HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 DDA AMENDMENT-TUSTIN GATEWAY-RD OLSON- Agenda Item ~
Reviewed: ~
~4~~ ~ C1 V ~l r ~LZ ~~`L~~ V 1\~ City Manager
~~'~~ ~ Finance Director
MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2011
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
2011-01 (TUSTIN GATEWAY PROJECT)
SUMMARY
Approval is requested of a First Amendment
Agreement (DDA 2011-01) for the Tustin Gateway
and Olson Real Estate Group, Inc. dba R.D. Olson
sale and development of certain property within th
Area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
to Disposition and Development
Project between the City of Tustin
Development ("Developer") for the
e Pacific Center East Specific Plan
1. Adopt Resolution No.11-92 finding that the First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 is
within the scope of the previously approved Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
90-01 far the Pacific Center East Specific Plan certified on December 17, 1990 and
Supplemental #1 to Final EIR 90-01 certified an May 5, 2001 (collectively, the Pacific
Center East Environmental Documents), and no additional analysis or documentation is
required under CEQA.
2. Approve and authorize the City Manager, or Assistant City Manager/Assistant
Executive Director to execute the First Amendment to DDA 2011-01, subject to non-
substantial modifications as may be determined necessary and recommended by the
City's Special Counsel prior to execution, and to carry out all actions necessary to
implement the amendment including execution of all related douments and instruments.
FISCAL IMPACT
In July of 2011 when the original DDA 2011-01 was approved, the following
Redevelopment Tax Increment and Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT" or "Bed Tax") was
projected to occur at the Project's completion based on preliminary information provided
by the Developer at that time:
Agenda Report
December 6, 2011
Page 2
• Approximately $47.7 million in total land and development value including personal
property, generating approximately $470,000 in gross additional annual redevelopment
tax increment to the Tustin Redevelopment Agency which could increase annually
based on reassessments of the Project.
• Approximately $700,000 annually in TOT assuming a 6% TOT rate, 75% occupancy
and build out of 300 rooms. Over 25 years, assuming an annual growth rate of 3%, the
City under the current TOT rates could be projected to receive over $25.5 million over
25 years.
Since the original DDA was approved, the Developer has had the opportunity to rune its
original financial estimates. As a result, the proposed First Amendment to DDA 2011-01
slightly modifies the total original square footages proposed (down approximately 20,000
square feet), slightly reduces the total room count (from 300 to 283 rooms) and projected
room rates for each hotel. Using the stabilized rent levels, and assuming a 6% TOT rate,
with 75 % occupancy projected for the Fairfield Inn and Suites and 80% for the Residence
Inn, and developer estimated growth in room rates confirmed by Marriot and PFK (a hotel
market consultant) far the first ten years, the following modifications to the original
Redevelopment Tax Increment and TOT projections can be expected:
Approximately $756,680 annually in TOT can be expected by year 2018 increasing as
rent levels adjust upwards over time. Over 25 years, the City under its current TOT
rates could be projected to receive approximately $21.7 million. Should the City be
successful in the future in raising its TOT rate to at least 10%, through a Proposition
218 election, which is in line with a majority of cities in Orange County, the annual TOT
could increase at stabilization to an estimate of $1,261,400. With a 10% TOT over the
period of the DDA use covenant of 25 years, the City could expect to collect
approximately $36.1 million.
• When completed, it is estimated that the Project will generate approximately $40.1
million in total land and development value including personal property. While the
future of redevelopment is awaiting a decision by the California Supreme Court, the
estimated additional land and development value could generate $401,100 in gross
annual redevelopment tax increment to the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The original DDA 2011-01 was entered between the City of Tustin and R.D. Olson
Development ("Developer"} on July 5, 2011. The original DDA sets forth the parameters
of development and conveyance by the City of Tustin of certain property within the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan area to Developer.
