Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA RES 04-01 RDA RESOLUTION NO. 04-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PROSPECT VILLAGE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE DISPOSITON AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PROSPECT VILLAGE, LoP. The Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency (the "Redevelopment Agency") does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Redevelopment Agency finds and determines as follows: A. The Redevelopment Agency is a responsible agency authorized to accept the Prospect Village Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as certified by the City Council pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15096) for the purpose of approving the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Prospect Village, LoP. Bo 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; construction of an approximately 9,300 square foot commercial building and twelve (12) live/work units; and sale of the property by the Agency to Prospect Village, LoP. pursuant to a Disposition and Development Agreement. In addition to a "No Project Alternative", the FEIR also evaluates a range of project alternatives, including the following: 10 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 RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 10152.. C. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 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. D. On May 17, 2004, public testimony was provided to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on the FEIR. The City Council found that the FEIR is complete and adequate under CEQA for all aspects of the project. RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 2 01 ¡;z. The REIR is described in Exhibit A, and is incorportated herein by this reference. E. Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that the Redevelopment Agency 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 identiflied in the EIR. F. State Guidelines Section 15093(b) require that, where the decision of the Redevelopment Agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in an FEIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated, the Redevelopment Agency must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIR or other information in the record; G. State Guidelines Section 15093(a) requires the Redevelopment Agency 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 H. A responsible 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. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby find and determine that Prospect Village FEIR was reviewed and considered by the Redevelopment Agency before considering approval of the Disposition and Development Agreement Project. II. III. The Redevelopment Agency finds 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. RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 301 ¡;z. IV. V. VI. VII. The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds 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, as described in attached Exhibit B, incorporated herein by this reference. The Redevelopment Agency hereby finds that the unavoidable significant environmental effects of the project related to cultural resources and land use are outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in attached Exhibit B, incorporated herein by this reference. The Redevelopment Agency 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 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin does hereby find and certify that the Prospect Village FEIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of 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 the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and Prospect Village, LP. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Community R~development Agency held on the 17th day of May, 2004. !~ Chairperson RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 4 01510 ~JhcQQ~ PAMEL TOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ORANGE COUNTY )SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and forgoing RDA Resolution No. 04-01 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, held on May 17, 2004, by the following vote: BOARDMEMBER AYES: BOARDMEMBER NOES: BOARDMEMBER ABSTAINED: BOARDMEMBER ABSENT: KAWASHIMA, BONE, DAVERT, HAGEN, THOMAS NONE NONE NONE (5) (0) (0) (OJ RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 5016t. EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. RDA 04-01 PROSPECT VILLAGE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SEE VOLUMES 1 AND 2 SEPARATELY BOUND RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 6 01 FiZ- EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. RDA 04-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RDA Resoiution No. 04-0t Page 70152.. Exhibit B of Resolution No. RDA 04-01 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prospect Village Final Environmental Impact Report Prospect Village Project Disposition and Development Agreement Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency 300 Centennial Way Tustin. CA 92780 RDA Resolution No. 04-01 ¡::I'á~ ~1fIe FEIR TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I. II. III. IV. V. VI. Pa (e INTRODUCTION 4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 4 PURPOSE OF FINDINGS 5 INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES INTO PROJECT DESIGN 6 FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6 Cultural Resources (Historical Resources) Land Use FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT ARE REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT 7 Cultural Resources (Archaeological Resources) Hazards Traffic/Parking VII. FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS 13 Aesthetics Air Quality Hazards Noise Traffic VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Introduction Reasonable Range of Alternatives Summary of Comparison of Alternatives Project Objectives IX. 21 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Summary of OveITiding Considerations Adoption of OveITiding Considerations 34 Prospect Vill.lge FEIR RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page got ¡;1.. TABLES Table Page Table I Summary Comparison of Land Development and Buildout Characteristics of Alternatives 32 Table 2 Key Differentiating Factors Between Alternatives 33 RDA Resolution No. 04-01 ~l'f"lð'i!!fi4§Em FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091, the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") of the City of Tustin. based