HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3910
RESOLUTION NO. 3910
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY THE PROSPECT VILLAGE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS COMPLETE AND
ADEQUATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR ZONE CHANGE 03-002
AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16481 AND CERTIFYING THE
PROSPECT VILLAGE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR DESIGN
REVIEW 03-012, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-012, AND
FINDING THE DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE
TUSTIN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN CONFORMANCE WITH
THE GENERAL PLAN
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I.
The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A.
That a proper application for Zone Change 03-002, Tentative Tract Map
16481, Design Review 03-012, Conditional Use Permit 03-012, was
submitted by Prospect Village LP, a California Limited Partnership (formerly
known as Pelican Center LLC), requesting approval to subdivide a 1.036
acre parcel into thirteen (13) numbered lots and one (1) lettered lot for the
purpose of developing an approximately 9,300 square foot commercial
building and twelve (12) live/work units at the northwest corner of Main
Street and Prospect Avenue. In addition, a General Plan Conformity
Finding is required for disposition of property owned by the Tustin
Community Redevelopment Agency. Together, these entitlements are
known as the "project. II
B.
The Planning Commission is authorized to certify the Prospect Village Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as complete and adequate pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act for the purpose of approving
Design Review 03-012, Conditional Use Permit 03-012, and finding the
disposition of property in conformance with the Tustin General Plan. The
Planning Commission is authorized to recommend that the City Council
certify the Prospect Village Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as
complete and adequate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act for the purpose of approving Zone Change 03-002 and Tentative Tract
Map 16481.
Resolution No. 3910
Page 2
C.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public
Resources Code Sec. et. seq. 21000) and the State Guidelines, the City of
Tustin has completed the following actions in preparing Prospect Village
Final Environmental Impact report (FEIR):
D.
E.
1.
An Initial Study was prepared to determine whether any aspect of
the project, either individually or cumulatively, would cause a
significant impact on the environment and to narrow the focus or
scope of the environmental analysis.
2.
On April 17, 2003, a Notice of Preparation was filed with the State
Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research, which
circulated the document for review.
3.
On April 22, 2003, a noticed public scoping meeting was conducted
to seek public input regarding the environmental issues raised by
the proposed project and the scope of the EIR.
4.
On January 9, 2004, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
was released for a 45-day public review and comment period. A
copy was also filed with the State Clearinghouse. The DEIR
assessed the significant environmental impacts and set forth
mitigation measures to lessen impacts associated with the project.
The comment period on the DEIR closed on February 23,2004.
In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
Prospect Village Final Environmental Report consists of the following
items, which are attached hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by
this reference:
1.
Volume 1 including the Draft EIR, including all appendices and
technical reports thereto; and,
2.
Volume 2 including a list of persons, agencies and organizations,
commenting on Draft EIR; all comments received, responses of the
City to significant environmental points raised in received
comments; and errata.
The FEIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with
the project. The FEIR evaluates the proposed project, which includes the
rezoning of a 1.036 acre property located at the northwest corner of Main
Street and Prospect Avenue from "Central Commercial-Parking Overlay
(C2-P) to "Planned-Community (P-C)", subdivision of the property into
thirteen (13) numbered lots and one (1) lettered lot, and construction of an
approximately 9,300 square foot commercial building and twelve (12)
Resolution No. 3910
Page 3
4.
5.
live/work units. In addition to a "No Project Alternative", the FEIR also
evaluates a range of project alternatives, including the following:
1.
Full Reuse Alternative: The Full Reuse Alternative entails
rehabilitation and reuse of the existing Utt Juice buildings in
accordance with the Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995, Weeks and
Grimmer ("Secretary's Standards and Guidelines"). This
Alternative also entails new construction of retail building addition
on the vacant pad area immediately west of the 191 Main Street
building ("191 Building"). The remaining northerly portion of the site
would be developed with ten (10) live/work units.
2.
Partial Reuse Alternative: This Alternative would rehabilitate and
reuse the 191 Building and partially rehabilitate and reuse the 193,
195 Building (to a depth of sixty) in accordance with the Secretary's
Standards and Guidelines. This Alternative also entails
construction of a new two story building to a depth on the pad area
immediately west of the 191 Building. The remaining northerly
portion of the site would be developed ten (10) residential live/work
units.
3.
Partial Reuse (193, 195 Building Only) Alternative: This Alternative
would partially rehabilitate and reuse the front forty five feet of the
193, 195 Buildings in accordance with the Secretary's Standards
and Guidelines. The 191 Building would be demolished. This
Alternative also entails construction of a new two story retail
building on the remaining pad area west of the 193, 195 Building.
Similar to the proposed project, the remaining northerly portion of
the site would be developed with twelve (12) live/work units.
Full Reuse (Existing Zoning) Alternative: The Full Reuse Under
Existing Zoning Alternative would rehabilitate and reuse the existing
structures in accordance with the Secretary's Standards and
Guidelines. The alternative also entails construction of a new
abutting 2,200 square feet single story retail building on the vacant
site immediately west of the 191 Building. The remaining northerly
portion of the site would be developed with a two-story retail and
professional office building.
Façade Reuse Alternative: This alternative entails rehabilitation and
reuse of all or a portion of the façade of the 193, 195 Building as
may be technically feasible, which would be incorporated into a
Resolution No. 3910
Page 4
F.
G.
new two story Main Street building. All other project components
would be similar to the proposed project.
A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), including responses to
written public comments was prepared and made available for public
review on April 16, 2004.
On April 26, 2004, public testimony was provided to the Planning
Commission on the FEIR. Prior to approving the proposed action, the
Planning Commission must certify that the FEIR is complete and
adequate;
H.
Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the
State CEQA Guidelines require that the Planning Commission make one or
more of the following findings prior to approving or carrying out a project for
which an EIR has been prepared identifying one or more significant effects
of the project, together with a statement of facts in support of each finding:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted
by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the
EIR.
I.
State Guidelines Section 15093(b) require that, where the decision of the
Planning Commission allows the occurrence of significant effects which are
identified in an EIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated, the Planning
Commission must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on
the FEIR or other information in the record;
J.
State Guidelines Section 15093(a) requires the Planning Commission to
balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project; and
K.
A lead agency that makes findings on significant effects in an EIR must also
adopt a program for reporting or monitoring mitigation measures that are
made conditions of project approval.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Resolution No. 3910
Page 5
II.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find and determine that
the Prospect Village FEIR was reviewed and considered by the Planning
Commission before considering approval of the Project and that the FEIR reflects
its independent judgment and analysis.
III.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find that the project
involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on
wildlife resources and makes a De Minimis Impact Finding related to AB 3158,
Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990.
IV.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find that changes have
been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will mitigate or avoid
potentially significant adverse effects related to hazards, short term construction
traffic, and parking identified in the FEIR and that all mitigation measures contained
in the FEIR are adopted and included as conditions of approval of the Project.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that there will be significant effects which,
are identified in an EIR, which will not be substantially mitigated, and sets forth the
Findings of Fact, which includes the reasons to support its action based on the
FEIR or other information in the record, as attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated
herein by this reference;
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the unavoidable significant
environmental effects of the project related to cultural resources and land use are
outweighed by the economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the
project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as
Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring Reporting Program is set forth in Exhibit C, incorporated herein by this
reference, which provides a checklist of mitigation measures identified in the
FEIR to monitor the progress of each measure. The following information is
identified for each measure listed in the checklist:
1.
The text of the measure is provided which contains the criteria for mitigation,
either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or
identification of the steps to be taken as mitigation.
2.
The timing of the implementation of the mitigation measures is indicated.
3.
The table lists the appropriate responsible or supervising party or agency to
perform or enforce the mitigation measure or implementation measure.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby find and certify that the
Prospect Village FEIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of
Resolution No. 3910
Page 6
CEQA and the State Guidelines and certifies the Prospect Village Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as complete and adequate pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act for the purpose of approving Design Review
03-012, Conditional Use Permit 03-012, and a General Plan Conformity Finding
for the disposition of property and does hereby recommend that the City Council
find the Prospect Village Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) complete and
adequate pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the purpose of
approving Zone Change 03-002 and Tentative Tract Map 16481.
a~~ ¿~4
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of Tustin P.
held on the 26th day of April, 2004.
Resolution No. 3910
Page 7
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. 3910 was
duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held
on the 26th day of April 2004.
~ .ß~-,,/-
IZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3910
PROSPECT VILLAGE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SEE VOLUMES 1 AND 2 SEPARATELY BOUND
EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 3910
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Exhibit B of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3910
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Prospect Village Final Environmental Impact Report
Prospect Village Project
Zone Change 03-002
Tentative Tract Map 16481
Design Review 03-012
Conditional Use Permit 03-012
General Plan Conformity Finding
for Disposition of Property
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Prospect Village FEIR
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Pa2e
INTRODUCTION
4
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
4
PURPOSE OF FINDINGS
5
INCORPORA TION OF MITIGATION MEASURES INTO PROJECT DESIGN 6
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE
ADVERSE IMP ACTS
6
Cultural Resources (Historical Resources)
Land Use
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS THAT ARE
REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY
MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
7
Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources)
Hazards
Traffic/Parking
FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS
13
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Hazards
Noise
Traffic
21
VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT AL TERNA TIVES
Introduction
Reasonable Range of Alternatives
Summary of Comparison of Alternatives
Project Objectives
IX.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Summary of Overriding Considerations
Adoption of Overriding Considerations
34
Prospect Village FEIR
--------.-
TABLES
Table
Table 1
Table 2
Page
Summary Comparison of Land Development and
Buildout Characteristics of Alternatives
32
Key Differentiating Factors Between Alternatives
33
Prospect ViJlage FEIR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091, the City of
Tustin Planning Commission based upon its review of the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR), including the comments and responses therein, and all the information and evidence in the
record, hereby makes the Findings of Fact and adopts of the Statement of Overriding Considerations
set forth herein:
I.
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, an Initial StudylNotice of Preparation (Nap) to
prepare an EIR was distributed on April 17, 2003, to regulatory agencies, local jurisdictions, and
public service providers, among others, for a 30-day comment period.
This Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") evaluates the potential environmental effects of
the proposed Prospect Village Project ("Project"), which is located on an approximately one-acre
parcel in the City of Tustin, County of Orange. This EIR has been prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (California Public Resources Code Section 21000
et seq.) and State Guidelines for the implementation ofthe CEQA (California Code of Regulations,
Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The FEIR consists of two volumes entitled "Volume 1, Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Prospect Village Project" and "Volume 2, Responses to Public
Comments."
The FEIR recommends mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental impacts of the
project or reduce them to less than significant levels. S)2ecifically, the FEIR identified mitigation
measures to avoid or reduce Project impacts relating to unknown archaeological resources, hazards,
short term construction traffic and parking impacts to a less than significant level. While feasible
mitigation measures are also identified to reduce Project impacts on historical resources, the FEIR
concludes that this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The FEIR also concludes that
Project impacts relating to Land Use are significant and unavoidable despite implementation the
recommended mitigation measure.