Agenda Report
December 6, 2011
Page 3
Under the original DDA, Developer was to acquire approximately 7.53 acres of land
generally bounded by Edinger Avenue on the north, Newport Avenue on the east, the
Cal Trans Edinger Avenue off-on ramp on the south and the SR-55 Freeway on the
west. The Project consisted of construction and installation of two upscale "flag" hotels
as rated by Smith Travel Research ("STR"): a Hilton Garden Inn or a comparable
upscale hotel flag acceptable to the City containing approximately 160 rooms and the
Hilton Homewood Suites or a comparable upscale hotel flag acceptable to the City
containing 140 rooms, and approximately 16,000 square feet of supporting retail and/or
restaurant and conference space.
As the Council is aware, the initial plan by the Developer was to build a Marriott
Residence Inn and a Hilton Garden Inn. As part of their financial analysis, Developer
came to the conclusion that the hotels on the property should be the same brand in
order to take advantage of shared operations which would reduce cost and increase the
passibility that the Project would be financially feasible. Therefore, at the time of the
execution of the DDA, Developer proposed the Hilton Homewood Suites rather than the
Marriott Residence Inn.
Financial assistance by a hotel flag has been generally expected by the Developer in its
negotiations for a hotel flagship franchise. Hilton, in further and more recent
negotiations with the Developer after the DDA execution, decided against providing
financing assistance or any credit enhancements, which negatively affected the
financeability of the project.
As a result, Developer has opted to return to the Marriott as its franchiser. The original
desire was to return to combine a Marriott Residence Inn with a Marriott Courtyard.
However, a brand new Marriott Courtyard was recently opened just a few miles away
from the property, making the product unavailable to the Tustin site. Therefore,
Developer, with support from Marriott is proposing a Marriot Residence Inn and a
Marriott Fairfield Inn and Suites for the site. Marriott has reinvested in their Fairfield Inn
and Suites product and completed a total redesign of the Project, similar to their recent
redesign of the Marriot Courtyard product. The results on each of these redesigns have
been very positive and raised the quality level of the hotel.
While the Marriott Residence Inn was an acceptable alternative to the Hilton Homewood
Suites already permitted in the original DDA, Fai~eld Inn and Suites is not apre-
approved product, because it is not named in the approved product alternative list in the
DDA nor is it defined as "upscale" by STR. STR defines Fairfield Inn and Suites as
"upper midscale" which is one tier below "upscale". Therefore, a First Amendment to
the DDA is proposed that would add the "upper midscale" STR tier to the list of pre-
approved hotel products for one of the hotel sites within the Project. A few other minor
modifications would also revise the actual room count for each hotel to 145 rooms for
the Fairfield Inn and Suites and 138 rooms for the Marriott Residence Inn.
Agenda Report
December 6, 2011
Page 4
Environmental Documentation
In considering approval of the First Amendment to DDA 2011-01, the City has complied
with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the applicable
state and local implementing guidelines (collectively "CEQA") through the preparation of
an initial study. The conclusion of the initial study is that the amendment is consistent
with the Pacific Center East Environmental Documents as identified in Resolution No.
11-92 attached for City Council action.
Christine Shingleton
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: First Amendment to DDA 2011-01
C.C. Resolution 11-92
Initial Study
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Final
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2011-01
(TUSTIN GATEWAY PROJECT)
This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
2011-01 (TUSTIN GATEWAY PROJECT} (this "Amendment") is entered into as of December
_, 2011 (the "Amendment Effective Date").by and between the CITY OF TUSTIN (as more
fully defined in the Original DDA (defined below),"City") and OLSON REAL ESTATE
GROUP, INC., dba R.D. OLSON DEVELOPMENT, a California corporation (as more fully
defined in the Original DDA, ("Developer). The City and Developer are sometimes referred to
herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties".
RECITALS
A. The City and Developer entered into that certain Tustin Legacy Disposition and
Development Agreement 2011-0 l (Tustin Gateway) dated as of July 5, 2011 (the "Original
DDA"} pursuant to which, among other things, the City agreed to sell, and the Developer agreed
to purchase, the Property (as defined in the Original DDA} and the Parties agreed to a scope of
development for the Property. Initially capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the
respective meanings assigned to such terms in the Original DDA.