upon its review of the Final En vironmcnta] Impact Report (FEIR), including the commcnts and responses therein, and aU the infonnation and evidencc in the record, hereby makes the Findings of Fact and adopts of the Statement of Oveniding Considerations set forth herein: I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, an Initial StudylNotice of Preparation (NOP) 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 Pinal 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 of the CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). The FEIR consists of two volumes entitled "Volume I, 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 Icss than significant Icvcls. Specifically, the FEIR identified mitigation measures to avoid or reduce Project impacts relating to unknown archaeological resources, hazards, short tenD construction traffic and parking impacts to a less than significant level. While feasible mitigation measures are also identified to reduce Project impacts on historical resourccs, the FEIR concludes that this impact would be significant and unavoidable. TheFEIR 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 infonnation is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings and the actions taken by the Agency in accepting the FEIR and approving the project: L 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 coITespondence submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the meetings, workshops, and public hearings at which the DraftEIR FEIR was considered by the City. Prospect ViII.go FEIR RnA R"~nl"tinn Nn n.1-n1 Page 110flll'!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 of Tustin is the custodian of the administrative record, including all CEQA documents and the other background documents and materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the Agency decisions to accept 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 FEIR., prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , evaluates the significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the project. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the public agency approving or carrying out the project shal1 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 ElR. 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 alternatives identified in the final EIR. These findings accomplish the following: 1. They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR for the approved project. 2. They incorporate all mi tigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the EJR. 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 Agency based on a detennination that the benefits of the project outweigh the risks of the potentially significant environmental effect, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained herein. RnA R".n¡' ,t;nn ~In nLl n1 ¡B~ ~il!ftg~!jE1R Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT AND 5T A 'l'EMENT OF OVERRIDING CON5IDBRA TION5 IV. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES INTO PROJECT DESIGN The mitigation measures identified in the FEIR as feasible and within the Agency's responsibility and jurisdiction to implement are hereby incorporated into the design of the project as required by CEQA. The Agency shall implemcnt these measures during project implementation. v. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The FEm concludes that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on historical resources and land use. As described below in the finclings 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 Agency finds that the impacts to cultural resources and land use are acceptable in light of the project's benefits. CULTURAL RESOURCES (FEIR SECTION 3.3) IMPACT: SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE AS DEFINED IN §I5064.5 1. Facts The Project entails demolition oftwo buildings on-site that were detemllned to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. As discussed in Section 3.3. of the Draft Em, the Historic Resources Technical Report, UtI 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 I (association with significant events or trends), 2 (association with historically important people); and 3 (embodying clistinctive 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 of the buildings to be removed shall be undertaken by the City of Tustin utiJizing 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. See Mitigation Measure CR-l on p. 3.3-10 of the Draft Em. 2. Finding Prospect Village FEIR RnA R"~nl"tinn '-In n4-n1 Page 13ó'f'~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS This Agency finds this impact to be significant and unavoidable; the measure listed abovc 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. LAND USE (SECTION 3.5) IMPACT: THE PROJECT IS INCONSISTENT WrrH THE GENERAL PlAN POliCIES THAT PROMOTE PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES 1. Facts While the Project is consistent with the majority of the General Plan goals, objectives and policies relating to development of the 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 of the 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 UtI 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-l 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: The Agency finds this impact to be significant and unavoidable; the measure ]jsted above is adopted and wiJI 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 RDA Resolutinn Nn n4-n1 Pt!~i\lr-affi'EIR Page 7 FINDINGS OF FA~ AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CULTURAL RESOURCES (FEIR SECTION 3.3 IMPACT: DISTURBANCE OF UNKNOWN BURlED CULTURAL RESOURCES ON SITE. 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 previousl y 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 appropriatc mitigation measures to ensure the find is not d<tmaged. 