HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3888RESOLUTION NO. 3888
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE FINAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR DESIGN
REVIEW 03-014, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-013, AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2003-169 FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A 57,161 SQUARE FOOT CONDOMINIUM
OFFICE COMPLEX AT 15151 WOODLAWN AVENUE, AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
Ao
That Design Review 03-014, Conditional Use Permit 03-013,
Tentative Parcel Map 2003-169 are considered a "project"
pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act.
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration has been prepared for
this project and distributed for public review. The Initial
Study/Negative Declaration evaluated the implications of the
proposed project.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin has considered
evidence presented by the Community Development Director and
other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative
Declaration.
The Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed Final
Negative Declaration and determined that, with incorporation of
the mitigation measures as conditions of approval, the project
would not have a significant effect on the environment.
I1.
A Final Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A (attached
Negative Declaration), has been completed in compliance with CEQA
and State guidelines. The Planning Commission has received and
considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to
approving Design Review 03-014, Conditional Use Permit 03-013,
Tentative Parcel Map 2003-169 and found that it adequately discusses
the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the
initial study and comments received during the public hearing process,
the Planning Commission finds that there will not be a significant effect
as a result of the project.
Resolution No. 3888
Page 2
In addition, the Planning Commission finds that the project involves no
potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on
wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Games
Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 11th day of August, 2003.
,J~da Jenning~/,// (~
~ Chairperson ~,/
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the
Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution
No. 3888 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 11th day of August, 2003.
ELIZABETH A. ~NSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(7]4) 573-3100
INITIAL STUDY
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title:
Conditional Use Permit 03-013, Design Review 03-014, and Tentative Parcel
Map 2003-169
Lead Agency:
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, Califomia 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom
Phone: (714) 573-3174
Project Location: 15151 Woodlawn Avenue, Tustin, Orange County, California
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Werdin Corporation, 4100 Mac Arthur Blvd. Suite 310, Newport
Beach, CA 92660
General Plan Designation: Planned Community Commercial/Business
Zoning Designation:
Planned Community District/Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Project Description: Amendment to Conditional Use Permit .84-20 by reducing the amount of
entitlement from 449,040 square feet to 232,520 square feet; construction of a total of 57,161 square feet of
office/warehouse uses in a complex; and subdivision of Lot "A" of Tentative Parcel Map 2003-169 into a
condominium subdivision to allow for ownership.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Office Complex
South: Light Industrial
East: Office Complex
West: Light Industrial
Other public agencies whose approval is required:
[] Orange County Fire Authority []
[] Orange County Health Care Agency []
[] South Coast Air Quality Management []
District
Other
City of Irvine
City of Santa Ana
Orange County
EMA
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D
below.
[] Aesthetics
[] Air Quality
[] Cultural Resources
[-] Hazards & Hazardous Materials
~ Land Use/Planning
[~ Noise
~-] Public Services
~] Transportation/Traffic
[~ Mandatory Findings of Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
[] Agriculture Resources
[] Biological Resources
[] Geology/Soils
[] Hydrology/Water Quality
[] Mineral Resources
[] Population/Housing
[] Recreation
[] Utilities/Service Systems
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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that although the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described in the attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to
be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, and no further documentation is required.
Preparer:
Justina Willkom
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
Title
Date
Associate Planner
July 21, 2003
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Directions
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g,, the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level,
indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts.
Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is
required.
"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-
referenced).
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b)
Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c)
Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and,
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character'or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[] []
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f') Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS:- Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
~vould the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the prqiect area'?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or fiver, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or fiver, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction
activities? [] [] [] []
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-
construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater
pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment
fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including
washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or
storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work
areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect
the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow
velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause
environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site
or surrounding areas?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE-
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
[] []
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With Less Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporation Impact
[] [] []
No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
XIV. RECREATION-
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTAT1ON/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS-
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water
treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g.
water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands),
the operation of which could result in significant
environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ora fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
[] [] [] []
ATTACHMENT A
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-013, DESIGN REVIEW 03-014,
AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2003-169
BACKGROUND
The proposed project includes an application by Werdin Corporation for the following:
1. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 84-20 by reducing the amount of
entitlement from 449,040 square feet to 232,520 square feet (224,520 square feet
plus 8,000 square foot fitness and mechanical building) and potentially amending
the conditions of approval for the SBC/Pacific Bell site to accommodate the
proposed development;
2. Construction of a total of 57,059 square feet of office complex; and
3. Subdivision of Lot "A" of Tentative Parcel Map 2003-169 into a condominium
subdivision to allow for ownership.