B. The City and Developer desire to amend the Original DDA in order to permit the
development on the Property of a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott and a Marriott Residence
Inn and have entered into this Amendment in order to amend the Attachment No. 6 to the DDA
(the "Scope of Development") set forth in the Original Agreement to permit such use of the
Property and for the other purposes set forth below. The Original DDA as amended by this
Amendment is referred to herein as the "Agreement."
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, which are hereby
incorporated in the operative provisions of this Amendment by this reference, and other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Parties further agree as follows:
1. Modification to Section 1.2.2 of the Original DDA.
Section 1.2.2 of the Original DDA is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
"The "Project" consists of construction and installation of two high-quality "flag" hotels:
The Marriott Residence Inn or a comparable hotel flag acceptable to the City as described
in Attachment No. 6 (Scope of Development} containing approximately 140 rooms and
the Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott or a comparable hotel flag acceptable to the City as
described in Attachment No. 6 (Scope of Development) containing approximately 140
rooms with approximately 170,000 square feet of building area for the hotels, including a
set of accompanying amenities as defined and more fully described in the Scope of
Final
Development, and approximately 16,000 square feet of supporting retail and/or restaurant
and conference space. The Parties intend that the Project will function as the centerpiece
for the southern portion of the City bordering on and having prominent visibility from the
55 Freeway."
2. Modification to Attachment No. 5 to the Original DDA (Schedule of Performance).
A. The Note comprising the first paragraph of the Schedule of Performance attached to the
Original Agreement as Attachment No. 5 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
"Note: References herein to "the Agreement" and "DDA" mean the Disposition and
Development Agreement 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project) of which this Attachment is
apart; references to "Attachments" mean the Attachments to the DDA unless otherwise
specified. Except as otherwise noted, all capitalized terms defined within the DDA and
the Attachments shall retain the meanings as defined in the Disposition and Development
Agreement."
B. Item I .F of the Schedule of Performance is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
"F. Lot Line Adjustment At least 30 calendar days prior to
the Phase 1 Close of Escrow"
3. Modification to Attachment No. G to the Original DDA (Scope of Development).
A. Section l .0 of the Scope of Development is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
"1.0 General Information. The Developer Parcels are delineated on Attachment
No. 2."
B. Section 2.1.1 of the Scope of Development is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following:
"2.1.1 Improvements, Developer shall complete the development of the Vertical
Improvements to consist of construction and installation of twa high quality "Class A"
hotels and approximately 16,000 square feet of commercial space. It has been
represented at this time that the Developer is proposing a Marriott Residence Inn and
Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott, both of which are Marriott Hotel & Resorts brands
that meet the definition of a Class A Hotel. Any alteration of the proposed product by the
Developer shall require City approval. The hotels would comprise approximately 2$0
rooms combined for the two hotels and an adequate number of parking spaces as required
by the Specific Plan and Tustin City Code and which may be defined by more detailed
studies for the Project. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to buildings,
architectural amenities, parking, security lighting, pedestrian amenities, and trash
enclosures. Design of all Improvements shall be consistent with requirements of the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, development standards contained in Section 3 of this
Attachment, and additional requirements contained in any conditions of approval
required for the Entitlements for the Project.
Final
In design of the hotels, Developer has agreed that:
(i) The hotels will be of the quality of at least a three star select service hotel in
the case of the Marriott Residence Inn or an upper midscale hotel as in the case of
the Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott;
(ii) The hotels will be a minimum of 3 stories in an urban format with said format
reflected in the exterior and exterior designs;
(iii) The hotels will be the highest quality tier of each of the proposed hotel
product lines contemplated."
C. Section 2.12(a) of the Scope of Development is hereby deleted and replaced with the
following:
"2.1.2 Description of Hotel~erators and Retail Tenants.