II.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
CONTENTS OF THE RECORD
The following information is incorporated by reference and made part ofthe record supporting these
findings and the actions taken by City of Tustin Planning Commission in certifying the FEIR and
approving the project:
1.
The FEIR, Draft EIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference in the FEIR
or Draft EIR.
2.
All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the
City in connection with the meetings, workshops, and public hearings at which the Draft EIR
FEIR was considered by the City.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 4
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
3.
Any other documents specified by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
LOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
The City is the custodian ofthe administrative record, including all CEQA documents and the other
background documents and materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which
City Council decisions to certify the FEIR and approve the project are based. The administrative
record is located at the Tustin Community Development Department at the City of Tustin, 300
Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780.
III.
PURPOSE OF FINDINGS
The FElR, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
evaluates the significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the project. Section
15091 ofthe CEQA Guidelines requires that the public agency approving or carrying out the project
shall make written findings for each significant impact identified in the EIR. These findings include
one of the following:
1.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as defined in the EIR.
2.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision
of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project '!.lternatives identified in the final ElR.
These findings accomplish the following:
1.
They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR for the approved
project.
2.
They incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified
in the ElR.
3.
They indicate whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation
measures to a less than significant level, or remain significant and unavoidable, either
because there are no feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of
mitigation measures, a significant impact will occur.
The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the FEIR and other substantial evidence in
the record of proceedings. Each of the effects that remain potentially significant and unavoidable is
considered acceptable by the Planning Commission based on a detennination that the benefits ofthe
project outweigh the risks of the potentially significant environmental effect, as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations contained herein.
IV.
INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES INTO PROJECT DESIGN
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 5
~~ ~ -~--
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The mitigation measures identified in the FEIR as feasible and within the City's responsibility and
jurisdiction to implement are hereby incorporated into the design of the project as required by
CEQA. The City shall implement these measures during project implementation.
V.
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
The FEIR concludes that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on
historical resources and land use. As described below in the findings for the significant and
unavoidable impacts, there are either no feasible mitigation measures or the feasible mitigation
measures would only partially mitigate the impact and the residual effect would remain significant.
As set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations herein, the Planning Commission finds
that the impacts to cultural resources and land use are acceptable in light of the project's benefits.
CUL TURAL RESOURCES (FEIR SECTION 3.3)
IMPACT:
SUBSTANTIAL AD VERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL
RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN §15064.5
1.
Facts
The Project entails demolition oftwo buildings on-site that were determined to be eligible for listing
in the California Register of Historical Resources. As discussed in Section 3.3. ofthe Draft EIR, the
Historic Resources Technical Report, Utt Juice Redevelopment Project, dated July 14, 2003
concluded that the 193, 195 E. Main Street Building is a resource of regional significance under
California Register of Historic Resources Criteria 1 (association with significant events or trends), 2
(association with historically important people); and 3 (embodying distinctive characteristics of a
type of construction method). The report also concluded that the 191 E. Main Building is a resource
of local significance under California Register of Historic Resources Criteria 1 (association with
significant events or trends), and 2 (association with historically important people). Therefore, the
proposed demolition of these buildings is considered a significant environmental impact under
CEQA.
This impact can be reduced, but not to a level of insignificance, by adopting a mitigation measure
that requires documentation ofthe buildings to be removed shall be undertaken by the City of Tustin
utilizing the standards of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS), including photo-
documentation and measured drawings of the East Main and Prospect Avenue elevations. These
items, together with the Historical Resource Technical Report, shall be added to the Tustin Area
Historical Society Museum. See Mitigation Measure CR-l on p. 3.3-10 ofthe Draft EIR.
2.
Finding
This Planning Commission finds this impact to be significant and unavoidable; the measure listed
above is adopted and will reduce this impact but not to a level of insignificance. This impact is
overridden by project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 6
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
LAND USE (SECTION 3.5)
IMPACT:
THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES THAT
PROMOTE PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES
1.
Facts
While the Project is consistent with the majority ofthe General Plan goals, objectives and policies
relating to development ofthe Old Town, the Project is inconsistent with three policies that promote
restoration and preservation of historically significant structures. The following policies are
described in the Land Use Element ofthe General Plan and are designed to avoid and minimize a
project's potentially significant impacts on historical resources:
.
Policy 5.3 - Encourage the rehabilitation of existing commercial facades and signage.
Policy 5.5 - Encourage the restoration and rehabilitation of properties eligible for inclusion
on the National Register of Historic Places according to the rehabilitation guidelines and tax
incentives of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Policy 6.5 - Preserve historically significant structures and sites, and encourage the
conservation and rehabilitation of older buildings, sites and neighborhoods that contribute to
the City's historic character.
.
.
The Project will demolish the historic Utt Juice Buildings. Therefore, contrary to the above
policies, the Project does not entail restoration, rehabilitation or preservation of these historical
resources. The mitigation measures CR-I is intended to reduce Project impacts on these historical
resources. However, this mitigation measure will not reduce the impact to a less than significant
level. For purposes of the above policies, only restoration, rehabilitation or preservation would
reduce Project impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, similar to the Project cultural
resources impacts, the Project's inconsistency with these General Plan policies, which have been
adopted to avoid and minimize Project impacts on historical resources, is considered significant and
unavoidable.
Finding:
This Planning Commission finds this impact to be significant and unavoidable; the measure listed
above is adopted and will reduce this impact but not to a level of insignificance. This impact is
overridden by project benefits as set forth in the statement of overriding considerations.
VI.
FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT ARE REDUCED TO A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION MEASURES
INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
CUL TURAL RESOURCES (FEIR SECTION 3.3
IMPACT:
DISTURBANCE OF UNKNOWN BURIED CULTURAL RESOURCES ON SITE.
Prospect ViIJage FEIR
Page 7
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
1.
Facts
Because the project site has been previously disturbed due to excavation, grading, paving and
construction of buildings, the probability of archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or
Native American remains being present is considered low. Nonetheless and to ensure that no
previously undocumented or unknown buried cultural resources on site will be adversely affected by
the project, the Draft EIR recommends Mitigation Measure CR-2, which provides a mechanism
whereby construction work would be halted if buried cultural resources are discovered. The
measure further requires an archaeologist to assess the find and develop appropriate mitigation
measures to ensure the find is not damaged.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds that Mitigation Measure CR-2 is adopted as stated in paragraph IV
of the certification resolution. This measure will reduce Project impacts to unknown buried cultural
resources to a less than significant level.
HAZARDS (SECTION 3.4.1 OF FEIR)
IMPACT:
DISPOSAL AND REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS, LEAD
BASED PAINT, AND EXISTING INOPERABLE CLARIFIER
1.
Facts
a.
As discussed in Section 3.4, pages 3.4-5 through 3.4-7 of the Draft EIR, the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental
conditions in connection with the property, except for the presence of a clarifier on-site, the
presence of asbestos containing material (ACM), and lead based paint (LBP) which is typical
of older structures.
The Phase I Report could not determine from the available information whether the clarifier
has been officially closed or abandoned. Information concerning the past use and current
status of the clarifier was similarly not available. In order to reduce the potential for an
unauthorized discharge and depending on the future use of the Property, the Draft EIR
recommends Mitigation Measure H -1, which requires the applicant to abandon or remove the
clarifier in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations.
The Draft EIR also recommends as a precautionary measures, Mitigation Measure H-2,
which requires the removal of any unknown contaminated soils that could be encountered on
the project site during demolition, site clearance, or construction activities. The removal and
disposal of these hazardous materials would be in accordance with guidelines specified by
the applicable local, State, and Federal resources agencies, including but not limited to, the
Department of Toxics Substances Control and federal Environmental Protection Agency
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 8
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
b.
The Phase I Report also disclosed the presence of ACMs on-site, including the following
materials:
.
Approximately 300 square feet of floor texture coat located in the 195 building. It was
difficult to assess the material due to the large amount of dust and debris on the floor.
.
Approximately 20 square feet of 9x9 green vinyl floor tile and mastic exists in the 195
building.
The Phase I Report identified approximately 500 square feet of exterior stucco as decorative inlays
as asbestos containing construction material (ACCM). The ACCM should be handled as an ACM;
however, disposal as asbestos waste is not required.
The Draft EIR recommends implementation of Mitigation Measures H-3 and concludes that this
measure would reduce any potential asbestos impacts to a less than significant level. This measure
provides that if during any future demolition or remodeling activities additional suspect materials are
observed, bulk samples shall be collected ofthese materials and analyzed for asbestos content. All
suspect materials at the Property are Presumed Asbestos-containing Materials (PACMs) until the
asbestos content is confirmed or denied by analytical testing
c.
The EP A and HUD have defined a LBP at 0.5 percent by weight. The Phase I Report
identified the following paints as containing greater than 0.5% lead:
.
Exterior white paint on the doors and door frames (approximately 300 square feet).
.
Interior white paint on the doors, door frames, windows, and window frames (approximately
300 square feet).
.
Interior cream paint on the walls, doors, and windows in the front portion ofthe 191 building
(approximately 600 square feet).
.
Interior red paint on the walls and doors in the rear portion of the 195 building
(approximately 400 square feet).
According to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure H-4 would reduce any lead based paint impact to a
less than significant level. This measure requires the applicant to retain a licensed abatement
contractor to properly remove and dispose ofthe damaged (peeling, flaking) lead-based paint prior
to obtaining a demolition permit
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the recommended mitigation measures (H-l through H-4)
relating to the removal of the clarifier on site and potentially contaminated soils, the handling of
asbestos, and the handling of lead based paint are adopted as stated in paragraph IV of the
certification resolution. These measures will mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 9
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TrONS
TRAFFIC (SECTION 3.7 FEIR)
IMPACT: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WOULD GENERATE SHORT TERM
TRAFFIC TRIPS
1.
Facts
The Draft EIR discusses short tenn traffic impacts during construction in Section 3.7 on pages 3.7- 7
to 3.7-8. Construction related traffic would be associated with workers arriving and leaving the
project site, and truck and construction vehicle traffic. According to the Draft EIR, Project
generated construction worker trips and haul trips are potentially significant but would be reduced to
a less than significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure T -1. This measure requires
the developer to prepare a construction staging and parking plan for review and approval by City of
Tustin Public Works prior to issuance of a demolition pennit. The developer or contractor must
monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the construction staging and parking plan during
the construction phase of the project. The plan will include one or more of the following potential
types oftraffic-related mitigation measures to ensure that temporary disruptions to the adjacent uses
and circulation within the area are minimized:
.
Construction and Employee Parking: As part of the construction staging and parking plan,
the contractor would submit and obtain approval of a construction parking program which
reflects the schedule of construction activities and location of construction-related parking.
Locations of available parking would be identified.
Street Circulation and Parking Measures: The contractor may request and obtain a pennit
for any temporary lane closures that may be requireQ for adjacent roadways. The contractor
would utilize flagmen for traffic control to minimize inconvenience and for safety of
vehicles and pedestrians.