2. Finding The Agency 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-I, which requires the applicant to abandon or remove the clarifier in accordance with applicable local, State, and Fcderal 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 Prospect Village FEIR RD^ R9illl' ¡tieR ÞIII 91 01 Page 150~g FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS disposal of these hazardous materials would be in accordance with guidelincs specified by the applicable local, State, and Federal resourccs agencies, including but not limited to, thc Department of Toxics Substances Control and federal Environmental Protection Agency 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 ånd 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 acti vities 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 (PACMs) until the asbestos content is confinned or denied by analytical testing c. The BPA 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 builcling (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 of the damaged (peeling, flaking) lead-based paint prior to obtaining a demolition peIIIÚt 2. Finding RnA R"~nl, ,¡Inn "n n,1 n1 ¡f~Mi~!jEIR Page 9 FINDINGSOFFAcr AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Agency finds that the recommended mitigation measures (II-I through H-4) relating to the removal of the clarifier on site and potentially contaminated soils. the handling of asòcstos, 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 Jess than significant level. TRAFFIC (SECTION 3.7 FEIR) IMPACT: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WOUW GENERATE SHORT TERM TRAFFIC TRIPS I. Facts The DraftEIR discusses short tenn traffic impacts during construction in Section 3.7 on pages 3.7-7 to 3.7-8. Construction relatcd 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-l. 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 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 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 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 volwne 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 pcrimeter, complying with City requirements before excavation begins. A flagman would be . . Proopecl Village FEIR RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 1701"'1110 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS availablc at all timcs and would be utilized whenever trucks cntering or leaving the Project site may impedc the flow of traffic. 2. Findings The Agency finds that Mitigation Measure T-l, 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 tenD 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 consinent with the City of Tustin parking code requirements. The Parking Study also ana] yzed 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 si¡¡ty-two (62) spaces, which would be satisfied by the use of fifty-nine (59) spaces at the City of Tustin Main Street Water faciJity ("Water FaciJity") parking lot and three (3) on-site spaces. The Water facility parking lot is located across Prospect Avenue, immediately east of the 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 demands 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 wou]d 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 permit. If the City does not approve an alternative shared use agreement, the Project shall not proceed. RDA Resolution No 04-01 RWgI!J'CI (ri(!fg4gElR Page ] FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 2. Finding The Agency finds that the Mitigation Measure T -2, which requires that the City Council to approve an off site parking agreement or somc alternative shared use agreement for the project to proceed, is adopted as stated in paragraph IV ofthe 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 typicaJ 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 official1y closed or abandoned. Information concerning the past use and cutrent 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 clarifier would be abandoned or removed in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations as required by mitigation measure H- I. 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 rcquired. The EP A and BUD 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). Prospect Vill&ge FEIR Rnð. R".nl"tlnn ~IÇ> 04 0' Page Hf~'41f FINDINGS OFFAcr AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . 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). 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 clarifjeron-sitein accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations prior to obtaining a grading permit. VII. FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AESTHETICS (FEIR SECTION 3.1) IMPACT: VISUAL IMPACT 1. Facts The Draft EIR analyzes the Project's visual impact in Section 3.1 on pages 3.1-13 through 3.1-15. As discussed in the Draft Ern., while the Project would increase the height and bulk the existing structures and would be taller than some of the sun-ounding 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 sun-oundings. The jntent of the Project design is to retain the historic look and feel of the existing buildings with references to the unique VictorianlMain Street architectural character that currently exists in the vicinity of the Project site. To ensure that the Project compliments the sUITounding area, the buildings would be characterized by details and colors sinrilar to the existing buildings at 191-195 East Main Street. 2. Finding The Agency finds the Project impacts on visual quality would be less than significant based on the analysis contained in Section 3.1 of the DraftEIR and in light of the whole record. IMPACT: UGHT AND GLARE 1. Facts The project site is cwrentIy vacant and no Jight 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 RDA Resolution No. 04-01 AtI@~6IlYiOtø48E1R Poi" 13 FINDINGS OPpACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS project site is within an urban area that CUITently generates ambient light, Project impacts relating to light and glare are considered less than significant. 2. Findings The Agency 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 EIR and in light of the whole record. CUMULATNE IMPACTS: 1. Facts The project development wil1 incremental1y 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 Agency finds the Project's cumulati ve aesthetic impact 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. AIR QUALITY (FEIR SECTION 3.2) IMPACT: SHORT-TERM CONSTR UCfION 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 Agency 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 of the whole record. CUMULATNE IMPACTS 1. Facts Prospect ViIIa¡e FEIR RDA Re~oliltioo No 0.1-01 Page 21~14 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS As documented on pages 3.2-(0 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 regjon. However, as described above, Project operational emissions, which include vehicle emissions, are well below the AQMD significance thresholds. The Project operational cmissions combined with the other projects are not considered cumulatively significant and no mitigation is required. 