(a) Developer shall be responsible for securing two Class "A" hotel operators,
one for Parcel A and one for Parcel C. Developer shall diligently pursue obtaining a Marriott
Residence Inn for Parcel A and a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott for Parcel C. "Class A
Uses" with respect to hotels means that (i) any hotel on Parcel A shall be classified by Smith
Travel Research ("STR") in the STR 201 l Chain Scales as an "Upscale" operator and (ii) any
hotel on Parcel C shall be classified by STR as an "Upscale" operator or if approved by the City
in its sole discretion as meeting the City's criteria of quality and design, classified by STR as an
"Upper Midscale" operator. Alternative hotel operators will be considered by the City for Parcel
A if Developer is unable to secure the franchise of a Marriott Residence Inn for Parcel A. Class
A Uses with respect to hotels also means, far Parcel A, the Homewood Suites, Hyatt
Summerfield Suites, Staybridge Suites, and Starwood Element, all of which are classified by
STR as "Upscale" hotel operators. Alternative hotel operators will be considered by the City for
Parcel C if Developer is unable to secure the franchise of a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott for
Parcel C. Class A Uses with respect to hotels means, for Parcel C, Hilton Darden Inn, Hyatt
Place, or the aloft by Starwood, all of these alternative operators are classified by STR as
"Upscale" hotel operators. Any other alternative hotel operator, not named in this section would
only be considered by the City for either Parcel A or Parcel C if the proposed operator is
classified by STR as "Upscale" or above, or is otherwise approved in writing by the City in its
sole discretion. For purposes of Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott, it is recognized that City is
agreeing to approve a Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott for Parcel C which is classified by STR
as "Upper Midscale", subject to Developer's representation that the Fairfield is a Marriott brand,
and Marriott has developed a new prototype design for Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott which
will be subject to City's site plan and design. Any such additional hotel flags shall only be
deemed to be Class A Uses with respect to hotels if approved in writing by the City in its sole
discretion.
4. Expiration of Due Diligence Period. The Developer acknowledges and agrees that the
Due Diligence Period has expired without provision by Developer of a Diligence Termination
Final
Notice and therefore, Developer is deemed to have approved all of the Due Diligence Matters
and to have waived its right to object to any Due Diligence Matters.
5. Miscellaneous.
A. Agreement Ratified. Except as specifically amended or modified herein, each and every
term, covenant, and condition of the Original DDA as amended is hereby ratified and shall
remain in full force and effect. Each and every reference to the "Agreement" in the Original
DDA shall be deemed to refer to the Original DDA as amended by this Amendment.
B. Governing Law. This instrument shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.
C. Binding Agreement. This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
Parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and permitted assigns.
D. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same document.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Amendment as of the
Amendment Effective Date.
"City"
City of Tustin, California
Dated:
By:
William A. Huston, Interim City Manager ar
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
ATTEST
By:
Pamela Stoker
City Clerk
Dated:
[signatures continue on following page)
Final
APPROVED AS TO FORM
As recommended:
By:
Amy E. Freilich, Special Counsel
By:
David Kendig
City Attorney
"Developer"
Dated:
Olson Real Estate Group, Inc.
(dba R.D. Olson Development)
By:
Robert D. Olson
RESOLUTION 11-92
AND INITIAL STUDY
RESOLUTION NO. 11-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2011-
01 (TUSTIN GATEWAY PROJECT) ALSO REFERRED TO
AS "DDA 2011-01" BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTIN
("CITY") AND R.D. OLSON REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
("DEVELOPER")
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That the City desires to effectuate development of The Tustin Gateway
Project, including the Property, through the sale and development of such
property in accordance with applicable state and local requirements. The
disposition of the Property, the development and Completion of the Project
pursuant to the First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 are in the vital and best
interests of the citizens of the City and the health, safety, and welfare of its
residents, and are in accord with the public purposes and provisions of
applicable federal, state, and local laws and requirements.
B. That the Project is located on properties legally described as Parcels 2, 3
and 4 of Parcel Map 2010-127 ("Development Parcels") and an excess
Cal Trans Property ("Water Well Parcel") adjacent to the SR-55 (Costa
Mesa) Freeway. The Project was previously envisioned per the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan, as amended.