The project area is a 3.558-acre vacant area at the southwest corner of the SBC/Pacific
Bell administrative office complex. The 3.558-acre area is part of a 20-acre parcel also
known as a portion of Lot 66 of Block 10 of Irvine's Subdivision and described in
Record of Survey 83-1189 located at 1442 Edinger Avenue. The project area is
surrounded by the SBC/Pacific Bell office complex to the north and east, light industrial
uses to the south, and a railroad right-of-way to the west. The project area is identified as
Office Center and is located within Planning Area 8 of the Pacific Center East Specific
Plan (PCESP). The PCESP d.istrict regulations allow for the development of corporate,
professional, and general offices. The proposed office complex is consistent with the
intent of the PCESP. The proposed complex consists of eleven (11) tilt-up buildings
that will be owned independently with shared common areas regulated by CC&Rs.
This is a tiered initial study that is based on, and incorporates by reference, the
environmental analysis included in Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-1; which was
previously certified on December 17, 1990, and amended on May 5, 2003, for the
PCESP. In conformance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
purpose of this tiered initial study is to identify and focus the environmental analysis for
the project on significantly new environmental impacts that were not previously
considered in the Program EIR.
All related environmental impacts were considered for the EIR 90-1 and mitigation
measures have been identified and approved for the specific plan, which are included
as conditions of approval for the project as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program Matrix (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A).
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 2
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in
the Environmental Analysis Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS
Items c and d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact:
The project includes the construction of a new 57,161 square foot office complex
on a vacant lot. The site is surrounded by an office complex to the east, light
industrial uses to the south, a railroad right-of-way to the west, and Edinger
Avenue to the north. Upon completion of the construction of the office complex,
the existing visual character of the site and the surrounding area would be altered.
However, the visual character would be consistent with the district regulation for
the PCESP. Therefore, the impact on the visual character of the site would'be
less than significant.
The project would also create a new source of light. The project will include
parking lot lighting, with shielding as necessary, and building lighting. The lighting
would not be substantial and would not affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Placement of the new building and landscaping, minimal levels of lighting, correct
installation of the lighting, and compliance with the City of Tustin Design Review
criteria will reduce potential impacts related to the visual character of the site and
area to a level of insignificance.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Field Inspection
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Items a and b - No Impact:
The site is currently vacant. The project includes construction of a new 57,161
square foot office complex. The subject property is not located on a scenic vista
and would not disturb any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings located on
a State scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
General Plan
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 3
Field Inspection
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, and c - No Impact:
The property is currently vacant and the site was part of the Pacific BelI/SBC office
complex. The site is not designated by the zoning or the General Plan for
agricultural use. The project would not convert any Prime or Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, nor would it conflict with
existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
III. AIR QUALITY
Items a, b, c, d, and e - Less Than Significant Impact:
The project would temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the
area due to grading of the property and construction activities. Since the site is
relatively flat, only minor grading would be required. The project is below the
thresholds of significance established by Table 6-3 of the Air Quality Management
District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. In accordance with Table 6-3 (Quarterly
Threshold for Construction) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the construction of fewer
than 559,000 square feet of office buildings, the grading of fewer than 177.00
acres, and the operation of fewer than 96,221 square feet of offices are not
considered to create significant impact.
