Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 11 PAC CTR E EIR 12-17-90DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 171 1990 WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CONSENT CALENDAR NO. 11 12-17-90 Inter - Com PACIFIC CENTER EAST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (90-01) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 90-158 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Pacific Center East project as adequate and complete. BACKGROUND An Environmental Impact Report (SCH #89091320) has been prepared for the Pacific Center East project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State guidelines for implementation of CEQA. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared as a program EIR; as an integral part of the proposed Pacific Center East Specific Plan. Environmental issues and recommended mitigation measures are incorporated into the proposed plan. The Planning Commission at a special meeting on October 3, 1990 held a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required a public hearing for the purpose of soliciting testimony and written comments on the EIR from the public and responsible agencies. The Planning Commission's role at the hearing was to invite public comment and direct staff to respond to all comments and incorporate these responses into a Final EIR. The public review period on the EIR officially closed on October 15, 1990 but was extended through October 26, 1990 for Caltrans and the City of Irvine. Staff have worked with the firm of PBR in preparation of the Final EIR. Responses to comments on the Draft EIR are now complete. The Planning Commission recommended the final certification of the complete EIR document at their regular meeting on December 10, 1990. City Council and Redevelopment Agency certification of the Final EIR for the Pacific Center East Project as adequate and complete is now needed. The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR and Technical Appendix previously distributed to the City Council and the document entitled Final EIR (Volume 4) which is attached and which includes an errata sheet. The EIR focused on potential significant environmental impact categories as identified in the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation and Scoping process as follows: City Council Report Pacific Center East - December 17, 1990 Page 2 Environmental Impact Report Land Use ° Geology/Soils ° Hydrology ° Socio -economics ° Transportation/Circulation Air Quality ° Acoustic Environment ° Public Services ° Aesthetics Since CEQA requires consideration of project alternatives, the EIR also discussed five alternatives as follows: 1) No project; 2 ) Alternative 1 - Office Center with buildout proposed at 3.8 million square feet of floor area; 3) Alternative 2 - Research/Development and Regional uses with a total buildout of 2.6 million square feet of floor area; 4) Alternative 3 - an alternative location for the project along the I-5 freeway; 5) Alternative 4 - Circulation alternatives for the project; 6 ) Alternative 5 - buildout of the project at the existing General Plan designation or 1.9 million square feet of floor area at buildout. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Pacific Center project site includes approximately 126 acres located in the southwesterly portion of the City basically bounded by Red Hill Avenue on the east, Valencia Avenue on the south, the SR -55 on the west and an Orange County Flood Control channel on the north just directly north of Edinger Avenue. The overall concept for the Pacific Center Specific Pan is intended to provide a planned community development which encourages a variety of office, commercial regional and technology uses. At completion, the project would encompass an approximate 2.2 million square foot net increase in square footage within the project area or a total 3.3 million feet in four distinct land use categories: Commercial, Regional Center, Office Center and Technology Center. More intense land uses are proposed to be concentrated at the southwesterly portion of the project area with development intensity diminishing to the north and northwesterly edges of the site in proximity to existing residential uses. The plan also proposes major circulation alterations including the extension of Newport Avenue to Valencia, the reconfiguration of the east side SR -55 ramp and realignment of Del Amo Avenue. The proposed project is anticipated to be developed in three phases. The amount of permitted development is based on the sequence of available circulation capacity and approvals necessary for certain circulation plans from responsible agencies. While the extension of Newport Avenue and reconfiguration of the SR -55 Community Development Department City Council Report Pacific Center East Environmental Impact Report December 17, 1990 Page 3 ramps will necessitate removal of some existing uses, other existing uses within the project area may remain as permitted subject to certain specific plan regulations. An actual decision on the Pacific Center East project itself is not being requested at this time. Required General Plan amendments, a Zone Change and adoption of the Specific Plan will be brought back to the City Council and considered in January sometime. SUMMARY OF REMAINING IMPACTS In review of the EIR, there will be a number of project related impacts of the project which are considered significant after all feasible mitigation measures are applied as follows: Cumulative transportation and circulation impacts - the level of service at several area intersections will remain at unacceptable levels of service after mitigation. Cumulative air quality impacts - project impacts are mitigated. However, emission standards are exceeded. Acoustic impacts - the project will contribute to noise levels increases along McFadden. As required by CEQA, written findings as to all significant impacts identified in the EIR ( including those that can be mitigated) , including a