C. That the Tustin Gateway Development, including the Project described in
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01, is being developed in accordance with
all Governmental Requirements, including the Redevelopment Plan for the
South Central Redevelopment Project Area, the General Plan and the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
D. That on July 5, 2011, the City entered into Disposition and Development
Agreement 2011-01 (the "Original DDA"). The Original DDA provided for
the Developer's acquisition of approximately 7.5 acres of City owned land
and development of two nationally recognized "flag ship" hotels with a
collective minimum of 300 total hotel rooms and a minimum of 16,000
square feet of restaurant andlor retail space. Minor modifications to the
DDA (the First Amendment to DDA 2011-01, also the "Project") are now
required to permit the Developer to modify the originally proposed two flag
ships hotels to be a Marriot Residence Inn with 138 rooms rather than a
Hilton Homewood Suites and to a Marriott Fairfield Inn & Suites rather
than a Hilton Garden Inn to be 145 rooms. The purpose of the Original
DDA was (a) to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central
Resolution No. 11-91
Page 1 of 3
Redevelopment Project Area (as the same has been or may be amended)
and the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, in accordance with the terms
and conditions set forth therein through disposition of the Property and
development of the Project as further described in the DDA, and (b) to
provide for the sale and conveyance of the Property, for maintenance and
use of the Property and certain related improvements by the Developer
and for the construction of the Project by the Developer on the Property
and certain adjacent land, including the City Water Well Parcel. The First
Amendment to DDA 2011-01 does not change the intent and objectives of
the Original DDA.
E. That on February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council adopted the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan and on April 19, 2011 adopted Specific Plan
Amendment 11-001. 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 far 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 "Pacific Center
East Specific Plan Environmental Documents"). The Pacific Center East
Specific Plan Environmental Documents were Program EIR's under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA."). The Pacific Center East
Specific Plan Environmental Documents considered the potential
environmental impacts associated with the development of the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan.
F. That an Environmental Analysis Checklist was completed and the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 11-48 on July 5, 2011 finding that no new
environmental review was necessary for DDA 2011-01. An
Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been
determined that the First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (the "Project") is
also within the scope of the previously approved Pacific Center East
Specific Plan Environmental Documents 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.
That the proposed "Project" is the First Amendment to DDA 2011-01
between the City and Developer that will effectuate the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, through disposition of certain property owned
by the City and development of a project. The Project will involve
development of improvements that consist of construction and installation
of two flag ship hotels: one to contain 145 rooms and one to contain 138
rooms with approximately 190,000 square feet for the hotels and
approximately 16,000 square feet of supporting retail andJor restaurant
and conference space, plus a water well facility to be constructed and
Resolution No. 11-92
Page 2 of 3
maintained by the City. Improvements will include, but not be limited to
buildings, architectural amenities, parking, security lighting, pedestrian
amenities, and trash enclosures. Design of all improvements on Parcels
2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map 2010-127 will be consistent with requirements of
the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, development standards contained in
the DDA 2011-01 and, as amended, the First Amendment to DDA 2011-
01, and additional requirements contained in any conditions of approval
required for the entitlements for the Project.
II. The City Council approves the First Amendment to Disposition and Development
Agreement 2011-01 and finds that the Project is within the scope of the
previously approved Pacific Center East Specific Plan Environmental
Documents.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting
on the 6th day of December, 2011.
JERRY AMANTE
MAYOR
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-92 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6th day of
December, 2011 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 11-91
Page 3 of 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(71 ~) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-I for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan
The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental 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) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA} 2011-01
(Tustin Gateway Project)
Lead Agency: City of Tustin
Lead Agency Contact Person: Christine Shingleton Phone: (714) 573-3107
300 Centennial Way
Project Location: Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map No. 2010-127 within the City of Tustin and on a
portion of property located immediately adjacent to a Cal Trans Remnant parcel
identified as the "Water Well Parcel" winin the City of Santa Ana.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Same as above.
General Plan Designation: PC CommerciaUBusiness
Zoning Designation: SP-ll Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-Q1
Planning Area 5 (Regional Center}
Project Description: First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 2011-01
involves minor amendments to the original DDA 2011-01 to effectuate the Pacific Center East Specific
Plan through disposition of certain property owned by the City of Tustin and development of a project.