2. Findings The Agency 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 of the whole record. CULTURAL RESOURCES (FErn 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 Agency 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 FErn) IMPACT: LAND USES THAT ROUTINELY USE NON-HAZARDOUS JANITORIAL SUPPUES 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, RDA Resoiution Nn 04-01 ~J!i\! þ (9òIR Page 15 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA TEMBNT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 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 occuITence, 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. 2. Finding The Agency 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 EIR and in light of the whole record. IMPACT: USE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. Facts Project grading and construction would be short-tenD 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 Agency finds the Project's short tenD usc 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 EIR and in light of the whole record. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: 1. Facts The Project requires the limited transportation of demolition materials tha! 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 considerab1e. 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 Prospect Village FEIR "nil "DonI. ,!õnn '10 04 01 Page 23d¥%1î FINDINGS OF FAcr AND STATBMENTOF OVERRIDJNGCONSIDERATIONS The Agency finds the Project would have a less than significant cumulative hazards impact based on the analysis contained in Section 3.4 of the Draft EIR and in light of the whole record. RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Regti,~l4'iUt_8EIR Page li FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTOFOVERRIDINGCONSIDF.RATIONS 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 UVEIWORK 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 "LiveIWork." Six of thc twelve live/work units are planned to accommodate 913 square feet of retail space for a total of 5,4 78 square feet of retail. The remaining six units are planned to include 431 squarc feet of either commercial or retail uses for a total of 2,586 square feet. Therefore, while the property will be rezoned "Planned Community" the Project would retain approximately 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 of the 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 pennittcd subject to the discrction 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 VUlage FEIR IOn" "'nM"lti?~ ~I? 01 01 Page 2!1êf1821!f FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 2. Finding The Agency 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 of the 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 Agency 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 EIR 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 A venue, at the northeast comer of Third A venue and Prospect A venue, and east of the Project site along Third A venue. During construction, it is anticipated that land uses in the vicinity Dfthe 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 restrict construction activity to the least noise sensitive daylight hours, Project construction noise impacts are considered less than significant impacts. 2 Findings The Agency finds the Project would have a less than significant short tenD construction noise impact based on the analysis contained in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR and in light of the whole record. RDA Resolution No. 04-01 ~¡iIþj¡OI8!IR Page 19 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IMPACT: PERIODIC INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS DURING OUTDOOR PATIO 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 currently 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 of the twelve (12) proposed live/works unit would have a small approximately 80 square foot outdoor deck overlooking either Prospect Avenue or new Prospect Lane (currently 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 corresponding noise level would be less than significant. 2. Finding The Agency 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 EIR and in light of the whole record. IMPACT: THE PROJECT WOUW GENERA TE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TRIPS THAT WOUW INCREASE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS. 1. Facts Currently, Prospect Avenue (between Main & First SI.) experiences a daily traffic volume of approximately 4,100 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 pennanent 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. Prospe<l Village FI!IR RnA R...oliition No n4-n1 Page 276?1Ifá!° FINDINGS DP PAC!' AND STATEMENT OP OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 2. Findings The Agency 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 of the EIR are far enough from the project site that cumulative construction noise levels would not be significant. In addition. construction acti vity 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 Agency finds the Project would have a Jess than significant cumulative noise impact based on the anaJysis 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 WOUW GENERATE 6(}O TRAFFIC TRIPS THAT WOUW BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS. 1. Facts According to the Draft EIR, which is based on the Prospect VilJage Traffic hnpact 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 Proj ect 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 Agency 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. RDA Resolution No. 04-01 ~ltiOig411F.1R Page 21 FlNDINOS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OPOVERRIDING 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 detennined that the City's off-street parking requirements had been satisfied. 2. Finding The Agecny 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 TTaffic Study, and in light of the whole record. VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Because the Project wHl cause unavoidable significant environmental effects, the Agency 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 Villagc 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-term 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 FElR RDA Resolution No 04-01 Page 29Bf81182 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDJNG 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 I11JIIket 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 pennanentjobs in the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area; To increase the property tax increment and sales tax revenues in the Project Area, which will be eanna,rked 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 of the 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 Projeçt 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 displace4 re¡idcntial 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 of the 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. RDA Resolution No. 04-01 ~CYilJta'8EIR Page 23 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATl!MBNT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Dcvelopment of a compact eight-block commcrcial-retail core at the heart of the Old Town commercial area would serve as the primary specialty retail arca. 