Haul Truck Routes, Queue Areas, and Deliveries: The contractor would provide an estimate
of truck volume and schedule. Schedule adjustments would be made to minimize the
volume during peak traffic hours. Areas would be designated by the developer or contractor
for staging of all trucks. All earth-moving and ready-mix trucks would be equipped with
two-way radios. The trucks would follow a City-approved route to the project site, without
unnecessary waiting.
Hours of Excavation Hauling: Heavy truck hauling associated with excavation would be
scheduled to minimize interference with daytime activity in the area. The hours for
excavation hauling would be detennined in conjunction with the City as part of the
construction staging and parking plan.
Pedestrian Safety Measures: The contractor would install a construction fence around the
perimeter, complying with City requirements before excavation begins. A flagman would be
available at all times and would be utilized whenever trucks entering or leaving the Project
site may impe,de the flow of traffic.
.
.
.
.
2.
Findings
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 10
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Commission finds that Mitigation Measure T-I, which requires the applicant to
prepare a construction staging and parking plan, is adopted as stated in paragraph IV of the
certification resolution. This measure will mitigate short tenn traffic impacts during construction to
a less than significant level.
IMPACT:
THE PROJECT WOULD INCREASE PARKING DEMAND IN THE AREA.
The Draft EIR addresses parking impacts in Section 3.7 on pages 3.7-11 through 3.7-13. As
discussed in the Draft EIR, the City retained Sasaki Transportation Services to evaluate the Project's
peak parking demand. The Parking Study concluded that the twenty-seven (27) off-street parking
spaces would be adequate to serve the residences and is consistent with the City of Tustin parking
code requirements.
The Parking Study also analyzed the shared use parking needs for the commercial component based
on the different peak hours of operation. According to the Parking Study, the shared parking
demand for the commercial portion of the Project was sixty-two (62) spaces, which would be
satisfied by the use of fifty-nine (59) spaces at the City of Tustin Main Street Water facility ("Water
Facility") parking lot and three (3) on-site spaces. The Water facility parking lot is located across
Prospect A venue, immediately east ofthe Project site. The three additional spaces are provided on-
site, immediately west of and adjacent to the E. Main Street building. The analysis was based on the
ITE "Shared Parking Planning Guidelines."
The Parking Study concluded that the Project's proposed mix of commercial uses (retail, office, and
restaurant) would be conducive to a shared parking arrangement. According to the study, the peak
parking dem~nds for office, retail, and restaurant uses occur at different times of the day. For
example, the office parking peaks occur during the day on week days, while the retail peak is on the
weekend. Restaurants are typically busy on Friday and Saturday evenings when retail and office
uses are not at their peaks.
In order to satisfy the City's shared use requirements, the developer must enter into an agreement
with the City of Tustin to use the Water Facility parking lot. In conjunction with consideration of
project entitlements, the City of Tustin City Council shall consider an Off-Site Parking Agreement
for the provision of fifty-nine (59) parking spaces at the City's Main Street Water facility. If, for
some reason, the City Council rejected such an agreement, Project parking impacts would be
significant unless the City authorized some alternative arrangement. The Draft EIR recommended
Mitigation Measure T-2 to reduce the Project's potential parking impact to a less than significant
level. This measure states that if the City Council does not approve the Off-Site Parking Agreement,
the applicant must present an alternative shared use agreement to the City for review and approval
prior to issuance of a demolition pennit. If the City does not approve an alternative shared use
agreement, the Project shall not proceed.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigation Measure T -2, which requires that the City
Council to approve an off site parking agreement or some alternative shared use agreement for the
Prospect Village FEIR
Page II
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
project to proceed, is adopted as stated in paragraph IV of the certification resolution. This measure
will mitigate parking impacts to a less than significant level.
IMPACT:
DISPOSAL AND REMOVAL OF ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS, LEAD
BASED PAINT, AND EXISTING INOPERABLE CLARIFIER
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental
conditions in connection with the property, except for the presence of a clarifier on-site, the presence
of asbestos containing material (ACM), and lead based paint (LBP) which is typical Of older
structures. A clarifier is a tank that is used to treat water, whereby solid particles suspended in the
water agglomerate and settle at the bottom of the tank. The solids resulting from the settling are'
removed as sludge.
The Phase I Report could not determine from the available information whether the clarifier has
been officially closed or abandoned. Information concerning the past use and current status ofthe
clarifier was similarly not available. In order to reduce the potential for an unauthorized discharge
and depending on the future use of the Property, the clarifier would be abandoned or removed in
accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations as required by mitigation measure
H-l.
The Phase I Report also disclosed the presence of ACMs on-site, including the following materials:
.
Approximately 300 square feet of floor texture coat located in the 195 building. It was
difficult to assess the material due to the large amount of dust and debris on the floor.
.
Approximately 20 square feet of 9x9 green vinyl floor tile and mastic exists in the 195
building.
The Phase I Report identified approximately 500 square feet of exterior stucco as decorative inlays
as asbestos containing construction material (ACCM). The ACCM should be handled as an ACM;
however, disposal as asbestos waste is not required.
The EP A and HUD have defined a LBP at 0.5 percent by weight. The Phase I Report identified the
following paints as containing greater than 0.5% lead:
.
Exterior white paint on the doors and door frames (approximately 300 square feet).
.
Interior white paint on the doors, door frames, windows, and window frames (approximately
300 square feet).
.
Interior cream paint on the walls, doors, and windows in the front portion of the 191 building
(approximately 600 square feet).
.
Interior red paint on the walls and doors in the rear portion of the 195 building
(approximately 400 square feet).
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 12
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TrONS
Any potential hazards impact resulting from the environmental conditions described above can be
reduced to a level of insignificance with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
described below. .
Mitigation Measures
H-l
The applicant shall remove the clarifier on-site in accordance with applicable local,
State, and Federal regulations prior to obtaining a grading pennit.
VII.
FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMP ACTS
AESTHETICS (FEIR SECTION 3.1)
IMPACT:
VISUAL IMPACT
1.
Facts
The Draft ErR analyzes the Project's visual impact in Section 3.1 on pages 3.1-13 through 3.1-15.
As discussed in the Draft EIR, while the Project would increase the height and bulk the existing
structures and would be taller than some of the surrounding structures, due to the proposed three
story live/work units, these design characteristic would not "degrade" the existing visual character of
the site or its surroundings. The intent ofthe Project design is to retain the historic look and feel of
the existing buildings with references to the unique Victorian/Main Street architectural character that
currently exists in the vicinity of the Project site. To ensure that the Project compliments the
surrounding area, the buildings would be characterized by details and colors similar to the existing
buildings at 191-195 East Main Street.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project impacts on visual quality would be less than significant
based on the analysis contained in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR and in light of the whole record.
IMPACT:
LIGHT AND GLARE
1.
Facts
The project site is currently vacant and no light is generated on the site. While the project would
increase the ambient light in the area, the incremental increase is not considered a new source of
substantial light and glare. Given the relatively small scale of the project and the fact that the
project site is within an urban area that currently generates ambient light, Project impacts relating to
light and glare are considered less than significant.
2.
Findings
The Planning Commission finds the Project impacts on light and glare would be less than significant
based on the analysis contained in Section 3.1 of the Draft ErR and in light of the whole record.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page I3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
1.
Facts
The project development will incrementally contribute to changes in the aesthetic quality of the Old
Town area. However, the changes are considered less than significant due to the City's stringent
design review and cultural resources review process.
2.
Findings
The Planning Commission finds the Project's cumulative aesthetic impact would be less than
significant based on the analysis contained in Section 3.1 ofthe Draft EIR and in light ofthe whole
record.
AIR QUALITY (FEIR SECTION 3.2)
IMPACT:
SHORT- TERM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS AND LONG- TERM OPERATIONAL
EMISSIONS
1.
Facts
As reflected in Table 3.2-5 of the Draft EIR above, the Project's estimated construction emissions
would be below the AQMD's significance thresholds. Therefore, Project construction activity
would have a less than significant air quality impact. As shown on Table 3.2-7, project air quality
emissions once operational are similarly insignificant. The Project's projected stationary and mobile
source emissions would not exceed the AQMD's significance thresholds.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project's cumulative aesthetic impact would be less than
significant based on the analysis contained in Section 3.1 of the Draft EIR and in light ofthe whole
record.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1.
Facts
As documented on pages 3.2-10 and 3.2-11, the Project will have a less than significant cumulative
air quality impacts. Giving the timing of each of the cumulative projects, Project construction
emissions would not be cumulatively significant.
From an operational standpoint, all three projects combined with the Project will increase vehicular
and stationary source emissions in the region. However, as described above, Project operational
emissions, which include vehicle emissions, are well below the AQMD significance thresholds. The
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 14
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
Project operational emissions combined with the other projects are not considered cumulatively
significant and no mitigation is required.
2. Findings
The Planning Commission finds the Project's cumulative air quality impact would be less than
significant based on the analysis contained in Section 3.2 ofthe Draft EIR and in light ofthe whole
record.
~UL TURAL RESOURCES (FEIR SECTION 3.3)
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
1.
Facts
While the Project will have a significant and unavoidable direct impact on two historical resources
within the Old Town commercial area, none of the other current projects in Old Town Tustin will
have an adverse impact on historical resources. In addition, while there may be other projects within
the Old Town commercial area at some point in the future, no other projects are currently planned or
proposed that would affect any historical resources in Old Town.
2,
Findings
The Planning Commission finds the Project's cumulative cultural resources impact would be less
than significant based on the analysis contained in Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR and in light of the
whole record.
HAZARDS (SECTION 3.4 OF FEIR)
IMPACT:
LAND USES THA T ROUTINEL Y USE NON-HAZARDOUS JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
AND CLEANING RELATED MATERIALS
1.
Facts
The project entails a combination of commercial, office, restaurant, and residential uses, which do
not involve the routine transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Any hazardous
materials used by future occupants of the proposed uses would generally be limited to those
associated with janitorial, maintenance, and repair activities, such as commercial cleansers,
lubricants, paints, etc. The transport, storage, use, and disposal of these materials would be subject
to Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements.
Based on the anticipated nature and use of hazardous materials at the project, as described above,
there are no reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions that would create a significant
hazard to the public due to the release of hazardous materials. In the unlikely event of such an
occurrence, State law requires prompt reporting to local and State agencies to ensure the public
health and safety would not be jeopardized. No significant impacts related to release of hazardous
materials from upset and accident conditions are anticipated to occur.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 15
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant impact relating to the
possible release or upset of hazardous materials on site based on the analysis contained in Section
3.4 of the Draft ErR and in light of the whole record.
IMPACT:
USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DURING CONSTRUCTION
1.
Facts
Project grading and construction would be short-term in nature and would be subject to Federal,
State, and local health and safety requirements relating to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous
materials. No significant impacts related to this issue area are expected to occur during project
construction.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project's short term use of limited quantities of construction
equipment related fluids would be a less than significant hazards impact based on the analysis
contained in Section 3.4 of the Draft ErR and in light of the whole record.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
1.