The amendment will madify one of the previously permitted hotels from a Hilton Garden Inn to a
Marriot Fairfield Inn and Suites and modify the number of rooms to 145 rooms for the Fairfield Inn and
Suites and approximately 138 rooms for the Marriot Residence Inn.
Surrounding Uses:
• Northerly along Edinger Avenue -Vacant and industrial uses zoned Planned Development (PC)
within the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and further north residential uses.
Easterly -Vacant, industrial and office uses zoned Planned Development (PC) uses within the
Pacific Center East Specific Plan and further east of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan
industrial, offices and public and quasi-public uses zoned Industrial (M) and MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan.
• Southerly -Industrial and office uses zoned Industrial (M), Planned Community (PC) Industrial,
and SP3 -International Rectifier Specific Plan uses.
• Westerly -Costa Mesa 55 Freeway and further west of the Freeway 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 and an Initial Study adopted on July 5, 2011 for the original DDA 2011-01.
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^Land Use and Planning
^Population and Housing
^Geology and Soils
^Hydrology and Water Quality
^Air Quality
^Transportation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Mineral Resources
^Agricultural Resources
^Hazards and Hazardous Materials
^Noise
^Public Services
^Utilities and Service Systems
^Aesthetics
^Cultural Resources
^Recreation
^Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a 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 effects} on the environment, but at least one
effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2} has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparers
Matt West, Kedevelopment Project Manager
Date:
- -- _ Date
Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attached
EVALUATION 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?
IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997} prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a} Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
fallowing 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 ar projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Nave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c} Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.}
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES• -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b} Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c} Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project;
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change 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 ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of The project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d} Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan ar,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Significant Severe Previous
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Impact Impacts Analysis
plan?
^ ^
h} Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
^ ^
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
^ ^
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
^ ^
c} Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
^ ^
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
^ ^
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
^ ^
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
^ a
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood. Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
^ ^
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
^ ^
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
^ ^
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
^ ^
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a} Physically divide an established community?
^ 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 environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the Loss of availability of alocally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e} For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
o ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
e} Displace substantial numbers bf people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [~
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b} Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d} Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e,g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quafity Control Board?
b} Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d} Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
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?
~ 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 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?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
FIRST AMENDMENT TO DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA)
11-001
BACKGROUND
On February 19, 1991, the Tustin City Council adopted the Pacific Center East Specific
Plan and on April 19, 2011 adopted Specific Plan Amendment 11-001. 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 (collectively the "Pacific Center East Environmental Documents").
The FEIR is a Program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Rct ("CEQA.").
The FEIR considered the potential environmental impacts associated with the
development of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan.
On July 5, 2011 the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-48 approving
Disposition and Development Agreement 2011-01 (the "Original DDA"} and finding with
an initial study environmental checklist that no further environmental analysis was
required since the Project was consistent with the original Pacific Center East
Environmental Documents between the City of Tustin and Olson Real Estate Group, Inc
(Developer) to effectuate the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended, through
disposition of certain property owned by the City of Tustin and development of a certain
improvements to include installation of two high quality flag ship hotels: one to contain
160 rooms and one to contain 140 rooms with approximately 190,000 square feet for
the hotels and approximately 16,000 square feet of supporting retail and/or restaurant
and conference space, plus a water well facility by the City of Tustin.
Since adoption of DDA 2011-01, minor modifications to the DDA (the "First Amendment
to DDA 2011-01" and "Project" under this evaluation) are necessary to permit the
Developer to modify the originally proposed flag ship hotels to be a Marriot Residence
Inn with 138 roams rather than a Hilton Homewood Suites and to include a Marriot
Fairfield Inn and Suites rather than a Hilton Garden Inn with a 145 rooms (reduces
maximum square footage from 190,000 to approximately 169.600), and other minor
typographical corrections to the Original DDA. .
The Original DDA and First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 affect properties legally
described as Parcels 2, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map 2010-127 ("Development Parcels") and
an excess Cal Trans Property ("Water Well Parcel") adjacent to the SR-55 (Costa
Mesa) Freeway.
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.