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 RegionalfUrban Design Assistance Team (RIUDA T) through the American Institutc of Architects (AIA). 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 surrounding strip commercial centers located along Newport A venue. 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 A venue and other areas of the City. ALTERNATIVES 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 determination. I Among the factors that may be used to eliminate altemati ves from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (1) failure to meet most of the 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. Thc alternative site is a portion of a larger 4-acre subdivision. Over the past five (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 of the property owners to sell thc site, the Agency has determined 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 of the project is critical in light of the favorable financing and market conditions, which could worsen over I 14 Cal. Codc Regs §15126.6(c) Z Ibid. 3 Thcsc dcvclopers included: Warmington Homes (developer of the 38 single family homes at Ambrose Lane located across Sixth Street); the Olson Company (one 01 the nation's largest residential infill developers); ClM Group (a highly experienced retaillresidentiaJ mixed-use infill dcveloper); and Pacific Gulf Development (alarge-scaJe senior citizen and multifamily rental housing developer). RDA Resolution No 04-01 Page 31 cJIÐIRj!4 Prospect ViUage FEIR FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS time. Based on past experiences with the propcrty owner, pursuing this sitc 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 locaœdat 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 commercialJresidential project. In addition, this alternative site is a less attracti ve redevelopment option because the si te 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 UtI 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 s'tructures to another part of Old Town would not neccssarily substantialJy lessen or avoid the Project's significant impact on historic resources. The Historic Resources Technical Report in Appendix C of the EIR noted the historical significance of these structures at their existing location: "The UIT 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."" Therefore, relocating the structure would not reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable impact on historical resources. RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES AND REASONING FOR SELEcrlON OF ALTERNATIVES The EIS/EJR analyzed a reasonable: range of alternatives by identifying alternatives that could potentially attain the project objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the 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 . Historic Resources Technical Report at p. 11 RDA Resolution No. 04-01 IPB9tcßJ1iJ91¡o:I8!IR Page 25 PINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS a range of Project alternatives that focus on varying lcvels of rehabilitation and reuse of thc existing structures in accordance with the Secretary's StandLlrds for tM Treatment of Historic Propenies with Guidelinesfor Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995, Weeks and Grimmer ("Secretary's StarukLrds and Guidelines"). The Secretary's StarukLrds and (Juidelines providc. 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 of the 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 rehabilìtate 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 onE. Main 51., and ten (10) live/work units; 3. 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. 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. Prospect VillAge FEIR RnA R...oliition No n,Ln1 Page 3:fðf<4é FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FINDINGS The Agency finds that the "No Project" Alternative is infeasible within the meaning of PRC § 21O81(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 No Project Alternative would fail to meet the objective of providing ground floor specialty retailing depths of 45 feet consistent with culTent 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 Alternati ve 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 Alternati ve would fail to meet the objective of creating increased property tax increment in the Project Area to assist in funding economic development acti vities in the Old Town commercial area since no development would occur. 9. The No Project Alternative wou]d fail to meet the objective of creating employment associated with construction and new commercial activities since no development would occur. RDA Resolution No. 04-01 ~JJIi~IR Page 27 FINDINGS OPFACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 10. The No Project Alternativc would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment in the Old Town commercial area with thc 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 unceJtajnties in the Old Town commercial area caused by a delay in development of the sitc. The Agency finds that "Alternative 1 (Full Reuse Alternative)" is infeasible within the meaning of PRC § 21O81(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, or other considerations as follows: 1. Alternative 1 would fail to meet the objecti ve of providing for near tenD 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 I 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 1 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 culTent 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. Prospect Village FEIR RnA Roo"',,';"" M" nA n1 Page 3g'ðf~ FINDINGS OF FAcr AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 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. 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 independcnt economic feasibility study conducted by the fion Keyser Marston Associates Inc., October 28, 2003, this alternative would reflect Ii 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.5 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 of new construction. For ex:ample, under the full reuse scenario, the probable cost of rehabilitation of the buildings to a shell condition is approx:imate]y 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? 