Facts
The Project requires the limited transportation of demolition materials that contain asbestos and
lead- based paint during construction activity. All transportation and storage of these materials will
be handled in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore, Project impacts are
considered less than significant. Aside from this limited and common remediation activity, the
Project does not involve the storage, use, or transport of any other hazardous materials or other
substances, nor does any environmental condition exist on the Project site that would be exacerbated
by Project construction or operation. Therefore, even assuming that there is currently a cumulative
hazards and hazardous materials impact, the Project does not create any impact that would be
cumulatively considerable. Because the Project does not result in any hazards and hazardous
materials impacts, the Project would not create any potential cumulative impact on the environment.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant cumulative hazards
impact based on. the analysis contained in Section 3.4 of the Draft ErR and in light of the whole
record.
Prospect VilJage FEIR
Page 16
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
LAND USE (SECTION 3.5)
IMPACT:
THE PROJECT REQUIRES A REZONE FROM "C-2" OR "CENTRAL
COMMERCIAL" TO "PLANNED COMMUNITY" TO ACCOMMODATE THE
RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED LIVE/WORK UNITs.
1.
Facts
The approximately one-acre Project site is currently designated "Old Town Commercial" in the
City's General Plan and zoned "C-2" or "Central Commercial District." The "C-2" designation
allows primarily commercial uses, including retail uses, and professional and general office uses
provided certain requirements are satisfied. Residential uses are not currently permitted or
conditionally permitted within this zone. Implementation of the Project requires a rezone to
accommodate the twelve (12) proposed live/work units behind the proposed commercial retail/office
building. The Project site would be rezoned from its underlying "C-2" zoning and overlay zones to
Planned Community ("P-C").
In conjunction with the proposed rezone, "Prospect Village Planned Community District
Regulations" is hereby adopted. The proposed "Prospect Village Planned Community District
Regulations" divide the Project site into two planning areas. Planning Area A is identified as
"commercial" and includes an approximately 9,300 square foot area of commercial and office
related uses. Planning Area B is approximately 32,900 square feet and is identified as "LivelWork."
Six of the twelve live/work units are planned to accommodate 913 square feet of retail space for a
total of5,478 square feet of retail. The remaining six units are planned to include 431 square feet of
either commercial or retail uses for a total of2,586 square feet. Therefore, while the property will be
rezoned "Planned Community" the Project would retain appròximately 17,000 square feet of
commercial retail and office space. Moreover, the permitted and conditionally permitted uses in
these spaces are either identical to or similar to the uses allowed under the Project site's existing "C-
2" zoning.
The Project also includes a considerable amount of commercial retail and office uses that are
identical or similar to the uses contemplated under the existing C-2 zoning designation. The mixed
use nature of the Project would be consistent with the General Plan's vision for the Old Town
Commercial area. The City of Tustin General Plan specifically contemplates an increase in
residential uses in the Old Town area, thus acknowledging the compatibility of such uses with other
existing uses in Old Town. Policy 10.2 ofthe Land Use Element provides "review and consider the
possible development of residential uses in the Old Town area both as individual residential projects
and integrated aboveground floor retail and office uses." This is precisely the type of residential
product contemplated here. In addition, the General Plan's discussion of the "Old Town
Commercial" area specifically states that "uses (such as residential uses) which support this land use
may be permitted subject to the discretion of the City." Therefore, even though the Project would
require a rezone, the Draft ERI concludes that this would not be a significant land use impact.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 17
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TrONS
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project's impact on land use due to the need for a rezone would
be less than significant based on the analysis contained in Section 3.5 of the Draft EIR and in light of
the whole record.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
1.
Facts
The only potentially significant land use impact of the Project is its inconsistency with the
preservation policies ofthe City's General Plan. However, none of the cumulative projects listed in
FEIR (Page 2-15) required the demolition or alteration of any historical resources. Therefore, there
would be no cumulative loss of historical resources or cumulative project inconsistency with the
historical resource preservation policies of the City's General Plan.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant cumulative land use
impact based on the analysis contained in Section 3.5 of the Draft ErR and in light of the whole
record.
NOISE (SECTION 3.6)
IMPACT:
SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
1.
Facts
Land uses near the Project site include primarily commercial and institutional uses with some
limited residential north of the Project site along Prospect Avenue, at the northeast comer of Third
Avenue and Prospect Avenue, and east ofthe Project site along Third Avenue. During construction,
it is anticipated that land uses in the vicinity of the construction area would be exposed to noise
generated by various pieces of construction and demolition equipment operating within the project
site. As discussed in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR, temporary noise levels adjacent to the
construction area could be 72 to 93 dBA depending on the distance the receptor is from the source of
noise. However, construction noise impacts during the loudest construction phases, including
demolition, grading, and utilities installation would be temporary, lasting only approximately two to
three months. Due to the temporary nature of the loudest phases of construction activity and the
Noise Ordinance requirements which restrièt construction activity to the least noise sensitive
daylight hours, Project construction noise impacts are considered less than significant impacts.
2
Findings
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant short tenn
construction noise impact based on the analysis contained in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR and in
light of the whole record.
Page 18
Prospect Village FEIR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TrONS
IMPACT: PERIODIC INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS DURING OUTDOOR P AT/O
DINING AND OUTDOOR ENTERTAINING ON RESIDENTIAL DECKs.
1.
Facts
The Project includes a 593 square foot outdoor dining area that will be located along East Main
Street. During the hours of restaurant operation people eating outdoors could periodically increase
ambient noise levels. However, any increase in noise levels would largely impact the other non-
noise sensitive uses, such as the commercial and office uses that culTently exist on either side of East
Main Street. As discussed above, noise sensitive residential land uses are located north and
northeast of the Project site. However, these residential uses would be unaffected by the outdoor
dining area which faces E. Main Street. The live/work units located behind the new commercial
retail office building would function as a noise buffer between the restaurant and the residential uses
located north and north east of the Project site. Therefore, any potential increase in ambient noise
levels from the restaurant would be less than significant.
In addition to the outdoor dining area, each ofthe twelve (12) proposed live/works unit would have a
small approximately 80 square foot outdoor deck overlooking either Prospect Avenue or new
Prospect Lane (culTently a public alley). While a certain level of noise may be generated by one or
more people standing on these decks, due to the small size of the balcony, the amount of people on
the deck at any given time would be limited and any colTesponding noise level would be less than
significant.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds that noise generated by the proposed outdoor dining area of the
restaurant and the residential balconies would be less than significant based on the analysis
contained in Section 3.6 of the Draft ErR and in light of the whole record.
IMPACT: THE PROJECT WOULD GENERATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TRIPS THAT
WOULD INCREASE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS.
1.
Facts
CulTently, Prospect Avenue (between Main & First St.) experiences a daily traffic volume of
approximately 4, I 00 trips per day, while E. Main Street between Newport and EI Camino Real
experiences about 9,000 trips per day. The project would result in a six percent (6%) increase in
traffic trips along Prospect Avenue, which is negligible and would not substantially increase
permanent ambient noise levels.
A noise level of 60 dB CNEL is considered an acceptable exterior residential noise level. Therefore,
while Project generated traffic would increase ambient noise levels in the area, these increases fall
within the acceptable range and are therefore considered less than significant.
Pnspen Village FEIR
Pagr 19
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
2.
Findings
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant traffic noise impact
based on the analysis contained in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR and in light of the whole record.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
1.
Facts
According to Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project in conjunction with other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would have a less than significant short-term
cumulative construction and operational noise impact. Each of the three (3) projects identified in
section 2.5 ofthe EIR are far enough from the project site that cumulative construction noise
levels would not be significant. In addition, construction activity at each of the Project sites
would be staggered. Similarly, the project would have a less than significant cumulative
operational noise impact.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant cumulative noise
impact based on the analysis contained in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR and in light of the whole
record.
TRAFFIC (SECTION 3.7)
IMPACT:
ONCE OPERATIONAL, THE PROJECT WOULD GENERATE 600 TRAFFIC TRIPS
THAT WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS AND
INTERSECTIONs.
1.
Facts
According to the Draft EIR, which is based on the Prospect Village Traffic Impact Analysis, dated
December 12,2003 and prepared by Sasaki Transportation Services, the project would generate
approximately 600 traffic trips per day at build-out, including 23 inbound and 15 outbound trips
during the A.M. peak hour and 24 inbound and 26 outbound in the P.M. peak. The Traffic study
prepared for the project analyzed whether Project generated traffic would have a significant impact
on the roadways and intersections within the study area. As demonstrated on Pages 3.7-8 and 3.7-9
of Draft EIR and in the Traffic Study, the Project would not have a significant impact on roadway or
intersection operation. With the addition of Project traffic, each roadway in the !Study area would
operate at an acceptable LOS D or better.
2.
. Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant operational traffic
impact based on the analysis contained in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR, the Traffic Study and in light
of the whole record.
Page 20
Prospect ViI1age FEIR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
-CUMULATIVE IMPACTS:
1.
Facts
The Traffic Study analyzed potential traffic impacts with and without the Project. The Traffic Study
first detennined future traffic conditions without the Project, which was based on cumulative traffic
forecasts that were perfonned in conjunction with the environmental studies for the MCAS Tustin
Disposal and Reuse Plan. The Traffic Study also added a one percent growth factor through the year
2020. Project traffic was then added to the "without" project conditions and impacts were assessed
accordingly. The Traffic Study concluded that Project traffic when combined with future traffic
forecasts for the area would not result in any significant impacts on intersections and roadways
within the study area.
The Project would also not create any significant cumulative parking impact in conjunction with the
other related projects identified in the FEIR (Page 2-15). With respect to each of these projects, the
City detennìned that the City's off-street parking requirements had been satisfied.
2.
Finding
The Planning Commission finds the Project would have a less than significant cumulative traffic
impact based on the analysis contained in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR, the Traffic Study, and in
light of the whole record.
VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT AL TERNA TIVES
Because the Project will cause unavoidable significant environmental effects, the City must consider
the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. As discussed in
the Draft EIR, the Project would have potentially significant impacts relating to historical resources
and land use.
The objectives for the proposed Prospect Village project are generally based on those in the City of
Tustin General Plan, Housing Element and Town Center Redevelopment Plan, as discussed in
Section 4.2 of the FEIR, and are as follows:
.
To develop the vacant and underutilized site within the next 2 to 3 years to capitalize on the
current favorable private development financing conditions for mixed-use projects;
To eliminate delay and uncertainties regarding future development of the site;
To stimulate private investment and demonstrate economic viability in the Old Town
commercial area.
To increase the amount of specialty retailing and commercial development in the core of the
Old Town commercial area in order to enhance its urban character and bolster the
commercial area's revitalization and long-tenn economic viability;
To expand the niche market character of the Old Town commercial area by providing a
balanced and complementary mix of new retail and commercial uses;
.
.
.
.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 21
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
.
