Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24 MICRO CENTER DISP 06-20-94AGENDA NO. 24 Intor-Gom DATE: June 20, 1994 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: MICRO CENTER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: le Approve-the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 94-73; and · ApProve the Disposition and Development Agreement by and among Micro Electronics, Inc. (Micro Center), Catellus Development Corporation, .the City and the Redevelopment Agency to provide Micro Electronics, Inc. with financial assistance-for the improvement of the property at 1100 Edinger Avenue. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Disposition and Development Agreement requires financial assistance by the Redevelopment Agency, which is more fully discussed in the report found in-the Agency's Agenda. While the City is also a party to the agreement there is no impact on-city general funds resulting from this Agreement at this time, unless the City decides to make the financial assistance payments on behalf of the Agency. Such a decision would have to be made on an annual basis and an appropriation would have to be requested at a later date for Council consideration. There is no general fund appropriation needed at this time. DISCUSSION Please review the report in the Community Redevelopment Agency ag~ for the full discussion of this item. Assistant City Manage~' //Redeve~ent Program Manager C~istine A~.~hingleto~ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT (Also Found in Redevelopment Agency Agenda) DATE: JUNE 20, 1994 Inter-Com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MICRO CENTER DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency · Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 94-10; and · Approve t~e Disposition and Development Agreement byand among Micro Electronics, Inc. (Micro Center), Catellus Development Corporation, the City and the Redevelopment Agency to provide Micro Electronics, Inc. with financial assistance for the improvement of the property at 1100 Edinger Avenue. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), provides Micro Electronics, Inc. with assistance payments of up to $638,000 in 1993 present value over a 10 year time frame at an 8% discount rate. Assistance payments will be made on an annual basis by the City and/or Agency provided certain sales tax thresholds are achieved by Micro Center. It is projected that the City's General Fund could receive sales tax revenues ranging from $2.4 million to $4.9 million dollars from Micro Center over 10 years. It is currently anticipated that all assistance payments would be made by the Agency on an annual basis and included~on annual Agency budget requests. No appropriation is required at this time. BACKGROUND Micro Electronics, Inc. ("Micro Center") specifically requested City and/or Redevelopment Agency financial assistance to assist them in. offsetting extraordinary costs in their development of a Micro Center facility at the southwest corner of Edinger Avenue and Del Amo Avenue in the City of Tustin. On September 7, 1993, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency approved a letter of understanding with Micro Electronics, inc. for Redevelopment Agency Report Disposition and Development Agreement June 20, 1993 Page 2 the level of assistance to be provided to Micro Center as an incentive to locate in Tustin, and the manner in which annual payments would be computed. The Council and the Agency also authorized staff to prepare and negotiate a full DDA. The attached Agreement under consideration at this time. The terms of this Agreement are the same as the terms of the Letter of Understanding, previously approved. The following is a summary of staff's justification for assistance as well as the terms of assistance, as presented to the Council and Agency on September 7, 1993. JUSTIFICATION FOR ASSISTANCE Prior to staff's consideration of any financial assistance for the project, a substantial amount of financial information and data on the proposed project was requested from Micro Center including Micro Center's 10 year cash flow analysis for the project. Micro -Center was also asked to provide an estimate of the sales volumes that could be expected from the project. Ail financial information for the project including an analysis of Micro Center's justification or need for assistance have been reviewed by the Agency's financial real estate consultant, Kotin, Regan and Mouchly, Inc. (KRM). The essential terms of the Micro Center transaction with Catellus Development are: · , Micro Center is leasing the site at 1100 Edinger Avenue in Tustin from Catellus for fifteen years at a rental rate starting at approximately $7.14 a square foot per year. Catellus provided Micro Center with approximately $1,251,200 in construction funds to partially finance building and site improvements. . The preparation and development costs for the Tustin Micro Center facility were approximately $4.27 million to bring the former Builders Emporium store up to Micro Center's specifications for retail operations. · After giving credit for the $1,251,200 million construction funds provided by Catellus, Micro Center had projected excess Redevelopment Agency Report Disposition and Development Agreement June 20, 1993 Page 3 costs of approximately $763,000 in the development of their store in Tustin. Not all of the excess costs are ones which would necessarily be included in an Agency assistance program. For instance, Micro Center has stated that pre-opening costs for Micro Center in Tustin were attributable to generally high cost levels in California and the long distance from the corporate home office. Since these costs would apply uniformly throughout California, the case for including them in a total assistance program is~weakened. Based on the above factors, the assistance program is based only on those excess costs identified, excluding excess pre-opening expenses that were not related to site development. Staff and KRM analyzed the issue of need for assistance on the part of Micro Center. Based on this analysis, there was justification for Micro Center to receive some level of City/Agency assistance. It is also in the City's/Agency's best economic interest to do so. The key assumptions on which staff and KRM findings justifying assistance are based are as follows: . Micro Center's normal $2.2 million allowance for "development costs" (which include certain pre-opening expenses) for its prototype store are for improvements beyond those that would be provided by their landlord within the $7.00 per square foot per year rent they budget for a prototype. · The as-is former Builder"s Emporium store, with the $1.2 million in improvements the Catellus Development Corporation is willing to fund, had