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 2
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in
the Environmental Analysis Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development
potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In fact, the total number
of hotel rooms will be less than approved under the Original DDA. In addition,
future development associated with the Project will not be located on a scenic
highway, nor will the Project affect a scenic vista. Development of the site was
considered within the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1, and will have na
negative aesthetic effect on the site or its surroundings when mitigation measures
identified in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Development of the Project
will require Design Review approval; however, as required per the DDA the Project
will have a consistent architecture style evident in all elements of design, from all
elevations of the structures and treatment of roofs and parapets, down to smaller
elements such as street furniture and trash enclosures.
Particular attention will also be paid to massing, scale, color, and expression of
such quality for the Project shall be true to the distinctive and unique elements of
Tustin, the Tustin Gateway area and the Pacific Center East Pacific Plan that will
be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. Provisions of the Specific
Plan will ensure during the subsequent Design Review of the Project that all
exterior lighting will be required to be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night
environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; applicable measures will be
included, when specifically applicable, as conditions of any recommended
entitlement approvals for future development of the Development Parcels or by
the Water Department for development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 3
DDA 2011-01
11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
agricultural resources are significant environmental
may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
as an optional model to use in assessing impac
farmland. Would the project:
whether impacts to
effects, lead agencies
Evaluation and Site
Dept. of Conservation
s on agriculture and
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, and would not .increase the overall development
potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. In addition, the Project
would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide
importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non-agricultural use.
Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract,
nor does the allowed use involve other changes in the existing environment that
could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site
is not zoned ar used as agricultural land. Proposed Project 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 C)bservations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
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:
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 4
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which .the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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 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 Project 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 adapted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. Any
applicable mitigation measures will be included in any future recommended
entitlement approvals far the Development Parcels or development of the Water
Well Parcel. 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 Gity Council on May 5, 2003.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Genter East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
Tustin General Plan
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 5
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional
or state habitat conservation plan?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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 to federally listed threatened or endangered plant
or animal species. Proposed Project 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 an the environment.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field ~bservatians
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
Tustin General Plan
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution Nc
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2Q11-01 (Tustin
Page 6
V.
11-92
Gateway Project)
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?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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 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 Project 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; any specifically applicable
measures will be included in as recommended conditions of entitlement
approvals for development of the site or by the Water Department in
development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
Tustin General Plan
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOI<_S: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the
State Geologist far the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 7
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• 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?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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 Project 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; any specifically applicable
mitigation measures will be included as recommended conditions of entitlement
approvals for development of the site or by the Water Department in
development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
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?
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project}
Page 8
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?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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 Project 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: Na mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
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
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project}
Page 9
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from past-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?
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 10
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development
potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Development of the
Development Parcels associated with the Project will include project design and
construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site that will be required as
conditions of approval of the development project. Development of the Water Well
Parcel supports a public purpose that will also be reviewed by the Water
Department to ensure that all drainage is contained on the site as a condition of any
development on this parcel. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality
are anticipated for the development of the Project site. At this time, it is not
anticipated that the proposed Project will impact groundwater in the deep regional
aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed Project 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. Any future drilling for a Water Well on the Water Well Parcel will be
subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future extractions
activities by the Water Department.
Construction operations associated with development of the site would be required
to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDt_) 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 City and Water Department regulations and standards, along with
established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk
or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards.
Final EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to water
and drainage. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in Final EIR 90-1
that would reduce the potential impacts of the project to a level of insignificance.
Proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts
previously evaluated by the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1. There is na
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; any specifically applicable
mitigation measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future
entitlement approvals for development of the Development Parcels or by the
Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
Tustin General Plan
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 11
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development
potential allowed by the Pacific Center 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
Development Parcels and site, and on April 19, 2011 adopted Specific Plan
Amendment 11-001 implementing minor text amendments. The Project will meet
the requirements of the Specific Plan.
Compliance with state, City (including the Specific Plan) and Water Department
requirements 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 Project 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; any specifically applicable
mitigation measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future
entitlement approvals for development of the Development Parcels or by the
Water Department in development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-001
Tustin General Plan
DDA 2011-01
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 12
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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.
MitigationlMonitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Tustin General Plan
X1. NC?ISE: 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?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) Far 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?