To increase the number of residential units in the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area,
while reflecting a high-quality urban character;
To develop ground floor specialty retailing configurations consistent with current market
condition requirements;
To provide a minimum 3,000 square foot high-quality restaurant along with outdoor patio
dining to enliven the pedestrian environment along Main Street in the Old Town commercial
area;
To create a financially viable commercial mixed-used development with minimum public
subsidy;
To create construction jobs and permanent jobs in the Town Center Redevelopment Project
Area;
To increase the property tax increment and sales tax revenues in the Project Area, which will
be earmarked for ongoing economic development activities in the Old Town commercial
area including business retention and outreach programs, façade improvement programs, and
community facility projects; and,
To achieve the Old Town commercial area redevelopment goals and objectives of the City's
General Plan and the Town Center Redevelopment Plan.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The project objectives are consistent with the Redevelopment Plan's goals, objectives, and proposed
activities to assist in eliminating conditions of physical and economic blight identified in the
Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project and further the City's goals
for the development of a viable Old Town Commercial district
A primary purpose ofthe Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project is
to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration in the Project Area. To eliminate and -
prevent the spread of blight and deterioration, the Redevelopment Plan identified activities proposed
by the Agency to include the following:
1. Providing for participation by owners and residents presently located in the Proj ect Area;
2. Rehabilitation of structures and improvements by present owners, their successors, or the
Agency;
3. Redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in accordance with
the plan;
4. Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, and other public
improvements;
5. Acquisition of certain real property for public improvements or to help expedite private
development;
6. Relocation assistance to displaced residential and non-residential occupants should the need
arIse;
7. Demolition or removal of certain buildings and improvements;
8. Management of any property acquired under the ownership and control ofthe Agency; and
9. Disposition of any property acquired by the Agency for uses in accordance with the Plan.
The goal for the Old Town commercial area is to create a sustainable and competitive 24-hour
district that will serve a broad segment of the City's business and residential population.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 22
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Development of a compact eight-block commercial-retail core at the heart of the Old Town
commercial area would serve as the primary specialty retail area. The project's development
programming and design approach is consistent with the recommendations in the "Visions of Old
Town," a planning study that was prepared in 1991 and coordinated by the Regional/Urban Design
Assistance Team (RIUDA T) through the American Institute of Architects (AlA). As described in
the RlUDAT study, the commercial-retail core needs to be filled with new restaurants, retail stores,
and offices that will introduce a mix of commercial activities which will be competitive with the
surrounding strip commercial centers located along Newport A venue. It is important to long-tenn
economic viability of the Old Town commercial area to re-establish the area in the near future as the
"town center" for the City of Tustin by intensifying private commercial retail development and
. providing a viable alternative to the traditional neighborhood strip centers and community shopping
centers found on nearby Newport Avenue and other areas of the City.
AL TERNA TIVES CONSIDERED, BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION
CEQA provides that an EIR should identify any alternatives that the lead agency considered but
rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead
agency's detennination. I Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed
consideration in an EIR are: (1) failure to meet most ofthe basic objectives, (2) infeasibility, or (3)
inability to avoid significant environmental effects.2 Consistent with this requirement, this section
identifies three (3) alternatives that the City of Tustin considered, but rejected as infeasible during
the scoping process, and provides a brief explanation of the reasons for their exclusion.
El Camino Real/6th Street Site Alternative
This alternative site is approximately 1.7 -acres and is located in the Old Town Commercial area at
EI Camino Real and 6th Street. The alternative site is a portion of a larger 4-acre subdivision. Over
the past fiv~ (5) years, the Agency has referred several private developers, who expressed an interest
in developing the site, to the property owners.3 However, in each case, the property owners failed to
engage the developers in any level of meaningful negotiations. Instead, the property owners sought
to develop the site in accordance with their own investment objectives. Because the Agency does
not own the alternative site and based on the historic recalcitrance ofthe property owners to sell the
site, the Agency has detennined that it is not feasible to pursue redevelopment of this site.
Moreover, this alternative would not meet several of the most basic project objectives including the
need to develop a mixed use project within the next two to three years and to eliminate delay and
uncertainty regarding future development of the site. Pursuing and ultimately developing this site
against the wishes of the property owner would take far longer than the two (2) to three (3) year
redevelopment period and substantially increase the uncertainty of a redevelopment project. The
timing ofthe project is critical in light ofthe favorable financing and market conditions, which could
I
14 Cal. Code Regs §15126.6(c)
2 Ibid.
3 These developers included: Warmington Homes (developer of the 38 single family homes at Ambrose Lane located
across Sixth Street); the Olson Company (one of the nation's largest residential infill developers); CIM Group (a
highly experienced retail/residential mixed-use infill developer); and Pacific Gulf Development (a large-scale senior
citizen and multifamily rental housing developer).
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 23
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
worsen over time. Based on past experiences with the property owner, pursuing this site and
negotiating an acceptable agreement would be difficult and time consuming.
W First St. Site Alternative
This alternative site is approximately 1.2 acres and is located at 137 W. First Street. This alternative
site is located outside the Old Town Commercial area and outside the Town Center Redevelopment
Project Area. Due to its location outside the Old Town commercial area and the Town Center
Redevelopment Project Area, the site would not meet the most basic project objective, which is to
revitalize Old Town with a mixed use commercial/residential project. In addition, this alternative
site is a less attractive redevelopment option because the site has a limited amount of retail window
frontage on First Street. Thus, the ability to find viable retail tenants would be jeopardized. Finally,
the Agency would have to acquire this site from the current property owner, which, like the above
alternative site, would take far longer than the two (2) to three (3) year development period
identified in the project objectives.
Relocating the Utt Juice Buildings
The Agency also considered-relocating the existing structures to an undeveloped site in the Old
Town Commercial Area. This alternative was rejected as infeasible for several reasons. First,
transporting the masonry structures, which are constructed on concrete slab foundations, without
significantly damaging the structures, would be difficult. Second, assuming the structure were not
significantly damaged during transit, relocating the structures to another part of Old Town would not
necessarily substantially lessen or avoid the Project's significant impact on historic resources. The
Historic Resources Technical Report in Appendix C ofthe EIR noted the historical significance of
these structures at their existing location: - -
"The UTT Juice Buildings also derive significance because of their location at a
prominent comer of Old Town Tustin. In fact, the Buildings provide an
"introduction" to Old Town as the first of its historic buildings one encounters when
traveling west on Main Street. Their elimination... would significantly affect the
visitor's initial historic view of Old Town.,,4
Therefore, relocating the structure would not reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable impact
on historical resources.
RANGE OF AL TERNA TIVES AND REASONING FOR SELECTION OF AL TERNA TIVES
The EIS/EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives by identifying alternatives that could
potentially attain the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant
effects ofthe proposed project. As documented in the EIR, the Project would have a significant and
unavoidable direct impact on historical resources and would be inconsistent with General Plan
policies that promote rehabilitation and reuse of historical structures. Therefore, the City developed
a range of Project alternatives that focus on varying levels of rehabilitation and reuse ofthe existing
4 Historic Resources Technical Report at p. 11
Page 24
Prospect Village FEIR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
structures in accordance with the Secretary's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,
1995, Weeks and Grimmer ("Secretary's Standards and Guidelines"). The Secretary's Standards
and Guidelines provide, among other things, that construction of adjacent buildings or additions to
the existing structures should: (a) be limited in size and scale in relationship to the existing structure,
(b) be located at or on non-character-defining building elevations of the existing structures, and (c)
avoid rooftop additions which would not be set back from the wall plane ofthe existing structures.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Six (6) Project alternatives, including a "No Project" alternative and five (5) Project alternatives
were evaluated, as listed below.
1.
Full Reuse Alternative: This alternative would rehabilitate and reuse the existing historic
buildings, construct a new retail structure on E. Main St., and construct ten (10) live/work
units;
2.
Partial Reuse Alternative: This alternative would rehabilitate and reuse the existing
structures, except for the rear portion of the 193, 195 Building, which would be demolished.
This alternative also includes a new retail building on E. Main St., and ten (10) live/work
units;
Partial Reuse (193, 195 Building Only) Alternative: This alternative entails rehabilitation
and reuse of a portion of the 193, 195 Building, demolition of the 191 building and
construction of a new retail building on E. Main Street and twelve (12) live/work units.
3.
4.
Full Reuse (Existing Zoning) Alternative: This alternative entails rehabilitation and reuse of
the existing historic buildings and development of the remaining portions of the site in
accordance with the existing C-2 zoning designation.
5.
Facade Reuse Alternative: This alternative entails rehabilitation and reuse of only the
façade of the 193, 195 Building, construction of a new two story retail/office building on E.
Main Street and twelve (12) live/work units.
pr<)spe"~ Village FEIR
Page 25
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FINDINGS
The Planning Commission finds that the "No Project" Alternative is infeasible within the meaning of
PRC § 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, or other
considerations as follows:
1.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of providing for near term
implementation of development on the Project site since no activity would take place and the
existing buildings are unsafe to occupy and likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future.
2.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of intensifying and expanding
commercial development and specialty retailing in the Old Town commercial area since no
activity would take place and the existing buildings on the site are unsafe to occupy and
likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future.
3.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of creating a balanced and
complementary mix of retail and commercial uses since no activity would take place and the
existing buildings on the site are unsafe to occupy and likely to remain vacant for the
foreseeable future.
4.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of adding additional residential
units since no activity would take place and the existing buildings are unsafe to occupy and
likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future. In addition, the existing zoning does not
permit residential uses nor would the existing buildings accommodate residential uses.
5.
The Ño Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of providing ground floor
specialty retailing depths of 45 feet consistent with current market conditions and
recommendations since no activity would take place and the existing buildings are unsafe to
occupy and likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future.
6.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of providing a minimum 3,000
square foot restaurant use since no activity would take place and the existing buildings are
unsafe to occupy and likely to remain vacant for the foreseeable future.
7.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of creating a financially viable
mixed use development with a minimum public subsidy since no development would occur.
8.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of creating increased property
tax increment in the Project Area to assist in funding economic development activities in the
Old Town commercial area since no development would occur.
9.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of creating employment
associated with construction and new commercial activities since no development would
occur.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 26
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
10.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment
in the Old Town commercial area with the least amount of public funding since no
development, or investment, would occur. In addition, the lack of new development in Old
Town would contribute to general uncertainties in the Old Town commercial area caused by
a delay in development of the site.
The Planning Commission finds that "Alternative 1 (Full Reuse Alternative)" is infeasible within the
meaning ofPRC § 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, or
other considerations as follows:
1.
Alternative 1 would fail to meet the objective of providing for near term implementation of
development on the project site since no developers have indicated full rehabilitation is
feasible or practical. As documented in Draft EIR (p. 2-6) and extensively in the Response
to Comments (Response 8.7-8), the City has negotiated with five different developers and all
the developers have been unable to determine the feasibility of preserving and reusing the
structures. Given the City's inability to find a developer willing to reuse these structures for
a redevelopment project, adopting this alternative would cause delay and uncertainty in the
development of the site. The City would need to find a developer that is willing to
rehabilitate the existing buildings and able to secure the necessary private investment
funding.
2.
Alternative 1 would diminish the objective of intensifying and expanding commercial
development and specialty retailing in the Old Town commercial area. In comparison the
proposed project, which would add 16,653 square feet of retail and office space, this
alternative would result in only 14,780 square feet, which is an 11.2 percent reduction in the
amount of retail and office space planned for the site.
3.