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 of the project for a prospective developer. According to the KMA Report, preserved retail space is projected to rent for $13 per square foot, as opposed to $15 per square foot for new space, whi]e preserved restaurant space is protected to rent for $15 per square foot versus $21 per square foot for new restaurant space. 8. Alternative I 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.lO 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. S Evaluation of CEQA Altematives- Proposed Prospect Vi/illge Project, Lames Rabe and Kevin Engstrom, Keyset Marston Associates Inc. October 28, 2003, p. 3-4 (uKMA Report") 6 Utt Juice Bui/ding Rehabilitation Estimates, Gordon Kovtum, KCM Group, Octobcr 10,2003; KMA Rcport, Altcmative 2Scenario,Table lA 7 KMA Rcport, Prospect ViIlagc Project Scenario. Table IA . KMA Report, p. 4 . KMA Report, p. 3-4 "KMA Report at p. 7 RDA Resolution No. 04-01 ~l!i'iDtg/lÖEJR Psg, 29 10. FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMEN'I' OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Altcrnative 1 would fail to meet the objective of stimulating private investment in the Old Town commercial area with thc least amount of public funding sinc~ it would reflect a necessary public subsidy of $1 ,245,000 over the proposed project, and thus, would contribute to general uncertainties regarding the feasibility of development within the Old Town commercial area. The Agency finds that "Alternative 2 (Partial Reuse Alternative)" is infeasible within the meaning of PRC § 21O81(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 the project site since no developers have indicated rehabilitation and reconfiguration of the eJ\isting 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 succcssfully 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.1I 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 rehabi1itate the existing buildings and able to secure the necessary private investment funding. 2. Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of intensifying and expanding commercial developmcnt 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 objecti ve 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. 11 KCM Report; KMA Report RnA R".nl"t;nn ~In nA 0' Page 378fY430 Prospect VUla¡c FEIR FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 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. 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 alternati ve would reflect a negative supponable 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" The negative supportable land value is based on the increased construction costs for the rehabilitation effort combined with the loss of two residential units. In addition, the KMA Report concludes that the preserved space is not as efficient as newly developed space. t3 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 projected 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 $2 I per square foot for new reitaurant 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.1S . 9. Alternative 2 would diminish the objective of creating employment associated with new commercial activities since this alternative would generate twenty-three (23) percent less pennanent 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 lcast 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 Utt 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 12 KMA Report, p. 5 13 KMA Report, p. 4 14 KMA Rcport, p. 3-4 "¡d. atp. 7 RDA Resoiution No. 04-01 ~i!lÑt3'E1R P:lge 31 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS dictated by what alterations and additions are possible under the Secretary of Interior Standards.16 Because this alternative entails demolition of the rcar portion one of the structures. the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Agency finds that "Alternative 3." is infeasible within the meaning ofPRC § 21O81(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, or other considerations as follows: 1. Like Alternatives I and 2, Alternative 3 would fail to meet the objective of providing for near teon implementation of development on the project site since no developers have indicated rehabilitation and reconfiguration of the existing buildings is feasible or practica1. 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.17 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 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 3 would add 9,746 square feet (65%) of retai1 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 nùnimum 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. I 8 I' Historic Resources Technical Report, Un Juice Redevelopment Project, Tim Gcrgory, July 14,2003, p. 13 17 KCM Report; KMA Report 18 KMA Report, p. 6 onll ~9i?I' 'ti~:;~113~ Proopect villa¡c FEIR FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATtONS In addition, the KMA Report concludes that the preserved space is not as efficient as ncwly developed space.19 The existing buildings are broken into smallcr 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 projected to rent for $13 per square foot, as opposed to $15 per square foot for new space, while preserved restaunmt space is pro!ected to rent for $15 per square foot versus $21 per square foot for new restaurant space. 0 6. Alternative 3 would diminish the objective of creating employment associated with new commercial activities since this alternative would generate sevcnteen (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 AJternative 3 would increase the level of rehabilitation and reuse, it would still cause a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic Utt 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.2I Because this alternative entails demolition of the rear portion one of the structures, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The Agency 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. 19 KMARcpor~ p.4 20 KMA Report, p. 3-4 21 Historic Resources Technical Report, UtI Juice Redevelopment Project, Tim Gergery, July 14. 