Short-term emissions associated with grading, construction, and operation of the
proposed project will be mitigated through compliance with the regulations of the
South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading
Manual, which includes requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed
project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality
plan, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as
applicable by Federal or ambient air quality standard, nor would it expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 4
affecting a substantial number of people. The potential impacts related to air quality
standards would be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations
City of Tustin Grading Manual
Project Application
Field Inspection
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, c, d, e, and f- No Impact:
The property is currently vacant. The project site is surrounded by office complex
and light industrial uses. The site is not inhabited by any sensitive or special
status species of animals. The proposed project would have no impacts on animal
populations, diversity of species or migratory patterns. The project would include
the planting of new trees and landscape materials, which would be provided in
accordance with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation guidelines. No impacts to
any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animal life identified in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U:S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this proposed
project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Field Inspection
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Items a, b, c, and d - No Impact:
The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA since
none exist on the project site. The project would also not directly, or indirectly,
destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and
would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 5
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin Zoning Code
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Historical Resources Survey Report
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS
Items a-ii, a-iii, and d - Less Than Si.qnificant Impact:
The proposed building would be located on expansive soil per the Seismic Hazard
Zone Map prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology and Table 18-
I-B of the 2001 Uniform Building Code. The site is located within an area that
may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic-
related ground failure including liquefaction. However, prior to building permit
issuance, a soils report will be submitted to the Building Division identifying any
construction techniques necessary to comply with the current local, State, and
Federal regulations to reduce potential impact to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17,
2001
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Items a-i, a-iv, b, c, and e - No Impact:
The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map. The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable and would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, or collapse. Since all new buildings in the City operate on the existing
sewer system, there would not be any building area located on soil incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems.
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 6
Sources:
Tustin General Plan
Tustin City Code
2001 Uniform Building Code
Project Application
Field Evaluation
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Items a, b, c, d, e, f, ,q, and h - No Impact:
The project includes construction of a new 57,161 square foot office complex on a
vacant lot. Based upon the nature of the use as an office complex, the project is
not anticipated to result in exposure to hazardous substances or interfere with
emergency response or evacuation. The applicant is not proposing to transport,
use, or dispose of hazardous materials, and future tenants of the building would
be required to comply with City, State, and Federal regulations before transporting,
using, or disposing of hazardous materials. The project area is not located within
an airport land use plan or vicinity of a private airstrip, and since all grading and
construction would be subject to compliance with the all applicable Uniform
Building and Fire Codes the project would not result in significant hazards (i.e.
explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans,
wildland fires, etc.).
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources:
Uniform Building and Fire Codes
Submitted Plans
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY
Items a, k, I, m, n, o, and p - Less Than Siqnificant Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will maintain a flat site
with improved site drainage and additional landscaping. There would be new
construction and there is the potential to impact stormwater runoff from
construction and post-construction activities and stormwater pollutant from loading
docks and delivery areas. There is also the potential for discharge of stormwater
to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, and changes in the flow
velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, the project would be required to
comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 7
NPDES permit (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order
R8-2002-0010), thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
The project would not create a significant increase in erosion of the site or
surrounding area since an erosion control plan would be required during
construction. The project would be required to comply with the City's Water
Quality Ordinance, and as such, would not violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area, reducing any
potential impacts to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources:
Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17,
2001
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Items b, c, d, e, f, .q, h, i, and i - No Impact:
The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will maintain a fiat site
with improved site drainage and additional landscaping that would not result in
substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. The project would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge
resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level.
The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
Flood Insurance Rate Map, nor is the project located within a 100-year flood
hazard area structure which would impede or redirect flood flows. The project site
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources: Field Verification
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Federal Insurance Rate Map
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 8
IX. LAND USE PLANNING
Items a, b, and c- No Impact:
The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned
Commercial/Business and zoned Planned Community District under the Pacific
Center East Specific Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the
applicable land use and zoning regulations. The proposed project would not
divide an established community since it includes construction on an existing site
completely surrounded by other similar office and industrial buildings in an
urbanized area. The proposed project is not located in a conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan area.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Map
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
Xl.