Alternative I would diminish the objective of creating a balanced and complementary mix of
retail and commercial uses. In comparison to the project, which would add 9,251 square feet
(55%) of retail and 7,402 square feet of office (45%), Alternative 1 would add 12,625 square
feet (85%) of retail and 2,155 (15%) square feet of office, which does not balance the
provision of retail and office uses as well as the project.
4.
Alternative 1 would diminish the objective of adding additional residential units since only
ten (10) units would be provided in comparison to the project, which would provide twelve
(12) units.
5.
Alternative 1 would fail to meet the objective of providing ground floor specialty retailing
depths of 45 consistent with current market conditions and recommendations since full
rehabilitation would result in oddly configured building depths of sixty (60) to ninety (90)
feet and a restaurant space that is inconsistent with current market conditions and
recommendations.
6.
Alternative 1 would diminish the objective of providing a minimum 3,000 square foot
restaurant with outdoor patio dining since no outdoor dining area would be provided with
full rehabilitation of the existing buildings.
Prospect Vi]1)ge F51R
Page 27
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
7.
Alternative 1 would fail to meet the objective of creating a financially viable mixed use
development with a minimum public subsidy. According to the independent economic
feasibility study conducted by the firm Keyser Marston Associates Inc., October 28,2003,
this alternative would reflect a negative supportable land value of -$390,000, requiring a
minimum subsidy of $1,245,000 (based on the difference between the Agency's cost of
acquisition, which was $855,000, and the supportable land value) as opposed to no public
subsidy to support the proposed project.s In other words, the construction costs to
rehabilitate the structures in a manner suitable for reuse would exceed the value of the
project. As documented in the KCM Group report, the increase in construction costs is
predominantly driven by the rehabilitation and reuse costs, which far exceed the cost ofnew
construction. For example, under the full reuse scenario, the probable cost ofrehabilitation
of the buildings to a shell condition is approximately 196.44 per square feet.6 On the other
hand, the probable cost of constructing new structures to a shell condition is about $116 per
square feet less or approximately $80 per square feet.7
In addition, the KMA Report concludes that the preserved space is not as efficient as newly
developed space.8 The existing buildings are broken into smaller spaces that are less useful
than newly developer retail and restaurant spaces. Thus from a marketability standpoint,
space in the preserved building is not as attractive and has a negative impact on the overall
value ofthe project for a prospective developer. According to the KMA Report, preserved
retail space is proj ected to rent for $13 per square foot, as opposed to $15 per square foot for
new space, while preserved restaurant space is projected to rent for $15 per square foot
versus $21 per square foot for new restaurant space.9
8.
Alternative 1 would diminish the objective of creating increased property tax increment in
the Project Area to assist in funding economic revitalization and development activities in
the Old Town commercial area since the proposed project is anticipated to generate $85,000
annually whereas Alternative 1 is anticipated to generate $70,500 annually, which is 17.4
percent less in revenues than the proposed project. 10
9.
Alternative 1 would diminish the objective of creating employment associated with new
commercial activities since it would generate thirty-three (33) percent less permanent jobs
than the proposed project.
10.
Alternative 1 would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment in the Old
Town commercial area with the least amount of public funding since it would reflect a
necessary public subsidy of $1,245,000 over the proposed project, and thus, would
5 Evaluation ofCEQA Alternatives- Proposed Prospect Village Project, Lames Rabe and Kevin Engstrom, Keyser
Marston Associates Inc. October 28, 2003, p. 3-4 ("KMA Report") .
6 Utt Juice Building Rehabilitation Estimates, Gordon Kovturn, KCM Group, October 10,2003; KMA Report,
Alternative 2Scenario,Table IA
7 KMA Report, Prospect Village Project Scenario, Table IA
8 KMA Report, p. 4
9 KMA Report, p. 3-4
10 KMA Report at p. 7
Prospect Village FEIR
. Page 28
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
contribute to general uncertainties regarding the feasibility of development within the Old
Town commercial area.
The City Council finds that "Alternative 2 (Partial Reuse Alternative)" is infeasible within the
meaning of PRC § 21081 (a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, or
other considerations as follows:
1.
Alternative 2 would fail to meet the objective of providing for near term implementation of
development' on tht project site since no developers have indicated rehabilitation and
reconfiguration of the existing buildings is feasible or practical. While this alternative
entails only partial, instead of full reuse, based on the City's prior experiences with
developer, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the City could successfully find a
developer willing to implement this or any type of reuse alternative. As documented in the
City's economic feasibility studies, rehabilitating and reusing any portion of the existing
structures significantly increases construction costs and increase the amount of the public
subsidy. I I Adopting this alternative would cause delay and uncertainty in the development of
the site since a developer would need to be identified that is willing to rehabilitate the
existing buildings and able to secure the necessary private investment funding.
2.
Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of intensifying and expanding commercial
development and specialty retailing in the Old Town commercial area. In comparison the
proposed project, which would add 16,653 square feet of retail and office space, this
alternative would result in only 15,160 square feet, which is a 9 percent reduction in the
amount of retail and office space planned for the site.
3.
Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of creating a balanced and complementary mix of
retail and commercial uses. In comparison to the project, which would add 9,251 square feet
(55%) of retail and 7,402 square feet of office (45%), Alternative 2 would add 11,405 square
feet (75%) of retail and 3,755 (25%) square feet of office, which does not balance the
provision of retail and office uses as well as the Project.
4.
Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of adding additional residential units since only
ten (10) units would be provided in comparison to the Project, which would provide twelve
(12) units.
5.
Alternative 2 would fail to meet the objective of providing ground floor specialty retailing
depths of 45 consistent with current market conditions and recommendations since full
rehabilitation would result in an oddly configured building depth of sixty (60) feet and a
restaurant space that is inconsistent with current market conditions and recommendations.
6.
Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of providing a minimum 3,000 square foot
restaurant with outdoor patio dining use since no outdoor dining area would be provided
with full rehabilitation of the existing buildings.
11 KCM Report; KMA Report
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 29
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TrONS
7.
Alternative 2 would fail to meet the objective of creating a financially viable mixed use
development with a minimum public subsidy since rehabilitation under this alternative
would reflect a negative supportable land value of -$437,000, requiring a minimum subsidy
of$1,292,000 (based on the difference between the Agency's cost of acquisition, which was
$855,000, and the supportable land value) as opposed to no public subsidy to support the
proposed project.12 The negative supportable land value is based on the increased
construction costs for the rehabilitation effort combined with the loss oftwo residential units.
In addition, the KMA Report concludes that the preserved space is not as efficient as newly
developed space. 13 The existing buildings are broken into smaller spaces that are less useful
than newly developer retail and restaurant spaces. Thus from a marketability standpoint,
space in the preserved building is not as attractive and has a negative impact on the overall
value of the project for a prospective developer. According to the KMA Report, preserved
retail space is proj ected to rent for $13 per square foot, as opposed to $15 per square foot for
new space, while preserved restaurant space is projected to rent for $15 per square foot
versus $21 per square foot for new restaurant space. 14
8.
Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of creating increased property tax increment in
the Project Area to assist in funding economic revitalization and development activities in
the Old Town commercial area since the proposed project is anticipated to generate $85,000
annually whereas Alternative 2 is anticipated to generate $71,100 annually, which is 16.6
percent less in revenues than the proposed project. 15 .
9.
Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of creating employment associated with new
commercial activities since this alternative would generate twe12ty-three (23) percent less
permanent jobs less than the proposed project.
10.
Alternative 2 would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment in the Old
Town commercial area with the least amount of public funding since it would reflect a
necessary public subsidy of $1,292,000 over the proposed project, and thus, would
contribute to general uncertainties regarding the feasibility of development within in the Old
Town commercial area.
11.
While Alternative 2 would increase the level of rehabilitation and reuse, it would still cause a
significant and unavoidable impact on the historic Uti Juice Building. According to the
Ci ty' s Historic Resources Report, the impact on these structures would only be reduced to a
less than significant level if the project retained all historic resources on site with reuse
dictated by what alterations and additions are possible under the Secretary of Interior
Standards.16 Because this alternative entails demolition of the rear portion one of the
structures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
,. :,
12 KMA Report, p. 5
13 KMA Report, p. 4
14 KMA Report, p. 3-4
15 Id. at p. 7
16 Historic Resources Technical Report, Utt Juice Redevelopment Project, Tim Gergory, July 14,2003, p. 13
Page 30
Prospect Vi1\age FEIF
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Commission finds that "Alternative 3" is infeasible within the meaning of PRC §
21 081( a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, or other considerations as
follows:
1.
Like Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 would fail to meet the objective of providing for
near term implementation of development on the project site since no developers have
indicated rehabilitation and reconfiguration of the existing buildings is feasible or practical.
While this alternative entails only partial, instead of full reuse, based on the City's prior
experiences with developer, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the City could
successfully find a developer willing to implement this or any type of reuse alternative. As
documented in the City's economic feasibility studies, rehabilitating and reusing any portion
of the existing structures significantly increases construction costs and increase the amount
of the public subsidy. I7 Adopting this alternative would cause delay and uncertainty in the
development of the site since a developer would need to be identified that is willing to
rehabilitate the existing buildings and able to secure the necessary private investment
funding.
2.
Alternative 3 would diminish the objective of intensifying and expanding commercial
development and specialty retailing in the Old Town commercial area. In comparison the
proposed project, which would add 16,653 square feet of retail and office space, this
alternative would result in only 15,044 square feet, which is a 9.7 percent reduction in the
amount of retail and office space planned for the site.
3.
Alternative 3 would diminish the objective of creating a balanced and complementary mix of
retail and comm~rcia1 uses. In comparison to the project, which would add 9,251 square feet
(55%) of retail and 7,402 square feet of office (45%), Alternative 3 would add 9,746 square
feet (65%) of retail and 5,298 (35%) square feet of office, which does not balance the
provision of retail and office uses as well as the project
4.
Alternative 3 would diminish the objective of providing a minimum 3,000 square foot
restaurant with outdoor patio dining use since no outdoor dining area would be provided
with full rehabilitation of the existing buildings.
5.
Alternative 3 would diminish the objective of creating a financially viable mixed use
development with a minimum public subsidy since rehabilitation under this alternative
would reflect a supportable land value of $112,000, requiring a minimum subsidy of
$738,000 (based on the difference between the Agency's cost of acquisition, which was
$855,000, and the supportable land value) as opposed to no public subsidy to support the
proposed project 18
In addition, the KMA Report concludes that the preserved space is not as efficient as newly
developed space. 19 The existing buildings are broken into smaller spaces that are less useful
17 KCM Report; KMA Report
18
KMA Report, p. 6
19
KMA Report, p. 4
Prospect Vil1':.,~ FEIR
Page 31
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
than newly developer retail and restaurant spaces. Thus from a marketability standpoint,
space in the preserved building is not as attractive and has a negative impact on the overall
value ofthe project for a prospective developer. According to the KMA Report, preserved
retail space is proj ected to rent for $13 per square foot, as opposed to $15 per square foot for
new space, while preserved restaurant space is projected to rent for $15 per square foot
versus $21 per square foot for new restaurant space,zo
'6.