Statement of Facts supporting each finding is included with Resolution No. 2859 as Exhibit A. Additionally, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for remaining impacts on transportation/circulation, air quality and acoustics which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened to a level of significance, is submitted as Exhibit B of Resolution No. 2859 identifying specific economic social or other considerations which make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. In otherwords, the submitted Statement of Overriding Considerations balances the benefits of the proposed project against unavoidable adverse impacts and demonstrates that the remaining impacts are considered acceptable. Christine Shingleton� Director of Communi Development Attachment: Resolution No. 90-158 CAS:kf/121090.pce Community Development Department 1 RESOLUTION NO. 90-158 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 3 90-01 (SCH ##89091320) PREPARED FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST PROJECT IS ADEQUATE WITH THE INCORPORATION OF ALL 4 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 90-01. 5 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as 6 follows: 7 I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: 8 A. As part of the implementation of the South Central Redevelopment Project and proposed Amendments to the City 9 of Tustin General Plan, the Pacific Center East Project has been proposed. Discretionary actions considered as 10 part of the "Project" and identified on pages six and seven of the Environmental Impact Report are collectively 11 referred to hereafter as the "Project". 12 B. An Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter referred to as "EIR") was determined to be necessary due to the 13 potential effects identified in an initial study prepared for the project; and 14 C. An EIR has been prepared by PBR for the Project and 15 circulated to interested public and private agencies with a solicitation of comments and evaluation pursuant to the 16 requirements of CEQA; and 17 D. A public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on the Draft EIR on October 3, 1990; and 18 E. The public review period for the Draft EIR officially 19 ended on October 15, 1990 and was extended until October 26, 1990 for Caltrans and the City of Irvine. 20 Incorporated within the EIR are comments of the public, Planning Commission, staff and other agencies, and 21 responses thereto; and 22 F. The Planning Commission at a regular meeting on December 10, 1990 recommended that the City Council certify EIR 23 90-01 as adequate and complete. 24 G. The subject EIR is a program EIR and is subject to the following provision of the State Guidelines for the 25 California Environmental Quality Act: "that subsequent activities shall be examined in light of the program EIR 26 to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared; and 27 H. The City Council has read and considered all 28 environmental documentation comprising the EIR including 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 90-158 Page 2 comments and responses, has found that the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, is adequate with inclusion of all responses to comments, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA, and the State guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and I. It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Tustin, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) , and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, as amended (California Administrative Code, Section 15000 et seq.) that the City shall not approve a project unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid significant effects; meaning all impacts have been avoided to the extent feasible or substantially lessened and any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are acceptable based on CEQA, Section 15093; and J. All impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the EIR have been reviewed and considered, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding on each significant impact identified in the EIR. Findings and a Statement of Facts supporting such findings are listed in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. A Statement of Overriding Consideration is contained in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and II. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby find that EIR 90-01 in its entirety with Responses to Comments and Technical Appendices and errata sheet #1 is adequate and complete and certifies the Pacific Center East Project Final Environmental Impact Report 90-01; and III. The City Council hereby finds that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which will mitigate or avoid the potentially significant adverse effects identified in the Final EIR as specifically itemized in Exhibit A, CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts. All mitigation measures contained in Final EIR 90-01 are adopted and shall be incorporated as conditions of approval at subsequent discretionary actions at the appropriate level of project implementation; and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 161 17 18 19 ONN 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4-01 Resolution No. 90-158 Page 3 IV. The City Council hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts attached as Exhibit A and the Statement of Overriding Consideration attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of December, 1990. RICHARD EDGAR Mayor MARY E. WYNN City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 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 City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 90-158 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of December, 1990, by the following vote: AYES COUNCILPERSONS: NOES COUNCILPERSONS: ABSENT: COUNCILPERSONS: MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk City of Tustin, California EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST PROJECT (SCH #89091320) SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT AND RELATED ACTIONS PERTAINING THERETO FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA EIR Guidelines (Guidelines) provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed and which identified one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of these significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding." As stated in the CEQA Guidelines, the possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The order in which the significant impacts are identified including a Statement of Findings and Facts herein follows the order in which topical issues are addressed within the EIR. LAND USE A. Significant Effect - Construction of the related projects (ie: Newport Avenue extension north of Edinger Avenue, flood Exhibit A Page 2 control conduit and railroad overpass) will include acquisition of approximately 25 apartment units and eight condominium units and relocation of approximately 82 residents. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding. Any properties acquired by the City of Tustin, Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, or other public agency shall be acquired at fair market value and relocation assistance shall be provided to persons and businesses displaced in accordance with State requirements. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set for the above. B. Significant Effect - The project will result in intensification of on-site land uses with a projected addition of up to 2.4 million square feet at project buildout which could create the potential for land use conflicts within the project site between differing land use designations. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding. Each development site will be reviewed by Community Development to ensure that it conforms to the approved development standards, landscape concept included in the Specific Plan. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. C. Significant Effect - Some land exchanges, purchases, and/or dedications will be required for project circulation improvements which include properties currently owned by Catellus Development Company, Caltrans, the City of Tustin and others. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially Exhibit A Page 3 lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings - Provisions of the Specific Plan require certain dedications as a condition of development. Any acquisitions required for circulation improvements which are not required in the Specific Plan as conditions of approval or development agreement will be negotiated by the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and/or the City. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. D. Significant Effect - Project implementation will result in removal of the Newport Lead of the AT & SF Railroad and construction of an underpass beneath the main tract north of the project site. This creates the potential for interference with daily train operations. FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Finding - conceptual plans for the underpass, railroad span and flood conduits have been completed by Dokken Engineering. Plans for the Newport Avenue underpass or overcrossing and removal of the Newport Lead shall be submitted to the Public Utilities Commission, the AT & SF Railroad, and Santa Fe Railroad for review to assure that interruptions of rail operations are minimal. Rail service will continue while the underpass in constructed. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. E. Significant Effect - Any new structure constructed on-site above 60 feet in height will penetrate the 100:1 Notice Surface pursuant to FAR Part 77.13 and will have to be referred to the Federal Aviation Administration for study. FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Exhibit A Page 4 Facts in Support of Finding - Site plans for structures over 60 feet in height shall be submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration and Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Any site plans for structures in planning areas west of the Irvine Lead within the Tustin Route of the MCAS (H) shall also be submitted to the MCAS (H) for review and comment. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. GEOLOGYISOILS A. Significant Effect - On-site structures will be exposed to regional seismic events. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - All construction on-site shall conform to the Uniform Building Code and City regulations to assure structures can withstand any expected seismic groundshaking. The soils/geology conditions pose no major constraint to excavation or construction on-site. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. B. Significant Effect - Although there are no known archaeological remains on-site, there is a slight possibility of uncovering such remains during site excavation. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - If any archaeological remains are uncovered during grading or excavation, all work will be suspended until a recognized specialist can make a determination as to the significance of the findings. All Exhibit A Page 5 subsequent actions taken under this measure will be in accordance with Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. C. Significant Effect - There is the possibility of pesticide "hot spots" occurring on-site as a portion of the project site has been in agricultural use for a number of years. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Developers of vacant parcels shall be required to submit a pesticides/toxicity report which identifies any potential pesticide "hot spots" and recommends procedures for necessary soil mixing or removal. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. HYDROLOGY A. Significant Effect - Buildout of the Specific Plan area will include development on approximately 5.4 acres within the*F08 facility drainage basin. However, the drainage direction within this area was assumed to be changed to flow within the F09F15 facility. Without mitigation, this will leave an imbalance in the on-site drainage patterns. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into; the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - A 5.4 acre downstream area within the F09F15 facility basin shall be graded to flow within the F08 facility basin via storm drains in the proposed Newport Avenue extension and Del Amo Avenue so the drainage flows on-site conform to the existing drainage basins. Exhibit A Page 6 All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. B. Significant Effect - The project generated flow rates exceed the existing flow capacity of all storm drain systems in Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue except for the 54 -inch RCP between nodes 17 and 18. In addition, there is the possibility of the Santa Fe Channel (F10) overtopping on on- site flooding prior to OCEMA channel improvements and implementation of the storm drain concept plan. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Future storm drain improvements shall conform to the Drainage Concept of the Specific Plan to ensure that project storm runoff does not exceed the capacity of local storm drain systems. Prior to implementation of the storm drain master plan and the proposed improvements of the Santa Fe Flood Control Channel, the project site will be protected from Santa Fe channel overtopping by means of an earthen berm along the northern perimeter of the site. On- site flooding shall be prevented by redirecting the flow to locations with adequate drainage facilities and by pumping during peak events. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. C. Significant Effect - Buildout of the project could result in an increase of urban pollutants such as oil, grease, and debris into storm drain systems. In addition, soil loss could occur during construction due to sheet erosion, particularly along freshly graded slopes. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Several measures to reduce stormwater pollution are proposed, including periodic street sweeping, routine cleaning of manholes, source control surveys of all industrial facilities, controlling pesticide and Exhibit A Page 7 fertilizer use and controlling washdown drainage from industrial facilities. To reduce soil loss, soil on graded slopes shall be strengthened by planting in accordance with the landscape concept plan as outlined in the Specific Plan. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. TRAFFICICIRCULATION A. Significant Effect - Buildout of the Specific Plan area will generate approximately 55,266 daily vehicle trips, of which 14,218 are generated from existing development. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for sixteen (16) intersections (the additional intersection of Newport/Edinger was analyzed under project conditions) . The project will have substantial impacts on the level of service at all area intersections prior to mitigation. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - All feasible traffic improvements for the intersections evaluated have been recommended. Table 15 in the Draft EIR outlines intersection improvements either as project required mitigation or as a fair share contribution towards intersection improvement (Table 16 in the Draft EIR outlines the project share of contribution for each affected intersection). The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit B, giving greater weight to the remaining, unavoidable significant effect. B. Significant Effect - After mitigation, seven of sixteen intersections will still have unacceptable service levels of service (exceeding level of service D) for post -2010 with the project, development of all cumulative projects and buildout of the General Plans for the three cities near the project site. Exhibit A Page 8 FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Although most area intersections will show an improved level of service after mitigation, seven intersections will still have unacceptable service levels (level of service D or worse). The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit B. AIR OUALITY A. Significant Effect - Demolition, grading and construction for the project will result in short-term dust emissions for adjacent uses. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Mitigation measures are required which result in reducing dust emissions. These measures include periodically sprinkling the site with water, paving parking areas as soon as possible, and avoiding grading during Santa Ana wind conditions. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. B. Significant Effect - Although project -generated emissions are not considered locally or regionally significant, emissions standards for carbon monoxide, ozone and particulates (PM10) are exceeded in the basin with or without the project. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Project development shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In addition, traffic Exhibit A Page 9 improvements are required for the project, which will improve traffic flow and reduce localized carbon monoxide emission levels. FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings - The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARE) has jurisdiction over air quality regulation within the basin and over vehicular emissions, respectively. Both agencies are continuing to implement the regional Air Quality Management Plan and adopt regulations. The SCAQMD and CARB will ensure that all applicable regulations pertaining to the project area are enforced. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Regional ambient air quality conditions, combined with regional cumulative traffic, contributes to the exceedance of daily State and Federal standards for several air pollutants. All feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality emissions for the project have been applied and State and Federal standards will be exceeded with or without the proposed project. All project alternatives, including the "no project" alternative, would also result in emission standards being exceeded within the basin. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit B. ACOUSTICS A. Significant Effect - Project construction activity will result in short-term acoustical impacts. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Exhibit A Page 10 Facts in Support of Finding - Construction activities must comply with all City policies regarding noise, including limited construction hours as specified in the Tustin Noise Ordinance. Construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000 feet of a dwelling unit shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. B. Significant Effect - The project will contribute to significant cumulative noise level increases along Newport Avenue south of Sycamore Avenue. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding n- In conjunction with Newport Avenue widening, restriping and extension, sound attenuation shall be evaluated and implemented in the vicinity of location seven (Newport south of Sycamore). Developers within the project area shall fund their proportional share of the noise monitoring and sound attenuation implementation program. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. C. Significant Effect - The project will contribute to significant noise level increases along McFadden Avenue east of SR -55. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Since sound attenuation programs are most feasible with new construction, the cumulative impact at location eight (McFadden east of SR -55) will remain significant because existing structures occur along this segment. The remaining, unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth above and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit B. D. Significant Effect - The site is subject to single -event noise levels from helicopter flights. Exhibit A Page 11 FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The project is required to incorporate measure such as sound -insulated glass which will minimize interior noise levels relative to single -event noise levels from helicopter flights. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. PUBLIC SERVICES A. Significant Effect - The project will result in increased demand for all urban services, including police, fire, schools, water, wastewater, electrical, gas, solid waste and telephone. Although these agencies have indicated they have adequate facilities to serve the project, mitigation measures to minimize demand upon the above services have been recommended. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - Developers will work with 'the Police Department to reduce traffic congestion and to incorporate appropriate equipment and security needs into project design. Project improvements are required to conform with minimum fire flow and hydrant placement requirements. The school district assesses school facility fees upon commercial, residential and industrial development to minimize the incremental demand imposed by new projects. Measures to reduce water consumption, solid waste disposal and energy usage have been incorporated into project design. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. Exhibit A Page 12 AESTHETICS A. Significant Effect - There is the potential for light and glare impacts on off-site residential areas north of the project site. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - All building plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the signage concept plan in the Specific Plan to ensure project lighting is not directed into adjacent residential areas. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. B. Significant Effect - The on-site shade/shadow impacts on surrounding buildings or plazas may be significant. FINDING 1 - Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding - The City shall review on-site shade/shadow impacts of the proposed office towers during the required Concept Plan Review submittal and for each subsequent site plan for Planning Areas six, eight and ten. All significant environmental effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project or future project approvals as set forth above. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The "no project" alternative, a lower building intensity alternative, a greater building intensity alternative, an alternative which discusses alternate circulation improvements, and an alternate location alternative were considered as project alternatives in the Final EIR. These alternatives are considered a reasonable range of alternatives, include alternatives which have Exhibit A Page 13 lower projected potential environmental impacts than the project, and include alternatives which address some, but not all of the project objectives. "No Proj ectle Alternative The "no project" alternative is viewed as slightly inferior to the project, in spite of lower traffic generation, because the public safety aspects of an improved circulation system, improved traffic flow, the extension of Newport Avenue, on-site flood protection and reconfigured SR -55 ramps will be completed only with development of the project. Therefore, the "no project" alternative is rejected for these reasons. Alternative 1 - Office Center This area proposes that the site be developed exclusively with office uses" and all existing research and development uses and light industrial uses would be displaced. The overall intensity of the project would increase as mid -rise and high-rise offices are developed. This alternative would increase the number of trips by 13,100 ADT beyond the project. This would result in a larger number of intersections with unacceptable service levels. Therefore, Alternative 1 is not preferable to the project. In addition, the increased trips would result in higher increases in annual CO emissions compared to the project. Therefore, Alternative 1 is rejected