a rental market value in the $7.00 per square foot per year range. Catellus could have expected to obtain that level of rent from an alternative tenant and would not have been compelled to make rent concessions below that amount for Micro Center. · Micro Center had a reasonable likelihood of achieving its goal of'paying rent of not more than approximately $7.00 per square foot per year for an alternative site in an equivalent market area in California. o The volume of sales which Micro Center is likely to generate would be substantially higher than an alternative lower- Redevelopment Agency Report Disposition and Development Agreement June 20, 1993 Page 4 volume, higher-margin retailer or other tenant which would not need City assistance with development of this property. Micro Center is willing to guarantee taxable sales volumes of $25 million and have indicated that they project that sales could range from $40 - 60 million. The levels of sales which Micro Center appears to have achieved at its best performing stores elsewhere in the country, and the level of sales it is now experiencing in Tustin, makes it one of the best possible retailers from the standpoint of sales tax revenue generation for the ~City as long as point-of-sale subventions from the State continue. Specific economic need not withstanding, in today's.environment, it would be difficult for any city to pursue a new retailer of Micro Center's potential without some form of assistance. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM In structuring a financial assistance program for Micro Center, KRM suggested the following~criteria in judging any assistance package for any retail development in a redevelopment area: Will the City receive benefits from the assisted development which are in excess of benefits which would be derived from an unassisted project? 2. Are excess benefits truly new benefits to the City? . Will it cost the developer more or will the-City/Agency incur higher risk to produce the project which yields greater benefits for the City? o Can the assistance to the developer be fully funded from a portion of the excess benefits which the City derives from the -- assisted development project? . After all assistance has been funded, will the City retain at least a majority of the excess benefits being generated? o In the absence of any excess benefits to the City, will there be no obligation by the City to fund assistance? Redevelopment Agency Report Disposition and Development Agreement June 20, 1993 Page 5 Because an assistance program for Micro Center meets the above criteria, Agency staff and KRM believed that it would be fair, justifiable and defensible to assist the project. A suitable level of protection for the City and Agency can be provided as part of the assistance program. Once need was determined, the City and KRM utilized the following parameters in structuring an assistance program for Micro Center that met the criteria above: . The amount of assistance should be based on the level of sales tax revenues g~nerated by Micro Center. · Only sales tax received by City on a point of sale basis should be utilized to determine eligibility for assistance. . Micro Center should receive assistance only if sales tax revenues exceed a threshold which the City could reasonably expect to receive from an. unassisted retail operator on site. o The program should last no more than 10 years. · · Micro Center should receive no assistance in any year in which taxable sales were less than a specified threshold. · The City's interest should be protected if current law relating to point of sale retail sales tax received by the City is changed. There are two assumptions which apply to the proposed assistance program outlined in' the Disposition and Development Agreement: An assumption of the potential sales tax revenue production of the site without Agency/City assistance, and; o A present value amount of Agency/City assistance equal to $638,000. First, it was assumed that the proposed Micro Center site had the potential to produce some level of retail sales for the City even without an assistance program. It is reasonable to assume a retailer with lower sales volume but higher margins than Micro Center could produce sales in the range of $225 per square foot in a store the size of the present facility. Sales at this level should be considered a threshold and 5he City/Agency should only Redevelopment Agency Report Disposition and Development Agreement June 20, 1993' Page 6 · . consider assistance which can be "'funded" by revenues which are received .from taxable sales above that amount. KRM and staff believed it is necessary to explicitly specify this threshold in the Micro Center assistance program. The specification is in terms only of those sales tax revenues which w9uld be apportioned to the City on the basis of point-of-sale. Attachment 10 of the Disposition and Development Agreement presents the amounts which should be utilized as the threshold for each year. These figures are identified as "Net New Revenues" for the Base Case Development. The difference between the total sales tax revenues from Micro ~enter and the threshold will be defined as the excess sales tax revenues. Second, the' target amount of assistance which the City or Agency will provide is $638,000. This is derived by subtracting excess pre-opening expenses from Micro Center's projection of the total excess costs of opening a store in Tustin compared to a standard prototype. The amount of assistance actually received will be measured as the 1993 present value of all assistance payments made (at an 8% discount rate). Present value is the equivalent today of money available in'the future. The present value calculation for the Micro Center assistance program will be influenced by the 8% discount rate applied to future assistance payments. In no case will the application of the Micro Center assistance program result in a present value greater than that amount being paid to Micro Center ($638,000) . The guiding principle of the proposed Micro Center assistance program is that the annual assistance payments will be. equal to a specific scheduled percent of annual excess sales tax revenues and will be made until the indicated present.value has been paid. The specified p~rc~nt' figure which will be applied in each year is derived by dividing the present value of the total excess sales revenues'at the middle range of projected Micro Center sales over ten years by the present value of the maximum amount of assistance proposed to be provided ($638,000). This is equal to 23.94% (rounded to 24%). This percent will then be applied to excess sales tax revenues on an annual basis until the accumulated present value of the payments reaches $638,000. In summary, Micro Center will receive