Alternative 3 would diminish the objective of creating employment associated with new
commercial activities since this alternative would generate seventeen (17) percent less
permanent jobs less than the proposed project.
7.
Alternative 3 would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment in the Old
Town commercial area with the least amount of public funding since it would reflect a
necessary public subsidy of$738,000 over the proposed project, and thus, would contribute
to general uncertainties regarding the feasibility of development within in the Old Town
commercial area.
8.
While Alternative 3 would increase the level of rehabilitation and reuse, it would still cause a
significant and unavoidable impact on the historic Uti Juice Building. According to the
City's Historic Resources Report, the impact on these structures would only be reduced to a
less than significant level if the project retained all historic resources on site with reuse
dictated by what alterations and additions are possible under the Secretary of Interior
Standards.21 Because this alternative entails demolition of the rear portion one of the
structures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The City Council finds that "Alternative 4 (Full Reuse (Existing Zoning) Alternative)" is infeasible
within the meaning of PRC § 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological,
environmental, or other considerations as follows:
1.
Like the other alternatives, Alternative 4 would fail to meet the objective of providing for
near term implementation of development on the project site since no developers have
indicated full rehabilitation is feasible or practical. As documented in Draft EIR (p. 2-6) and
extensively in the Response to Comments (Response 8.7-8), the City has negotiated with five
different developers and all the developers have been unable to determine the feasibility of
preserving and reusing the structures. Given the City's inability to find a developer willing
to reuse these structures for a redevelopment project, adopting this alternative would cause
delay and uncertainty in the development of the site since a developer would need to be
identified that is willing to rehabilitate the existing buildings and able to secure the necessary
private investment funding.
2.
Alternative 4 would diminish the objective of creating a balanced and complementary mix of
retail and commercial uses. In comparison to the Project, which would add 9,251 square feet
(55%) of retail and 7,402 square feet of office (45%), Alternative 5 would provide 19,120
20
KMA Report, p, 3-4
2\ Historic Resources Technical Report, Utt Juice Redevelopment Project, Tim Gergory, July 14,2003, p. 13
Prospect Village FElR
Page 32
7.
8.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
square feet (68%) of retail and 9,000 (32%) square feet of office, which does not balance the
provision of retail and office uses as well as the Project.
3.
Alternative 4 would fail to meet the objective of adding additional residential units since no
residential units would be provided in comparison to the Project, which would provide
twelve (12) units.
4.
Alternative 4 would fail to meet the objective of providing ground floor specialty retailing
depths of 45 consistent with current market conditions and recommendations since full
rehabilitation would result in oddly configured building depths of sixty (60) to ninety (90)
feet and a restaurant space that is inconsistent with current market conditions and
recommendations.
5.
Alternative 4 would diminish the objective of providing a minimum 3,000 square foot
restaurant with outdoor patio dining use since no outdoor dining area on Main Street would
be provided with full rehabilitation of the existing buildings. .
6.
Alternative 4 would fail to meet the objective of creating a financially viable mixed use
development with a minimum public subsidy since full rehabilitation would reflect a
negative supportable land value of -$1,813,3000, requiring a minimum subsidy of
$2,668,000 (based on the difference between the Agency's cost of acquisition, which was
$855,000, and the supportable lane value).22
In addition, the KMA Report concludes that the preserved space is not as efficient as newly
developed space.23 The existing buildings are broken into smaller spaces that are less useful
than newly developer retail and restaurant spaces. Thus from a marketability standpoint,
space in the preserved building is not as attractive and has a negative impact on the overall
value of the project for a prospective developer. According to the KMA Report, preserved
retail space is proj ected to rent for $13 per square foot, as opposed to $15 per square foot for
new space, while preserved restaurant space is projected to rent for $15 per square foot
versus $21 per square foot for new restaurant space.24
Alternative 4 would fail to meet the objective of creating increased property tax increment in
the Project Area to assist in funding economic revitalization and development activities in
the Old Town commercial area since the proposed project is anticipated to generate $85,300
annually whereas Alternative 4 is anticipated to generate $37,200 annually, which is 56.4
percent less in revenues than the proposed project.25
Alternative 4 would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment in the Old
Town commercial area with the least amount of public funding since it would reflect a
necessary public subsidy of $2,668,000 over the proposed project, and thus, would
22 KMA Report, p. 6-7
23 KMA Report, p. 4
24 KMA Report, p. 3-4
25 KMA Report, p. 7
Prospect Vi1lage FEIP
Page 33
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
contribute to general uncertainties regarding the feasibility of development within in the Old
Town commercial area.
The Planning Commission finds that "Alternative 5 (Facade Reuse Alternative)" is infeasible within
the meaning ofPRC § 21081 (a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, or
other considerations as follows:
1..
Alternative 5 would fail to meet the objective of providing for near term implementation of
development on the project site since no developers have indicated facade preservation is
feasible or practical. Adopting this alternative would cause delay and uncertainty in the
development of the site since a developer would need to be identified that is willing to
preserve the façade of existing buildings and able to secure the necessary private investment
funding. In addition, special design and construction techniques would be necessary to reuse
the existing façade within a new development. Adding a second floor above the existing
façade would be problematic in terms of achieving architectural compatibility and
functionality of second floor areas.
2.
Although Alternative 5 would provide twelve residential units similar to the proposed
Project, these units would need to be designed to complement the existing façade and
architecture, which may add to the construction cost. Adopting this alternative would cause
delay and uncertainty in the development of the site since a developer would need to be
identified that is willing to design and build residential units that are compatible with the
façade of existing buildings.
3.
Although Alternative 5 could provide for a 3,000 square foot outdoor dining area
opportunity, it would need to be integrated within the existing façade, which may result in a
less than desirable outdoor dining area in comparison with the Project.
4.
Alternative 5 would diminish the objective of creating a financially viable mixed use
development with a minimum public subsidy since façade preservation would reflect a
supportable land value of$198,000, requiring a minimum subsidy of$657,000, compared to
no public subsidy to support the proposed project.
5.
Alternative 5 would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment in the Old
Town commercial area with the least amount of public funding since it would reflect a
necessary public subsidy of$657,000 over the proposed project, and thus, would contribute
to general uncertainties regarding the feasibility of development within in the Old Town
commercial area.
IX.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a decision-maker to balance the benefits
of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve
the project. lithe Planning Commission, Tustin City Council, or Tustin Community Redevelopment
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 34
(b)
(c)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Agency allows the occurrence of significant effects through approval of a project, it must state its
specific reasons for so doing in writing. Such reasons are included in the "statement of overriding
considerations. "
Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the following requirements for a statement of
overriding considerations:
(a.)
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable
environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered "acceptable."
When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
effects, which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the
agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
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. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings
required pursuant to Section 15091.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin adopts and makes the following statement of
overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts identified within the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Prospect Village Project. In adopting Resolution
No. 3910, the Planning Commission acknowledges that it has weighed the benefits ofthe identified
the Project against the adverse significant impacts that have not been avoided or substantially
lessened to less than significant levels through mitigation.
The Planning Commission hereby determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the
unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved. The Planning Commission finds
that to the extent that the identified significant adverse impacts have not been avoided or
substantially lessened, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations which support approval of the project.
SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE IMPACTS
Unavoidable or potentially unavoidable significant environmental effects ofthe project identified in
the Final EIR/EIS and Findings of Significant Impacts include the following:
.
The project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources
as defined in Section 150064.5.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 35
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA TrONS
.
The project would be inconsistent with General Plan policies that promote preservation and
rehabilitation of historic resources.
ADOPTION OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Commission specifically adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds
that: a) as part of the approval provisions, the Project has eliminated or substantially lessened all
significant effects on the environment where feasible; b) mitigation measures to mitigate the effects
associated with the Project are within the jurisdiction ofthe City, and, c) the remaining unavoidable
impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of the environmental, economic, legal, social,
technological, and other considerations set forth herein, because the benefits of the Project outweigh
the significant and adverse impacts.
The Planning Commission finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below
constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project: 1)
outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts, and 2) is an overriding consideration
warranting approval of the Project. These matters are súpported by substantial evidence in the
record.
FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") prepared for the Prospect Village project ("the Project")
identified two closely related significant adverse unavoidable Project impacts associated with land
use and cultural resources. The Project will cause: I) a significant unavoidable adverse land use
impact due to a conflict with a limited number of General Plan policies relating to the preservation -
of historical resources as a result of the proposed demolition of the Uti Juice Buildings, and 2) a
significant unavoidable adverse cultural resources impact due to the permanent loss of the
historically significant Utt Juice Buildings.
The Project, however, will create substantial benefits for the City of Tustin, specifically the Old
Town commercial area. The Planning Commission has balanced the Project's benefits against the
Project's significant unavoidable land use and cultural resources impacts. The Planning
Commission finds that the Project's benefits outweigh the Project's significant unavoidable impacts,
and the impacts are therefore considered acceptable in light of the Project's benefits. The Planning
Commission finds that each ofthe following benefits is an overriding consideration, independent of
the other benefits, that warrant approval of the Project as designed, notwithstanding the Project's
significant and unavoidable land use and cultural resources impacts:
1.
The Project will eliminate delays and uncertainties regarding redevelopment of the site
Since 1998 when the Agency acquired the property, the Agency has actively marketed the
Project site. However, as documented in the Response to Comments portion of the Final
EIR, up until now, the Agency has been unsuccessful in its efforts to find a developer willing
to redevelop the Project site. (See Final EIR, Section 2.0 Response to Comments, Response
8.7-8) One developer initially expressed interest but failed to complete the proposal process.
After approximately 16 months of negotiations with another entity consisting of a
Page 36
Prospect Village FEIR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
partnership between two developers, the Agency was unable to reach a mutually acceptable
agreement on the amount of the substantial public subsidy to make the project viable and a
commitment to implementation. The Agency encountered similar issues with three other
developers. This Project finally removes the uncertainties surrounding build-out ofthis site
and makes redevelopment of the site a reality.
2.
The Project will stimulate private investment and demonstrate economic viability of the Old
Town commercial area
The Project site has not been inactive and consistent permanent commercial use since 1973.
The project site was included in the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area because of
economic deterioration and physical blight. The Project with its exceptional design and its
mix of office, commercial, restaurant, and residential uses represents further progress in the
revitalization of the Old Town area. The Project will demonstrate to developers and other
private investors that Old Town can be a viable location for future commercial, retail, and
residential uses. The Project will increase the residential presence in Old Town and replace
the currently vacant Utt Juice buildings with a large street level restaurant and retail use
thereby enlivening this area of Old Town.
The Project would be consistent with the recommendations in the "Visions of Old Town," a
broad community-based planning study that was prepared in 1991 and coordinated by the
Regional/Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT) through the American Institute of
Architects (AlA). As described in the R/UDAT study, the commercial-retail core needs to
be filled with new restaurants, retail stores, and offices that will introduce a mix of
commercial activities which will be competitive with the surroundingßtrip commercial
centers located along Newport Avenue. It is important to long-term economic viability of
the Old Town commercial area to re-establish the area in the near future as the "town center"
for the City of Tustin by intensifying private commercial retail development and providing a
viable alternative to the traditional neighborhood strip centers and community shopping
centers found on nearby Newport Avenue and other areas ofthe City.