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 13
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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. The Project could result in implementation activities that
generate noise; however, it will not result in 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. Any future drilling of a Water Well on the
Water Well Parcel will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to
any future extractions activities by the Water Department as it relates to any future
extractions activities by the Water Department.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1; any specifically applicable
measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement
approvals for development of the Development Parcels or by the Water
Department in development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01
Tustin General Plan
XI1. 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?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, and would not 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 Project 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. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 14
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01
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:
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development
potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Final EIR 90-1 identified
impacts to the area including the 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. Any future drilling of a Water Well on the Water Well
Parcel will be subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future
extractions activities by the Water Department as it relates to any future
extractions activities by the Water Department.
The Project 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.
Police Protection. The need for police protection services was assessed by the
FEIR on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-
residential uses, etc. The Project would increase the need for police protection
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 15
services. Entitlement conditions of approval for the Project, will require the
developer 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.
Praposed Project 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; any specifically applicable
measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement
approvals for development of the Development Parcels or by the Water
Department in development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01
Tustin General Plan
DDA 2011-01
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?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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 Project 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; any specifically applicable
measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement
approvals for development of the Development Parcels or by the Water
Department in development of the Water Well Parcel.
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 16
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01
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)?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, and would not increase the overall development
potential allowed by the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. 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
Consideration was adopted to address impacts that could not be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. One mitigation measure required changes in the Circulation
Element of the City's General Plan. A General Plan 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 iri 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.
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 17
As part of this initial study and review of the Project, current land uses were
reviewed by the City's Transportation and Development Services Manager to
determine the status of development by Pacific Center East phase and by
generated traffic volumes. Based on this review, it was apparent that the land
development is within the parameters of authorized Phase I land uses and
acceptable Average Daily Trip (ADT) levels of Phase I of the Pacific Center East
phasing plan. Further, all of the infrastructure improvements have been completed
to facilitate the Pacific Center East Phase I development.
Transportation improvements for the 1990 Pacific Center East EIR 90-1 were
modified in Supplement #1 to EIR 90-1. Some of the improvements were deleted
and one new one was added with the revised traffic analysis. Some of the
improvements on the list have been completed with other projects, modified
through Settlement Agreements with adjacent jurisdictions, or relieved through
other environmental documents. Proposed Project 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. However a review by the City's Traffic
and Development Manager have indicated that based on a review of
transportation/circulation roadway improvements, there is sufficient capacity to
accommodate the proposed Project without the implementation of additional
mitigation measures required in future Pacific Center East Specific Plan phases.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01
Tustin General Plan
DDA 2011-01
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. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 18
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}?
The Project is consistent with the development permitted in the Pacific Center East
Specific Plan, as amended, 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. Any future drilling of a Water Well on the Water Well Parcel will be
subject to separate environmental review as it relates to any future extractions
activities by the Water Department.
Proposed Project 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; any specifically applicable
measures will be included as conditions of any recommended future entitlement
approvals for development of the Development Parcels or by the Water
Department in development of the Water Well Parcel.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 19
Tustin General Plan
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
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 ar 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,
as amended by SPA 11-01. The FEIR previously considered all environmental
impacts associated with the implementation of the Pacific Center East Specific
Plan. The Project proposes na 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 any
specifically applicable mitigation measures would be included in the Project and,
where applicable, as conditions of any recommended future entitlement
approvals for development of the Development Parcels or by the Water
Department in development of the Water Well Parcel.
Exhibit 1 of Attachment B of Resolution No. 11-92
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
First Amendment to DDA 2011-01 (Tustin Gateway Project)
Page 20
Sources: Field Observations
FEIR, as revised by Supplement #1
Pacific Center East Specific Plan, as amended by SPA 11-01
Tustin General Plan
CONCLUSION
The summary concludes that all of the proposed Project's effects were previously
examined in the FEIR, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that
no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation
measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that
there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the Project that
would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and
adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of
Overriding Considerations were adapted for the FEIR on May 5, 2003, and shall
apply, as specifically applicable, to the proposed Project, as applicable.