an annual payment equal to approximately 24% of the annual excess sales tax revenue until a 1993 present value of all payments reaches $638,000, or through ten years, whichever is shorter. Redevelopment Age. y Report Disposition and Development Agreement June 20, 1993 Page 7 .Staff and KRM believe that the proposed assistance program is based on sound rationale and consistent with criteria that should be used in judging any retail development assistance' program in a redevelopment area. Staff will be prepared .to respond to any specific questions about the specific terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement at the June 20, meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS An Initial Study was prepared for the adoption of the DDA which is attached for Agency approval. With the Agency September 7, 1993 approval of entitlements for Micro Center, it made the determination that Environmental Impact Report 90-1 had previously addressed all of the. environmental issues relating to this project and appropriate mitigating measures identified in EIR 90-1 are included as conditions of approval for the project. The proposed DDA does not change any of the environmental impacts identified at that time. Therefore, it is recommended that the Agency make the finding that requirements of the California Environmental QUality Act have been met and that no further environmental review is required. Christine A. Shingleton Assistant City Manager Richard J. Zimmer Redevelopment Program Manager rz immer \micrcent \oparpt. mem RESOLUTION NO. 94-73 and INITIAL STUDY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 94-73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, FINDING THAT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN (FINAL EIR 90-1) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROGRAM EIR FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF TUSTIN, ,CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC. AND THAT ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A® That the Disposition and Development Agreement by and among the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, the City of Tustin, Catellus Development Corporation and Micro Electronics, Inc. is considered a "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and Bo That the project is covered by a previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan which serves as a Program EIR for the proposed project. II. The Pacific Center East Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (90-1), previously certified on December 17, 1990, was considered prior to approval of this project. The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds: this project is within the scope of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan previously approved; the effects of this project, relating to grading, air quality, drainage, plant life, noise, land use, circulation, public services, utilities and aesthetics, were examined in the Program EIR. All feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR are incorporated into this project. The Final EIR, is therefore determined to be adequate to serve as a Program EIR for this project and satisfied all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Further, the Redevelopment Agency finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources; and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB 3158, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 93-12 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Tustin, held on the 20th day of June, 1994. THOMAS SALTARELLI Mayor MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION 94-73 MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the Redevelopment Agency of 'the City of Tustin is 5; that the above"and foregoing Resolution No. 94-73 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency held on the 20th day of June, 1994, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92680 (7~4) 573-3105 INITIAL STUDY L BACKGROUND Address and Phone N.g.umber of Proponent Date Check List Submitted Agency Requiting Check List Name of Proposal, if applicable'-~i53~E>~<'/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a fiver or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2..Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emission or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperatures, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh water? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat'terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. '~ c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? eo Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? go Change in the quantity of ground waters, 'either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? YES Il MAYBE NO c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ao Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? YES MAYBE NO c.. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. W'fll the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? o Land Use. W'fll the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the presem or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate or use of any natural resources? b. St.Costantifl depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the propos',d involve: ao A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible imerference with an emergency response plan or an emergency F---! evacuation plan? I I 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area7 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? · : b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy_:. %qll the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? YES MAYBE NO 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: .. a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding memal health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Solid Waste. Will the proposal create additional solid waste ~requiring disposal by the City? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 20. Recreation. W'fll the proposal result in an impact upon the quality, or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 21. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. 'rhe potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? YES MAYBE NO d. W'fll the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 22. Mandatory Findings of Significance YES MAYBE NO ao 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? bo Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief~ definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). Co Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) do Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SEE ATTACHMENT A IV. 