This Project with its retail, restaurant, and office component will also achieve the City's
General Plan land use goals, which promote economic expansion and diversification. These
goals include: to "Broaden the City's tax base by attracting businesses which will contribute
to the City's economic growth and employment opportunities..." (General Plan, Land Use
Element, Policy 7.1); and to "Focus retail development into consolidated, economically
viable and attractive centers of adequate size and scale which offer a variety of retail goods
and amenities. (General Plan, Land Use Element, Policy 7.5).
3.
The Project will add to the City's supply of residential units and improve the jobs to housing
ratio in Old Town
Implementation of the Project would increase the inventory of residential uses in the Old
Town area. Specifically, the Project would create twelve (12) new residential units and is
consistent with General Plan goals to develop character of the Old TownlFirst Street area
including "possible development of residential uses in the Old Town area both as individual
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 37
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
residential proj ects and integrated above ground floor retail and office uses." (General Plan,
Land Use Element, Policy 10.2). These new units will also be occupied by the owners and
proprietors of the retail and office uses that will be below each unit. Thus, the Project will
allow residents to live above their businesses and offices thereby eliminating commuting and
associated traffic congestion and air quality impacts.
4.
The Project would implement the General Plan's overall vision for development of the site
The Project's mix of residential, office, retail, and restaurant (with outdoor dining area) uses
achieves the General Plan's vision for future build-out of the Old Town/First Street area.
The Project's restaurant and outdoor dining patio is consistent with the General Plan policy
which encourages outdoor pedestrian spaces, such as courtyards, arcades, and open
landscape passages to be integrated into new development. (General Plan, Land Use
Element, Policy 10.3). The Project's approximately 6,200 square feet of ground floorretail,
3,500 square foot restaurant (includes the outdoor dining area) and another 2,500 square feet
of ground floor retail/office spaces accessible from public sidewalks would be consistent
with the General Plan policy, which encourages high-quality pedestrian oriented building
frontages which open onto these pedestrian spaces and public sidewalks. (General Plan,
Land Use Element, Policy 10.6). Moreover, as noted above, the General Plan specifically
envisions the Project's live/work or residential component for Old Town.
5.
The Project would implement the Town Center Redevelopment Plan's vision for the site
The Project implements the goals and objectives of the Town Center Redevelopment Plan
Area ("Area"). The Redevelopment Plan goals and objectives for the Area include the
creation of a mixed use town center that combinés commercial, office, residential, and public
uses. The Redevelopment Plan also encourages residential development by actively seeking
private development in the redevelopment area. The Project's mix of retail, office,
restaurant and residential is consistent with these goals and objectives.
6.
The Project will generate property and sales tax revenues for the Agency and City
The Project will create a new source of property and sales tax revenue for the City and the
Agency. The City will receive sales tax revenue for the retail sales that occur on-site, and
the Agency will receive tax increment revenues from the property taxes paid.26 According
to the feasibility study, property tax revenues for the Project would total approximately
$85,300 and sales tax would total $10,500.27
7.
The Project will assist in the elimination o/blight in the Town Center Redevelopment Plan
Area ("Area ")
The Project will assist in eliminating blight as identified under Sections 33031 and 33031 of
26 KMA Report, p.26 "Evaluation of CEQA Alternatives - Prospect Village," James Rabe & Kevin Engstrom,
Keyser Marston Associates. Inc., October 28,2003, p. 7
27 rd.
Pag~ 38
Prospect Village FEIR
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS
the California Redevelopment Law and in the Second Implementation Plan for the Town
Center and South Central Redevelopment Areas (January 2000) including the following:
.
Unsafe/Dilapidated/Deteriorated Buildings characterized by conditions caused by
serious building code violations, dilapidation or deterioration.
Physical Conditions that Limit Economic Viability and Use of Lots and Buildings
characterized by conditions that can be caused by substandard design, inadequate
size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or similar
factors.
Depreciated/Stagnant Property Values or Impaired Investments characterized, but not
necessarily limited to properties containing hazardous waste or other conditions that
require the use of agency authority.
High Business Turnovers and Vacancies/Low Lease Rates/Abandoned
Building/Vacant Lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities.
.
.
.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 39
EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. 3910
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 2
PROSPECT VILLAGE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT REPORT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 21081.6. Its purpose
is to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures required by the Prospect Village Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Prospect Village Project, located in the City of
Tustin and the City of Irvine, in the County of Orange.
The City of Tustin has adopted the mitigation measures included in the Final EISIEIR in order to
mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. This program has been designed to
ensure compliance during project implementation.
Mitigation measures identified in the Final EISIEIR for the Prospect Village Project have been
incorporated into a checklist. Each mitigation measure is listed separately on the checklist with
appropriate spaces for monitoring the progress of implementation of each measure. Mitigation
measures are also identified in thi s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
The following information is identified for each measure listed in the checklist:
.
The timing of implementation of the mitigation measure.
The appropriate agency to enforce the mitigation measure.
.
The mitigation measures in the table are listed by environmental impact area in the same order as
they are listed in the Final EISIEIR.
Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program Management
As shown in Table 1, the mitigation measures associated with the project will be completed in
conjunction with development of the project.
Availability of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program checklist will be retained in the
project file and will be available for public inspection on proper request.
Prospect Village FEIR
Page 3
Measure
Cultural Resources 1:
Prior to issuance of a demolition permit,
documentation of the buildings to be
removed shall be undertaken by the
developer to be approved by the City
utilizing the standards of the Historic
American Building Survey (HABS),
including photo-documentation and
measured drawings of the East Main and
Prospect A venue elevations. These items,
together with the Historical Resource
Technical Report, shall be added to the
Tustin Area Historical Society Museum.
Cultural Resources 2:
If buried cultural resources, such as
chipped or ground stone, historic debris,
building foundations, or human remains
are inadvertently discovered during
ground-disturbing activities, work will
stop in that area and within 100 feet of the
find until a qualified archaeologist can
assess the significance of the fmd, and, if
necessary, develop appropriate treatment
measures. Treatment measures typically
include development of avoidance
strategies, capping with fill material, or
mitigation of impacts through data
recovery programs such as excavation or
detailed documentation.
The construction contractor and lead
contractor compliance inspector will
verify that work is halted until
appropriate treatment measures are
implemented if cultural resources are
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation
Monitoring and
Enforcement
Responsibility
Mitigation
Compliance
Responsibility
Prior to issuance of a demolition
pennit
City of Tustin
Community Development
Department
During construction
City of Tustin
Community Development
Department
.
Exhibit C of Resolution No. 3910
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Page 2
Measure
discovered during construction activities.
Concurrence from the City on measures
to be implemented before resuming
construction activities in the area of the
fmd will be obtained.
Hazards 1:
The applicant shall remove the clarifier on
site in accordance with applicable local,
state and federal regulations prior to
obtaining a grading pel111it.
Hazards 2:
Any unknown contaminated soils that
could be encountered on the project site
during demolition, site clearance, or
construction activities shall be removed
trom the project site and disposed of off-
site. The removal and disposal of these
hazardous materials would be in
accordance with guidelines specified by
the applicable local, state and federal
resources agencies, including but not
limited to the Department of Toxics
Substances Control and federal
Environmental Protection Agency.
Hazards 3:
If during any future demolition or
remodeling activities additional suspect
materials are observed, bulk samples
shall be collected of these materials and
analyzed for asbestos content. All
suspect materials at the Property are
Presumed Asbestos-containing Materials
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation
Monitoring and
Enforcement
Responsibility
Mitigation
Compliance
Responsibility
Prior to issuance of grading
pennits
City of Tustin
Community Development
Department
During construction
City of Tustin
Community Development
Department
During demolition or remodeling
City of Tustin
Community Development
Department
Prospect Village FaR
Page 2
Exhibit C of Resolution No. 3910
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Page 3
Measure
(PACMs) until the asbestos content is
confmned or denied by analytical testing.
Hazards 4:
The applicant shall retain a licensed
abatement contractor to properly remove
and dispose of the damaged (peeling,
flaking) lead-based paint prior to
obtaining a demolition permit.
Traffic 1:
The developer shall prepare a construction
staging and parking plan for review and
approval by City of Tustin Public Works
prior to issuance of demolition permit.
The developer or contractor shall monitor
the implementation and effectiveness of
the construction staging and parking plan
during the construction phase of the
project. The plan shall include one or
more of the following potential types of
traffic-related mitigation measures to
ensure that temporary disruptions to the
adjacent uses and circulation within the
area are minimized:
.
Construction and Employee
Parking: As part of the
construct.ion staging and parking
plan, the contractor would submit
and obtain approval of a
construction parking program
which reflects the schedule of
construction activities and
location of construction-related
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation
Compliance
Responsibility
Mitigation
Monitoring and
Enforcement
Responsibility
Prior to issuance of a demolition
permit
City of Tustin
- Community Development
Department
Prior to issuance of a demolition
permit
City of Tustin
Public Works Department
Prospect Village FFlR
Page 3
Exhibit C of Resolution No. 3910
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Page 4
Measure
.
parking. Locations of available
parking would be identified.
Street Circulation and Parking
Measures: The contractor may
request and obtain a permit for
any temporary lane closures that
may be required for adjacent
roadways. The contractor would
utilize flagmen for traffic control
to minimize inconvenience and
for safety of vehicles and
pedestrians.
Haul Truck Routes, Queue
Areas, and Deliveries: The
contractor would provide an
estimate of truck volume and
schedule. Schedule adjustments
would be made to minimize the
volume during peak traffic hours.
Areas would be designated by
the developer or contractor for
staging of all trucks. All earth-
moving and ready-mix trucks
would be equipped with two-way
radios. The trucks would follow
a City-approved route to the
project site, without unnecessary
waiting.
Hours of Excavation Hauling:
Heavy truck hauling associated
with excavation would be
scheduled to minimize
interference with daytime
activity ifl the area. The hours
for excavation hauling would be
.
.
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation
Monitoring and
Enforcement
Responsibili!r.
Mitigation
Compliance
Responsibility
Prospect Village FElR
Page 4
Exhibit C of Resolution No. 3910
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Page 5
'Measure
determined in conjunction with
the City as part of the
construction staging and parking
plan,
. Pedestrian Safety Measures:
The contractor would install a
construction fence around the
perimeter, complying with City
requirements before excavation
begins. A flagman would be
available at all times and would
be utilized whenever trucks
entering or leaving the project
site may impede the flow of
traffic.
Parking 1:
If the City Council does not approve the
Off-Site Parking Agreement, the applicant
must present an alternative shared use
agreement to the City for review and
approval prior to issuance of a demolition
permit. If the City does not approve an
alternative shared use agreement, the
Project shall not proceed,
Timing and Implementation
Mitigation
Monitoring and
Enforcement
Responsibility
Mitigation
Compliance
Responsibility
Prior to issuance of a demolition
permit
City of Tustin
Community Development
Department
Prospect Village FER
Page 5