for these reasons. Alternative 2 - Research and Development/Regional Center Alternative 2 proposes less development (710, 000 fewer square feet) at buildout of the project, but proposes identical circulation improvements. The project area would remain a major technology center for research and development uses, and the regional center would be developed at less density than proposed within the project. Alternative 2 would generate approximately 14,400 fewer trips at buildout than the project which would generate lower overall CO emissions. All traffic, air quality, noise and most public service impacts are reduced proportionately to trips and square footage compared to the project. Alternative 2 is rejected because, based on the fiscal impact report for the project, it would not generate enough City revenues to fund the required infrastructure improvements for the project (ie: Newport Avenue extension, and flood control improvements). Alternative 3 - Alternate Location Alternative 3 assumes that the project as proposed is developed at an alternate location. A site was selected south of Interstate 5 Exhibit A Page 14 in an industrial area due to its proximity to a major freeway corridor. However, this site is not in a redevelopment area and the maximum allowable building height under the current General Plan designation is 50 feet. Since the project at this site would have to be developed at slightly lower density, the number of traffic trips would be reduced by approximately 10,000. All associated air quality, noise and public service impacts would also be lower. Alternative 3 is rejected primarily because no vacant land is available at the site and the cost of relocating all existing businesses would be prohibitive. In addition, the needed circulation and drainage improvements at the current project site within a redevelopment project area would not be realized. Alternative 4 - Circulation Alternatives This alternative examines several circulation alternatives for the extension of Newport Avenue. The at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks and undergrounding the flood control channel is rejected due to improper gradients for channel flow and public safety concern for another at -grade crossing. An alignment of Newport extension east or west of the current alignment would have greater land use impacts on residential uses and is also rejected. An overpass of the flood channel and railroad tracks is also rejected because of the slope differentials required to pass over the tracks and return to the existing level of Edinger Avenue cannot be achieved. Since public safety concerns are increased with an at -grade crossing and alignments for Newport Avenue other than the current concept plan have greater land use impacts on residential uses, this alternative is regarded as having greater environmental impacts than the project and is therefore rejected. Alternative 5 - Existing General Plan Buildout This alternative assumes the project site is developed under existing General Plan and zoning designations, and no additional circulation improvements are completed in the project area. This alternative would generate approximately 62 percent of the traffic generated by the project. All air quality, noise and public service impacts would be reduced accordingly. Under Alternative 5, Newport Avenue would not be extended and not storm drain improvements would be developed at the project site. This alternative provides only 53 percent of the employment provided by the project and Police vehicles would have limited access without the Newport Avenue extension. The objective of the redevelopment plan for the project site would not be achieved. Therefore, this alternative has been rejected as an alternative to the project. EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST PROJECT (SCH #89091320) BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA EIR Guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "(a) CEQA requires the decision maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered 'acceptable'. (b) Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not mitigated, the agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be necessary if the agency also makes the finding under Section 15091 (a) (2) or (a) (3) . (c) If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. (Section 15093 of the Guidelines)." After balancing the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks, the City of Tustin specifically finds and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations that this project has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and has determined that any remaining significant effects on 'the environment in the categories of Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Acoustics, Environment found to be unavoidable as identified in Exhibit A are acceptable due to the overriding concerns described below: Because the actions constitute a project under CEQA and the Guidelines, an environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Tustin. The EIR has identified certain significant effects that will result from this project that cannot feasibly be completely avoided. Therefore, the following overriding considerations are provided against which the unavoidable adverse effects are balanced in reaching a decision on this project. The remaining unavoidable adverse impacts as identified in Exhibit A are found acceptable given the mitigation, conditions and overriding considerations contained in this statement. 1. The Pacific Center East project will provide a comprehensive and coordinated development plan which will provide for a Exhibit B Page 2 variety of uses while providing design standards to unify the area and create an architectural identity. 2. The Pacific Center East project will provide a hotel facility in close proximity to a major corporate office center, thus reducing total vehicle miles and contributing toward regional air quality goals. 