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 in Attachment A attached hereto have · been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. V1 Date INITSTUD.PM5 3702A Signature Name (Prim) Title PUT III - DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONHENTAL EV~ff.,UATION INITI~ff., STUDY RESPONSES FOR DISPOSITIONAND DEVELOPMENT AGREEHENT BY ~I~D~ONG THE TUSTIN COMI.~UNITY REDEVELOPNENT A~ENCY, THE CITY OF TUSTIN CATELLUS DEVELOPmenT CORPORSATION MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC. BACKGROUND The purpose of this initial study is to determine if EIR 90-1, which was previously certified on December 17, 1990 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan, adequately addresses any potential impacts of the proposed project and, therefore, can serve as a Program EIR for this project. . EIR 90-1 identified several impact categories where a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted by the City for the entire PCESP area. For the purposes· of this initial study check list, these items have been checked "Yes". Mitigation measures identified in the EIR to minimize the impacts that would be applicable to this project have been identified. EIR 90-1 also identified several impact categories where impacts could be lessened to a level of insignificance with the imposition of mitigation measures. For the purposes of this initial study check list, these items have been checked "No" and the mitigation measures identified in the EIR that would be applicable to this project have been identified. Potential impact categories in EIR 90-1 not identified to have a potential impact have been check "No" and were reviewed to ensure that no new impacts would be created by the project. Since no new development is proposed at this time in conjunction with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan, and only rehabilitation of an already developed site is proposed, no new impacts which were not addressed in the EIR have been identified. The project is the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) by and among the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, the City of Tustin, Catellus Development Corporation and Micro Electronics, Inc. The property which is the subject of this DDA is in Planning Area 6, of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP). The project area for, the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan is approximately 9.5 acres in size and can be described as the area south of Edinger Avenue, west of Del Amo Avenue and east of the future alignment of Newport Avenue as generally identified in Exhibit 5 of the PCESP. These properties are located within the Planned Community (PC) Zoning District and designated Regional Center by the PCESP Land Use Plan. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 2 The project site subject to the DDA is approximately 4 acres in size and is located on the southwest corner of Edinger and Del Amo Avenues at 1100 Edinger Avenue in the Planned Community (PC) Zoning District and designated Regional Center by the PCESP Land Use Plan. 1. Fu%RTH Items A though G - "No": Planning Area 6 is primarily flat. The Planning Area includes both vacant properties and developed properties, including the site proposed for rehabilitation. No new development is proposed at this time in consideration of the Planning Area 6 Plan. The site is relatively flat and currently developed with a 45,600 square..foot retail building and parking facilities which has been vacated. Replacement of the parking lot, addition of landscape planters and driveways will be required to prepare the site to accommodate the proposed use. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to the necessary grading activity that would occur in order to accommodate the various tYPes of development and the 'resultant change to existing landform and topography of the area. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Field Verification ' Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Community Development Department, Building Division Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan ae Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: le A soils and geotechnical report and grading plans would be required for any new development within the Planning Area to determine that all grading activities within the Planning Area incorporate applicable mitigation measures identified in Section 3.2 of the EIR, as reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. · Development of vacant parcels shall submit a pesticides/toxicity report which identifies any potential pesticide "hot spots" and recommends Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 3 procedures for necessary soil mixing or removal. · In the event archeological remains are uncovered, work in the affected area shall be suspended. In such an event, a recognized specialist shall be contacted to survey the area. All actions taken under this measure shall be in accordance with Appendix K of the State CEQA Guidelines. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitiqation/Monitorinq Require~: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: le Ail foundations shall 'include reinforcement as reviewed and approved by the community Development Department. · Ail pavement "R" values shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department in accordance with applicable City standards. · Ail structures shall be developed in accordance with the seismic design provisions of the Uniform Building Code and reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department for conformity during plan check. 2. AIR Item A - "Yes": Although no new development is proposed at this time, the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan proposes approximately 75,000 square feet of retail space and a minimum 250 room hotel, consistent with the approved Land Use Plan for the PCESP. The rehabilitation site is presently developed with a 45,600 square foot retail building, which is a part of the 75,000 square feet of retail space proposed for Planning Area 6. No new square footage would be added with the rehabilitation. EIR 90-1 determined that regional ambient air quality conditions, combined with regional cumulative traffic, contributes to the exceedance of daily State and Federal standards for several air pollutants. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit of the Specific Plan area and region. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1 to minimize these impacts and are recommended for implementation. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 4 Items B and C - "No": EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related the creation of objectional odors or alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature or climate for the Specific Plan area. As noted in the Background Section above, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan ao Planning Area 6 Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: le Any future new development shall comply with all South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigati0n/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: le The project shall comply with all City policies regarding short term construction related emissions, including periodic Watering of the site and prohibiting grading during second stage smog alerts and when wind velocities exceed 15 miles per hour. · The applicant shall consult with utility companies to incorporate energy conservation measures which will reduce stationary sources emissions. · The project proponent shall comply with all South Coast Air Quality Management District rules and regulations related to the proposed use and rehabilitation of the site. 3. WATER Items A throuqh I - "No": The PCESP identified a Storm Drain Concept Plan to address the drainage requirements of the entire Specific Plan area. The proposed Planning Area 6 Plan is consistent with that concept plan. Since no new development is proposed, no new drainage facilities would be required at this time. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 5 The site proposes reconstruction and repair of the existing parking facilities which would modify the drainage patterns. However, this would be an improvement over existing conditions. The existing storm drain system for the area is adequate to accommodate the proposed improvements. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to .the entire Specific Plan area related to water and drainage. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts to the change of course or direction of water courses, water bodies, discharge into water bodies, alter groundwater or water supplies or flooding from the site. As noted in the Background Section above, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 ~ Pacific Center East Specific Plan ae Planninq Area 6 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Required at this time. None Be Site Rehabilitation Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: Final grading and drainage of the parking lot shall conform to the drainage concept plan of the PCESP to ensure that project storm runoff does not exceed the capacity of local storm drain systems as reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. · Periodic cleaning (i.e. street sweeping) of paved areas shall be performed to remove small particles size sediments with absorbed pollutants caused by uses of the area. 4. PLANT LIFE Items A throuqh D - "No": The Planning Area 6 Plan makes provisions for street landscaping concepts consistent with that previously approved in the PCESP. No landscaping would Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 6 be installed as part of the Planning Area 6 Plan. The Site Rehabilitation would remove existing plant material and add new plant material consistent with the Planning Area 6 Plan and PCESP Landscape concept plans. Additional landscaping would also be provided within the parking lot and interior of site consistent with the City's Landscape Design Guidelines. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to the reduction of agricultural crops. Agricultural operations within the Specific Plan area occur outside of the area covere4byPlanningArea 6. Consequently, no mitigation measures would apply to this project. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to the change of diversity of species, reduction of the number of unique or endangered species of plant life, or the introduction of new plant life into the area. As noted above in the Background Section, no new impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan City's Landscape Design Standards A® Be Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: required at this time. None Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 5. ANIMAL LIFE Items A through D - "No": EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to animal life. As noted in the Background Section above, no new impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan a. B. Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitorinq ,Required: Required. None Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. . NOISE Item A - "Yes": Ultimate development within Planning Area 6 would result in short-term construction noise impacts, and a Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 7 · long-term increase in the ambient noise levels in and around the project site. Ambient noise levels on the rehabilitation site would remain the same as the proposed retail use is consistent with the uses that have previously occupied the site. A Statementof Overriding Consideration was adopted to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit of the Specific Plan area and the City. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1 to minimize these impacts and are recommended for implementation. Item B - "No": EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to exposure to severe noise levels in the Specific Plan area. As noted above in the Background Section, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan A· Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Required. None B· Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: · The project proponent shall comply with all City policies regarding noise and the City of Tustin Noise Ordinance and the use of properly maintained muffler systems on all construction equipment. LIGHT ~ ~LARE "No": The Planning Area 6 Concpet Plan would not include any new site lighting as no new development would occur at this time. The Site Rehabilitation would replace existing site lighting and improve the site lighting for the site to comply with the City's Security Ordinance for parking lot and site lighting requirements. All site lighting would be designed to ensure that light rays would be confined to the property and not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to lighting. As noted in the Background Section above, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field VerifiCation Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 8 Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East A. Planninq Area 6 Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None Required. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitiqation/Monitorinq Required: None Required. 