field Observations Mitiqation Measures/Monitorinq: Ail construction activity will be limited to Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. to. 6:00, pursuant to the city's Noise Ordinance, and monitored by the Building Division and/or Police Department. Liqht and Glare - The changes proposed do not include increased use of reflective materials. Underground parking and an exterior courtyard, which minimize the need for exterior illumination, will be retained. Sources: city of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Land Use - The proposed change in licensing classification will not alter the previously-approved land use. The proposal is consistent with the Tustin General Plan and the zoning allows hospitals as a conditionally permitted use in the Public & Institutional District. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Natural Resources - The revised plan will not result in prolonged increased use of natural resources. In any construction project there is some us of non-renewable natural resources, such as wood, stone and other building materials, as well as energy. However, the current Discussion of Environmental Evaluation February 12, 1990 Page 3 proposal will not deplete those resources more than the previously-approved one. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 10. Risk of Upset - The revised proposal provides an area outside the main building for bulk storage of oxygen. The Orange County Fire Department has reviewed the request and does not indicate that the facility will generate any adverse impacts. Sources: Orange County Fire Department City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitiqation Measures/Monitoring: Construction documents will be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The State will monitor construction for compliance with approved plans. 11. Population - Approximately 150 employees were required for the approved facility. For the current proposal, with expanded capacity and increased on-site services, 163 employees will be required. The applicant states that about 50 percent of employees reside within the immediate, surrounding communities; approximately 25 percent live within 20 miles of the site. The remaining 25 percent commute from outlying areas. Approximately one to two percent of new employees relocate to the Tustin area from out of state each year . Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitiqation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 12. Housing - The minor increases in the bed count and staffing needs will not result in substantially increased housing needs. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitiqation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation February 12, 1990 Page 4 13. Transportation and Circulation - The proposal increases the number of beds in the facility by 20, from 99 to 119 beds, and requires 13 more employees than initially considered. However, that increase will not have any appreciable impact on project and cumulative vehicular traffic. See Section 1, Analysis and Conclusions. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department, Traffic Engineer city of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 14. Public Services - The increased scope of the project will not result in any substantial changes to existing public services, or create a need for new public services. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Orange County Fire Department City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 15. Energy - The proposed on-site laboratory, pharmacy and x-ray services will result in minor changes in energy use. However, existing energy utilities are adequate to support the facilities. Further, the State has energy conservation regulations for electrical and mechanical equipment, plumbing and the building envelope. These are contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City of Tustin. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: Ail regulations for energy conservation will be complied with. 16. Utilities - The expanded project will not require altered utility systems. The site is in an urban area with all utilities available to the site from Yorba Street or Myrtle Avenue. They are adequate to accommodate the project. Sources: City of Tustin Public Works Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation February 12, 1990 Page 5 17. Human Health - The expanded hospital project will not create adverse conditions or result in negative effects on human health. In fact, the facility will promote health care services. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 18. Aesthetics - The project revisions will not have a significant visual impact on the surrounding area. As part of the City's Design Review process, special care has been taken to ensure architectural compatibility with adjacent commercial and residential uses. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 19. Recreation - No recreation facilities or activities are impacted by the revised proposal. Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 20. Cultural Resources - Changes to the approved plans will not have any impact on cultural resources. Tile City's General Plan and Historic Resources Survey do not identify any culturally significant resources on the property. The proposal will not effect any sub-surface resources. No changes to the previously-approved grading plans are proposed. Sources: City of Tustin Historic Resources Survey Tustin General Plan City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitoring: None required. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance - Minor impacts relating to vehicular traffic, energy use and risk of upset have been identified as a result of the project. However, the proposal, as designed, conditioned and mitigated has reduced the potemtial impacts to a level of insignificance. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation February 12, 1990 Page 6 Sources: City of Tustin Community Development Department Mitigation Measures/Monitorinq: As previously noted. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No...~~ was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the /~ day of _~_~ , 199~ . ~~E~g Secre~ar~