2oo3. p. 13 RDA Resolution No 04-01 Flà:g;œe4O'i!JfIillSBIR Page J3 FINDINGS OFFACf AND STATEMI!NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 2. Alternative 4 would diminish the objective of creating a balanced andcomplcmentarymix 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 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. Alternati ve 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. AIternati ve 4 would fail to meet the objective of providing ground floor specialty retailing depths of 45 consistent with CUITent 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 thc 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 vaJue 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 vaJue).21 In addition, the KMA Report concludes that the preserved space is not as efficient as newly developed space.'" The existing buildings are broken into sroaJler 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 projected 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." 7. 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 proj ect is anticipated to generate: $85,300 annuaJly whereas Alternative 4 is anticipated to generate $37,200 annually, which is 56.4 percent less in revenues than the proposed project.2S 22 KMA RepOrt, p. 6-7 23 KMA Report, p. 4 "KMAReport, p. 3-4 25 KMA Report, p. 7 Prospect VilLage FEIR RnA Roo,,!, ,linn ~!" nA n1 Page 41 ~tf IX. FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 8. 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 contribute to general uncertainties regarding the feasibility of development within in the Old Town commercial area. The Agency finds that" Alternati ve 5 (Facade 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 5 would fail to meet the objective of providing for near tern 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 tenDS 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. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERA nONS RDA Resolution No 04-01 PYgl!Mti!lfil!!EIR Page 35 FINDINGS OPPACT AND STATBMENT OP 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. If thc Planning Commission, Tustin City Council. or Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency allows the occummce 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.) (b) (c) 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 oveJriding 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 Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency 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 (FEISÆIR) for the Prospect Village Project. In adopting Resolution No. 3910, the Agency acknowledges that it has weighed the benefits of the identified the Project against the adverse significant impacts that have not been avoided or substantially lessened to less than significant levels through mitigation. The Agency hereby determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved. The Agency 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 ofthe project. Prospect Village FEIR Rnll R".nl"tlnn Mn O,U\1 Page 43 ~¡P FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE IMPACTS Unavoidable or potentially unavoidable significant environmental effects of the project identified in the Final EIRÆIS 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. The project would be inconsistent with General Plan policies that promote preservation and rehabilitation of historic resources. . ADOPTION OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Agency specifically adopts this Statement of OveITiding Considerations and finds that: a) as part of the approval provisions, the Project has eliminated or substantial1y lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible; b) mitigation measures to mitigate the effects associated with the Project are within the jurisdiction of the Agency, 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 Agency finds that each of the ovetriding 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 ovetriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are supported by substantial evidence in the record. FINDINGS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The En vironmental Impact Report (UEIR") prepared for the PrOlipect Village project (Uthe Project") identified two closely related significant adverse unavoidable Project impacts associated with land use and cultural resources. The Project wiJ] cause: 1) a significant unavoidable adverse land use impact due to a conflict with a JimitednumberofGeneral Plan policies relating to the preservation of historical resources as a result of the proposed demolition of the Utt Juice Buildings, and 2) a significant unavoidable adverse cultural resources impact due to the pennanent loss of the historically significant Utt Juice Buildings. The Project, however, will create substantial benefits for the City of Tustin, the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area, and specifically the Old Town commercial area. The Agency has balanced the Project's benefits against the Project's significant unavoidable land use and cultural resources impacts. The Agency finds that the Project's benefits outweigh the Project's significant unavoidable impacts, and the impacts are therefore consid6red acceptable in light of the Project's benefits. The Agency finds that each of the following bencfits is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that WaITant 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 RnA R,,~nliitinn Nn n4-n1 ~J(i~!I!!B1R Page 37 FINDINGS OF FAC'!' AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Since 1998 when the Agency acquired thc 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 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 suITOunding build-out of this 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 in active and consistent pennanent 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 retltil 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 RegionalfUrban Design Assistance Team (RfUDA T) through the American Institute of Architects (AIA). As described in the R/UDAT study, the commercial-retail core needs to be filled with new restaurants, retail stores, and offices that wi1l introduce a mix of commercial activities which will be competitive with the surrounding strip commercial centers located along Newport Avenue. It is important to long-tenD economic viabiJity 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 A venue and other areas of the 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. ..n (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). Prospect Village FEIR RnA RF!