8. LAND USE "No": The Planning Area 6 Concept Plan would refine the ultimate land uses within this portion of the PCESP. The Plan identifies approximately 75,000 square feet of retail space and a minimum250 room hotel on approximately 9.5 acres which is consistent with the Land Use Plan of the PCESP. The boundaries and acreage of the Planning Area have been adjusted to reflect the latest alignment studies for Newport, Del Amo and Edinger Avenues. The Site Rehabilitation would include the rehabilitation of an existing 45,600 square foot retail building. No new square footage is being proposed. This building has historically been used as a retail store. No change of use is proposed. The use of the building for retail is permitted by right within the Regional Center Land Use Designation of the PCESP. Related to the Site Rehabilitation, a Variance is proposed to: 1) reduce the landscape setbacks along Edinger and Del Amo from 30 feet to approximately 23 feet to accommodate adequate site parking in consideration of the existing .and ultimate right-of-way constraints; and 2) increase the maximum height of the a small portion of the building from 35 feet to 45 feet to accommodate two tower elements on the west elevation of the building. Both of these variance requests will still provide overall consistency with the PCESP and will result in a cohesive development without creating additional impacts not previous considered related to land use. Also related to the Site Rehabilitation, a Conditional Use Permit is proposed to establish a Master Sign Pan which deviates form the City's Sign Code with respect to the number and size of business identification signs and the use of a pole sign. The proposed sign plans appear to be appropriate given the size and scale of the proposed improvement and would create a cohesive project, providing appropriate building identification given the surrounding development. The pole sign is proposed to utilize an existing pole structure on an Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 9 adjacent site thereby removing an existing nonconforming pole sign. In addition, the existing pole sign on the subject property would be removed in its entirety. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to land use. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 PaCific Center East Specific Plan A® Planning Area 6 Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: le Any future development plans for structures over 60 feet in height shall be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration and Airport Land Use Commission for review and comment. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: The Community Development Department shall review each site to ensure that it conforms to the approved development standards and land use concepts in the Specific Plan to assure compatible on-site land use. · The property owner shall dedicate required street right-of-way consistent with provisions of the Specific Plan for ultimate street improvements. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES Items A and B - "No": No development is proposed in conjunction with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan. The site rehabilitation is for an existing retail building. No new floor area is proposed. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to natural resources. As noted above in the Background Section, no additional impacts have been identified. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 10 Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan A. Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 10. RISK OF UPSET Items A and B - "No": No actual development is proposed in conjunction with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan. The proposed concept plan is consistent with the Land Use Plan of the PCESP. The site rehabilitation is for an existing retail building. The proposed use is a retail operation which is consistent with past uses within the building. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to risk of upset. As noted above in the Background Section, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan A. Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 11. POPULATION "No": No residential development is proposed in conjunction with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan which would increase the City's population. The proposed concept plan is consistent with the Land Use Plan of the PCESP. The site rehabilitation is for an existing retail building. The proposed use is a retail operation which is consistent with past uses within the building. No residential units would be created which would increase the City's population. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to population. As noted above in the Background Section, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 11 Certified EIR. 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan A. Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. Bo Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 12. HOUSIN~ "No": No residential development is proposed to be added or removed in conjunction with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan which would effect the amount of housing in the City. The proposed concept plan is consistent with the Land Use Plan of the PCESP. The site rehabilitation is for an existing retail building. The proposed use is a retail operation which is consistent with past uses within the building. No residential units would be created or removed which would effect the amount of housing in the City. EIR 90-1 identified impacts outside of the Specific Plan area related to the removal of residential units in order to construct the requried Newport Avenue extension and undercrossing. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1. However, the Planning Area 6 Plan and the Site Rehabilitation does not require the extension of Newport Avenue, nor the removal of any residential units. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan A. Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None required at this time. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 13. TRANSPORTaTION/CIRCULATION Items A and C - "Yes": The Planning Area 6 Concept Plan reflects the latest alignment and right-of-way studies for Edinger, Del Amo and Newport Avenues. The capacities and right-of-way requirements are consistent with the PCESP. Since the site was previously developed with a retail use, the site rehabilitation and establishment of a new retail use would not create a significant amount of new vehicular trips. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 12 EIR 90-1 determined that the ultimate development of the entire Specific Plan area will generate increased traffic in the vicinity. A Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted to address necessary compromises for the overall benefit of the Specific Plan area and region. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1 to minimize these impacts and are recommended for implementation. Items B, D, E and F - "No": The Planning Area 6 Concpet Plan identifies individual site access to the properties within the Planning Area. These access points are consistent with the PCESP and acceptable to the Public Works Department, Engineering Division. The proposed site rehabilitation would modify existing driveways on Edinger and Del Amo Avenues. One existing driveway on Edinger and two existing driveways on Del Amo would be removed. Parking facilities would be reconstructed to comply with the required amount of parking as established by the PCESP. The site is currently developed with a 45,600 retail building. No new square footage is being proposed. Therefore, the project would comply with the phasing schedule identified in the PCESP and would not be required to construct any ultimate Street improvements at this time. Offers of dedication for the required right-of-way and bonds for the ultimate construction of street improvements would be required. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to the creation of new parking facilities, present patterns of circulation, rail traffic, or increase in traffic hazards. As noted in the Background Section above, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Public Works Department, Engineering Division Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan ao Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: required at this time. None Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: le The property owner shall dedicate required right- of-way along the Edinger and Del Amo Avenue frontages in accordance with the Specific Plan and Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 13 other current alignment studies. · The property owner shall provide fair share funding for the upgrades for the existing Edinger/Del Amo Avenues traffic signal. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Items A through F - "No": Since no actual development is proposed with the Planning Area 6 Concpet Plan, no additional public services would be required at this time. The site rehabilitation would not require any additional public services as this is an existing developed site. No new square footage or change in use is proposed. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to public services, including Fire and Police protection, schools and public facilities, including maintenance of roads. Consequently, mitigation measures identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential, impacts to a level of insignificance. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to public services such as parks and recreation and other governmental services. As noted above in Background Section, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans City Departments Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan ao Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Required. None Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include:' · The site rehabilitation shall comply with the City's Security Ordinance, including provisions for proper lighting, adequate building addressing, sensitive review of landscaping to ensure it does not provide dense cover, and buildings which have passive and/or over surveillance opportunities. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 14 · The project shall comply with all Orange County Fire Department requirements related to fire flow, installation where requried of fire hydrants and compliance with all requirements related to construction. 15; ENERGY Items A and B - "No": Since no actual development isproposed with the Planning Area 6 Concpet Plan, no additional energy needs would be required at this time. The site rehabilitation would not require any significance difference in energy consumption as this is an existing developed site. No new square footage or change in use is proposed. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to energy consumption. Consequently, mitigation measures identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan A· Planninq Area 6 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Required. None B· Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: · The project proponent shall be responsible for construction of any street lighting, undergrounding facilities or other structures required by the Public Works Department. · The Community Development Department shall review all plans to assure all structures are designed in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. · The project proponents should consult with Southern California Edison and The Gas Company to incorporate energy conservation measures into the project. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 15 16. UTILITIES Items A through F - "No": Since no actual development is proposed with the Planning Area 6 Concpet Plan, no additional need for utilities to service the area would be required at this time. The site rehabilitation proposes to remove overhead utilities which exclusively service the site and replace them with underground service. The existing utilities in the area are adequate to serve the site since no new square footage or change in use is proposed. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to utilities. Consequently, mitigation measures identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation that would reduce the- potential impacts to a level of insignificance. .. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan A. Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation and have been incorporated into the project as conditions of approval include: le Compliance with the mitigation measures identified in Item 15B Mitigation Measures above. · Landscaping irrigation systems should be controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses. · Plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage and loss should be utilized (i.e. low-volume toilet tanks, flow control devices for faucets, etc.) in accordance with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. · Drought tolerant plants should be incorporated into the project design from the plant pallet in the PCESP whenever possible. 5. The on-site water system improvements including 12 Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 16 inch mains in Edinger Avenue and fire hydrants, meters, and back-flow prevention devices, if required, shall be installed by each developer at developer's expense and in conformance with Plans and specification approved by the City of Tustin Water Service Division. Se The project shall accommodate access provisions for garbage trucks, locating stationary trash compactors in individual buildings in order to minimize waste, hauling demand, and providing and maintaining solid waste storage areas in accordance with City of Tustin requirements. · The project shall make provisions for trash enclosures for all purposes as requried by the PCESP (Section 4.7 General Regualtions). · Pacific Bell shall review plans to ensure appropriate easements will be provided for any new telephone facilities. 