Items a and b - No Impact:
The proposed project would occur on a vacant lot surrounded by developed office
complex and light industrial uses. Construction on the site would not result in the
loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and the site is not located on a
mineral resource recovery site.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
NOISE
Items a. b, c, and d - Less Than Sianificant Impact:
The project includes construction of a new 57,161 square foot office complex on a
vacant lot. The grading and construction of the site would result in short-term
CUP O3-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 9
construction noise impacts. However, the Tustin City Code requires compliance
with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction hours. Long-term noise would
not significantly be increased since the property would be developed as an office
complex in which the noise level generated from the project would typically be less
than other light industrial uses in the vicinity. In addition, the site is not located
near a residential neighborhood, thus the anticipated new noise would be
insignificant. The proposed project would not create excessive ground vibrations,
nor would it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond
the established standards. Any development within the City would be subject to
the Tustin Noise standards, thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of
insignificance.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Items e and f- No Impact:
The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a
public or private airport. The project would not expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Tustin Zoning Code
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
XlI. POPULATION & HOUSING
Items a, b, and c - No impact:
The proposed industrial project would not induce substantial population growth in
the area and would not induce substantial population growth wherein new streets
or new public services would need to be created. Since the lot is currently vacant,
the construction of the new building on the existing vacant parcel would not
displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 10
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES
Item a - No Impact:
The proposed project is in an existing urbanized area where fire and police
protection are currently provided. No increase in population is anticipated. The
project would not create demand for an alteration of or addition to government
facilities or services (i.e. fire and police protection, schools, parks, and other public
facilities).
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
XlV. RECREATION
Items a and b - No Impact:
The project is not located in proximity to recreational facilities. The project by
nature would not increase the use of existing parks or contribute to a substantial
deterioration of park facilities, nor would the project include recreational facilities
that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No parkland
dedication would be required as a result of this project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 11
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Item a - Less Than Significant Impact:
The proposed project involves the construction of a new 57,161 square foot office
complex on a vacant lot. The proposed office use is consistent with the zoning of
the site. The project location and use was compared to the previously completed
traffic analyses for the PCESP, and they result in the same trip generation.
Although the proposed project would generate new vehicle trips to the area; the
increase is consistent with the analyses contained in the EIR for the PCESP. The
project would be conditioned to comply with the mitigation measures for the
PCESP. Therefore, any potential impacts related to traffic would be reduced to a
level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
Items b, c, d, e, and f- No Impact:
The proposed project involves the construction of a new 57,161 square foot office
complex on a vacant lot. However, the project would not induce substantial
population or growth wherein the project would result in changes to air traffic
patterns, emergency access, level of service standards, or conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project
includes sufficient parking on-site to comply with current parking requirements for
the proposed use. As such, no impacts to parking are anticipated.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
CUP 03-013, DR 03-014, TPM 2003-169
Attachment A
Page 12
XVl. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Items a, b, c, d, e, f, and ,q - No Impact:
The proposed project would not exceed requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board or require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities. The proposed project would utilize the existing
sewer and storm drain systems and thus would not require construction of a new
storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project would utilize the
City's existing trash hauler contract, thus not requiring a new trash hauler. Adequate
water supply from existing resources would be available to serve the proposed
project.
Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required.
Sources:
Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
XVlI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Items a, b, and c ~- No Impact:
The project grading, construction, and operation would comply with the regulations
of the Community Development Department, Air Quality Management District, and
Orange County Fire Authority which reduces any potential impacts related to
aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water
quality, traffic, and noise to a level of insignificance. The project does not have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. It does not have
impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would
cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Tustin City Code
Tustin General Plan
Pacific Center East Specific Plan
S:\Cdd\JUSTINA\current planning\Environmental\Werdin Attachment A. doc
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial }Va)2, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title: Conditional Use Permit 03-013, Design Review 03-014, and Tentative Parcel Map 2003-169
Project Location: 15151 Woodlawn Avenue, Tustin, Orange County, California
Project Description:
Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 84-20 by reducing the amount of entitlement
from 449,040 square feet to 232,520 square feet; construction of a total of 57,161
square feet of office/warehouse uses in a complex; and subdivision of Lot "A" of
Tentative Parcel Map 2003-169 into a condominium subdivision to allow for
ownership.
Project Proponent: Werdin Corporation, 4100 Mac Arthur Blvd. Suite 310, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom
Telephone: (714) 573-3174
The Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the
City of Tustin's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of
that study hereby finds:
[] That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed
to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would
occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein.
Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required.
The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Development
Department, City of Tustin. The public is invited to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during
the review period, which begins on July 21, 2003 and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the
Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary.
REVIEW PERIOD ENDS 4:00 P.M. ON AUGUST 9, 2003
Date: July 21, 2003
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Community Development Director