~nllitinn Nn n4-n1 Page45~:¡ 1 FINDINGS OFFACf AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 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 OJd Town area both as individual residential projects and integrated above ground floorretail and office uses." (General Plan, Land Use Element, Policy 10.2). These new units wil1 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 TownIFirst 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 floor retail, 3,500 square foot restaurant (includes the outdoor dining area) and another 2,500 square feet of ground floor retail/office spaces accessible from pub1ic 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 thatcombines 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 PIoject wi1l 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 26 KMA Report, p.26 "Evaluation of CEQA Altemativcs - Prospect Village." James Rabe & Kevin Engstrom. Keyser Marston Associates. Inc., October 28. 2003, p. 7 RnA R'iilll' ,HM "'0;> 04 01 ~a!ft4'tiJIöf. Page 39 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS the teas; biHty study, propcrty 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 of blight in the Town Center Redevelopment Plan Area ("Area") The Project wiIJ assist in eliminating blight as identified under Sections 33031 and 33031 of 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 condi tions 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 requirc 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. . . . 27Id. PrOSpecl Village FEIR RnA R"~nllltinn Nn 04-01 Page47~ EXHIBIT C OF RESOLUTION NO. RDA 04-01 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 48 01 ¡;2.. Measure Cultural Resources 1: Prior to issuancc of a demolition pennit, 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 Amcrican Building SUI'Vcy (HABS), including photo-documentation and measurcd drawings of the East Main and Prospect Avcnuc elevations. These itcms, togcdocr with thc Historical Resource Technical Report, shall be added to the Tustin Area Historical Society Museum. Cultural R..-rces 2: If buried cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or human remains are inadvertently discovered during ground- mstmbing activities, work will stop in that area and within 100 feet ofthc fmd until a qualificd archaeologist can assess the significance of the find, and, if necessary, devclop appropriate treatment measures. Treatment measures typically include development of avoidance strategies, capping with fill material, or mitigation of impacts through data recovery pro~ms such as excavation or detailed doC\ JDentation. ;¡¡ ( ) Tb~ construction conÎractor and Icad C<ijljØ.ctor compliance inspector will verify @tg..ork is halted until appropriate treatment n'iè~res are implemented if cultural resources ,,:; ;giscovered during construction activities. ~nce from the City on measures to be if&>!imented before resuming construction activities in the area of the fmd will be obtained. Exhibit C of RDA Resolution No. 04-01 Mitigation Monitoring Program Timing and Implementation Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibilitv Mitigation Compliance Responsibility Prior to issuance of a demolition pcnnit City of Tustin Community Dcvelopmcnt Department During construction City of Tustin Community Development Department Hazards 1: ~'!II'licant shall removc the clarifier on site inc2tcjrdancc with applicable local, state and Prior to issuance of grading permits City of Tustin Community Development f~r!t/¡ regulations prior to obtaining a grading p~ Department -Q. "'c: "'0' Hazards 2: :J Any !!!'known contaminated soils that could be enco6òtcred on the projcct site during During construction City of Tustin Community Development demdRtion, site clcarancc, or construction activ~s shall be removed ftom the project site Department and disposed of off-sitc. 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. Haurtls3: If during any future demolition or rcmodeling activities additional suspect materials are During demolition or remodeling City ofTustìn Community Development observed, bulk samples shall be collected of Department these materials and analyzed for asbestos contcnl. All suspect materials at the Property are Presumed Asbestos-containing Materials (PACMs) until the asbestos content is confirmed or denied by analytical testing. Hazards 4: The applicant shall retain a licensed ahatement contractor to properly remove and dispose of Prior to ìssuancc ofa demolition City ofTustìn Community Development the damaged (peeling, flaking) lead-based permìt Department paint prior to obtaining a demolition pennit. Traffic 1: Thc dcveloper shall prcparc a construcrion Prior to issuance of a demolition permit City of Tustin Public Works Department staging and parking plan for review and approval by City of Tustin Public Works prior to issuance of demolition permìt. The develoner Exhibit C ofRDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page2 i 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 thc arca are minimized: 0 Construction aDd Employee Parking: As part of the ronstruction 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 aud Parking Measures: The contnlCtor may requcst and obtain a pennit for any tempocary 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. 0 Haul Truck Routes, Queue Areas, and Deliveries: The contractor would provide an estimate of truck volume and schedule. Schedule adjustments would be made to minimizc thc ;¡¡ volumc during peak traffic hours. ~ Areas would be designated by the ;¡¡ developer or contractor for staging of g¡ all trucks. All earth-moving and ê- rcady-mix trucks would be equipped ';J; g with two-way radios. The trucks ~:J would follow a City-approved route to 01 tf the project site, without unnecessary ; a waiting. ;;; ~ Houn of Excavation Hauling: N ~ Heavv truck ¡aulin!! associated with ExIllbit C ofRDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 3 excavation would be scheduled to minimize interference with daytime "u;c activity in the area. The hours for g 0 excavation hauling would be ( ) ~ dctcnnined in conjunction with thc RJ g¡ City as p.art of thc construction staging Q, Q. and parkmg plan. ",e:: '" g. Pedestrian Sarety Measures: The :J contractor would install a construction t§ fence around the perimeter, <, complying with City requirements 6 before cxcavation begins. A flagman ~ would bc available at all times and would be utilized whenever trucks cntering or leaving the project site may impede the flow of traffic. Parking 1: If thc City Council docs not approve the Off- Sitc Parking Agreement, the applicant must present an altemative shared use agreement to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of a demolition penni!. If thc City does not approve an alternative shared use aweemen!, the Project shall no~roceed. Exhibit C ofRDA Resolution No. 04-01 Page 4 Prior to issuance of a demolition pennit City of Tustin Community Development Department