17. HUMAN HEALTH Items A and B - "No": No actual development is proposed in conjunction with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan. The proposed concept plan is consistent with the Land Use Plan of the PCESP. The site rehabilitation is for an existing retail building. The proposed use is a retail, operation which is consistent with past uses within the building. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to health hazards. As noted above in the Background Section, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan A. Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 18. SOLID WASTE "No": Since no actual development is proposed with the Planning Area 6 Concpet Plan, there would be no creation of Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 17 additional solid waste at this time. The site rehabilitation proposes to add trash compactors and trash bin service which presently does not exist on the site in accordance with applicable requirements of the City's trash hauler. Since this site is an.existing retail development, there should not be a significant difference in the amount of solid waste generated. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area related to solid waste. Consequently, mitigation measures identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan ao Be Planninq Area 6 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Required. None site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: Mitigation measures which are applicable to the Site Rehabilitation have been previously identified in Item 16B Mitigation Measures above. 19. AESTHETICS "No": Although there is no actual development proposed with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan, the Area Plan does establish a guide for future development proposals. The proposed Area Plan is consistent with the PCESP and recognizes that the existing building proposed for site rehabilitation would remain to accommodate the proposed retail use. The Site Rehabilitation proposes significant physical improvements to the existing building which would improve the aesthetic value of the site and area, consistent with the Urban Design elements of the PCESP. The PCESP requires all development proposal to be considered by the Planning Commission, with final Design Review authority resting with the Redevelopment Agency to ensure compliance with the PCESP requirements and the South/Central Redevelopment Area Plan. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan related to aesthetics. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified in EIR 90-1 and are recommended for implementation Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 18 that would reduce the potential impacts to a level of insignificance. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan ao Be Planninq Area. 6 Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: required at this time. None Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 20. RECREATION "No": The Planning Area 6 Concept Plan is consistent with the Land Use Plan of the PCESP. No recreation facilities would be provided as this is a commercial development. The site rehabilitation would accommodate a retail operation which is consistent with past uses within the building and would not create a demand for additional recreational facilities. EIR 90-1 did not identify any potential impacts related to the quality of recreation. As noted above in Background Section, no additional impacts have been identified. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 90-1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan ae Planning Area 6 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Required. None Bo Site Rehabilitation Mitigation/Monitorinq Required: None Required. 21. CULTURAL RESOURCES Items A through D - "No": No actual development is proposed with the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan that would result in grading of vacant property. The site rehabilitation would make improvements to an already developed property. The Planning Area and rehabilitation site is not within an area identified as an archaeological site. EIR 90-1 identified impacts to the entire Specific Plan area Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 19 related to possible archaeological finds as a result of development of vacant properties. Consequently, mitigation measures were identified and are recommended for implementation. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Certified EIR 85-2 East Tustin Specific Plan A® Planninq Area 6 Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures applicable to the Planning Area 6 Concept Plan have been previously identified in Item iA Mitigation Measures above. Be Site Rehabilitation Mitiqation/Monitoring Required: None Required. 22. 14]%NDATORY FINDINGS OF SI~NIFIC~I~CE Items A, B, C and D - "No": The City Council considered the benefits of the specific plan and balanced those benefits against the projects unavoidable effects and chose to adopt a statement of overriding considerations, particularly related to air quality, noise and traffic/circulation. The Planning Area 6 Concept Plan and the Site Rehabilitation in and of itself would not cause negative impacts to wildlife habitat nor achieve any short-term environmental goals, nor have impacts which are potentially individually limited but are cumulatively considerable and could potentially have an indirect adverse impact on human beings. EIR 90-1 addressed all of these concerns and this project is fully within the scope of that discussion. Source: As previously noted Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As previously noted. Part III - Initial Study Responses DR 93-020, VAR 93-004, CUP 93-027 Page 20 PART IV - DETERMINATION INITIAL STUDY RESPONSES FOR DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE CITY OF TUSTIN CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORSATION MICRO ELECTRONICS, INC. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed .project HAS utilized all feasible mitigation measures as identified in Final Environmental Impact Report 90-1 certified on December 17, 1990. EIR 90-1 for the. Pacific Center' East Specific Plan is adequate to serve as the Program EIR for the project as significant impacts were identified and corresponding mitigation measures were recommended to be incorporated into the approval process. Therefore, no additional documentation is required. DATE SIGNATURE DISPOSmON AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Found in Redevelopment Agency Agenda)