3. The project site is located adjacent to a major freeway, is centrally located within the County and easily accessed from major portions of the City. The project will provide approximately 12,290 new employment opportunities adjacent to existing residential areas, thus reducing vehicle miles traveled, and will result in a long-term positive fiscal impact on the City's General Fund and South Central Redevelopment Agency fund. 4. The project will result in resolving on-site drainage deficiencies identified in the redevelopment plan, associated with the lack of storm drains, upgrading of local water and sewer facilities, and improved circulation within and near the project area. The project will also result in extending Newport Avenue southerly to Valencia Avenue consistent with a proposed new SR -55 ramp design in order to provide another north -south arterial to the southern portion of the City and improve access for circulation and public safety (Police and Fire) needs. 5. Project and cumulative traffic impacts can be reduced by the recommended mitigation measures for the project and most area intersections will show an improved level of service. However, seven of the sixteen area intersections will still have unacceptable service levels for post -2010 when the project, all cumulative projects and buildout of General Plans for adjacent cities are included. All feasible mitigation measures, including a Transportation System Improvement Association (TSIA) have been recommended for the project. Both physical constraints for further widening and improvements, or impacts on existing structures, preclude further circulation improvements at the affected intersections with unacceptable levels of service. 6. Short-term construction emissions are mitigated to a level of insignificance and carbon monoxide emissions are reduced to the extent feasible by facilitating traffic flow, by providing new jobs in Central Orange County and by locating a hotel in close proximity to business facilities which will reduce total vehicle miles. Further reductions are dependent on the California Air Resources Board (CARE) requiring vehicles with lower emissions. Although project -generated emissions are not considered regionally significant, some State and Federal daily air pollution standards (ie: ozone, particulates) are exceeded with or without the project. ERRATA PACIFIC CENTER EAST FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Response to Comments - Letter 6 City of Santa Ana Add the following paragraph to Response 6-4: "With respect to mitigation measures proposed for selected intersections the following additional information is provided: EDINGER AVENUE WIDENING - Improvements to Edinger Avenue in proximity to the SR -55 overpass are linked to the design of Newport Avenue extension north of Edinger Avenue. The project's share of the SR-55/SB ramps and Edinger Avenue improvements as noted on page 55 of the EIR is estimated as 63 percent. Therefore, most of this improvement will likely be funded by the project and not the TSIA. Other improvements along Edinger in the City of Santa Ana and noted on Exhibit 20 and in the EIR text (i.e. Grand/Edinger and Lyon/Edinger) are shown conceptually only. Actual improvement design and timing for completion of these improvements will be subject to approval by the City of Santa Ana. However, since the project is contributing to areawide improvements, any discretion on design or timing as determined by Santa Ana will not affect issuance of entitlements on the Pacific Center East project in Tustin. Since this section of roadway is part of the CMP network, improvements will be designed for this location so that adequate levels of service will be attained to meet CMP eligibility requirements. DYER ROAD AND RED HILL AVENUE - The project's anticipated share of improvements at this intersection is 32 percent. The improvements noted in the EIR are located in the City of Irvine, and are proposed as part of the IBC mitigation program. Additional improvements will be identified in cooperation with the City of Santa Ana. PROJECT -FUNDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS - The city will require the project to participate in the city's transportation fee ordinance. Currently, the fees are $2.50 per square foot for retail and office uses and $1.00 per square foot for industrial and research and development uses. With the formation of the Transportation System Improvement Association, the fee rates are anticipated to increase substantially, and the project may be subject to fees of up to $8 million dollars for transportation improvements. Page Two Errata Shell Additions and Revisions to the EIR 3.5 Transportation/Circulation - page 28 Amend changes to footnote 6 and 7 on page 54 and 55 (see center of page 28) as follows. Footnotes 6 and 7 shall be reworded to read as follows: "Actual improvements to Edinger Avenue in proximity to the SR - 55 overpass are shown conceptually linked to the design and approval of Newport Avenue extension north of Edinger Avenue and rework of the Sr-55/SB ramps. The project's share of the SR-55/SB ramps and Edinger Avenue improvements as noted on page 55 of the EIR is estimated as 63 percent. Therefore, most of this improvement will likely be funded by the project and not the TSIA". Improvements along Edinger in the City of Santa Ana and noted on Exhibit 20, Table 13 and 15 are shown conceptually only. - Actual improvement design and timing for completion of these improvements will be subject to approval by City of Santa Ana. However, since project is contributing to areawide improvements, any discretion on design or timing as determined by Santa Ana will not affect issuance of entitlements on the Pacific Center East project in Tustin. Since this section of roadway is part of the CMP network, improvements will be designed for Edinger so that adequate levels of service will be attained to meet Congestion Management Plan (CMP) eligibility requirements including any future designation of Edinger as a "Super Street". CAS:kbc\errata.mis K