Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutERRATA ITEM #4 DCCSP ERRATA ITEM #4 - DCCSP SUBMITTED AT APRIL 24, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT REFERENCE ERRATA SUMMARY Draft Environmental Impact Report [Provided • Mitigation measure CUL-1 updated as part of Exhibit B (Attachment 2/Exhibit 1) of resulting from response to a comment. the staff report] Change to be made to pages 1-11, 1- 12, and 5.3-12. (See Exhibit 1 for revised mitigation) Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and . Correct certain mitigation measures Statement of Overriding Considerations for (MM)for DEIR consistency FEIR [Provided as part of Exhibit B (Attachment Pages 13 and 15 — MM AQ-7 2113ehind Exhibit 1 (EIR)) of the staff report] Page 18 — MM AQ-9 (See Exhibit 2 for errata) Errata to Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting . Insert two mitigation measures that Program [Provided as part of Exhibit B were inadvertently left out (Attachment 2/Behind Following Findings and Page 4-10 — insert MM NOI-1 Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Page 4-12 — insert MM CUL-1 Overriding Considerations for FEIR) of the staff report] (See Exhibit 3 for errata noting insertions) Errata to Draft Downtown Commercial Core . Updates to certain Specific Plan Specific Plan [Provided as part of Exhibit B provisions to five specific pages (Ordinance No. 1497 (Attachment 1 of Page 38; Figure 2.8 Ordinance) of the staff report] Page 102; Word change Page 103; Figure added Page 119; Added text Page 133; Edit and removal of text (See Exhibit 4 for errata) Errata to DEIR Comments/Response to • Minor clarification revision to Comments Response to Comment Letter R1 from Collette Morse (See Exhibit 5 for errata) STAFF REPORT REFERENCE ERRATA SUMMARY Errata to Specific Plan Comments/Response to . Completion of the response to Letter 2 Comments from Wellington Plaza Association. The end of the response was inadvertently left out. (See Exhibit 6 for errata and additional communication) EXHIBIT '1 Draft Environmental Impact Report Errata Downtown Commercial Core Speck Plan 3.Revisions to the Draft EIR 3. Revisions to the Draft EIR This section contains revisions to the Draft EIR based upon: (1) clarifications required to prepare a response to a specific comment; and/or (2) typographical errors. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Draft EIR. Changes made to the Draft EIR are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 3.1 Revisions in Response to Written Comments and City Changes to Text The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Draft EIR and corrections identified by the City. Chapter 1.0, Executive Summary Table 1-2,Summary of Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance is revised as follows: Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the natural or existing grade, the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g., conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer is encouraged to conduct a field meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined. If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial/relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. If discovered materials are found not to be significant archaeological-resources_but may considered a Tribal Cultural Resource or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe,the archeologist shall contact representatives of Gabriele"no Band of Mission_Indians--Kizh Nation to assess the discovery and develop appropriate avoidance measures data recovery, reburial relocation or other appropriate mitigation. Section 5.3, Cultural Resources Page 5.3-12,Section 5.3.10,Mitigation Measures, is revised as follows: City of Tustin 3-1 Final EIR April 20 i 8 Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan 3.Revisions to the Draft E1R Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the natural or existing grade, the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g., conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer is encouraged to conduct a field meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the event that archaeological materials are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined. If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing interest following notification by the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial/relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2. If discovered materials are found not to be significant archaeological resources but may be considered a Tribal Cultural Resource or objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe the archeologist shall contact representatives of Gabriele"no Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation to assess the discovery and develop appropriate avoidance measures, data recovery, reburial/relocation. or other appropriate mitigation. City of Tustin 3-2 Final EIR April 2018 f EXHIBIT 2 Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Errata Revisions to the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings This following contains errata to the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings associated with the Draft EIR presented before the City of Tustin Planning Commission. The following specific changes are to significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level associated with Air Quality (mitigation measure AQ-7 on pages 13 and 15). The changes are identified here in meettext to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 1 . Revisions to Significant Effects that Cannot Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level 4.1 Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-7: Energy Usage Calculations. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development projects requiring wM design review, project applicants/developers shall submitI,p ans certifying energy usage colemlefiens to the City of Tusfin Building Diyisien showing that the proposed development is designed to achieve 5 percent efficiency beyond the 2016 California Building Code Title 24 requirements to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Division. Example of measures that reduce energy consumption include, but are not limited to, the following (it being understood that the items listed below are not all required and merely present examples; the list is not all-inclusive and other features that reduce energy consumption also are acceptable): • Increase in insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized; • Limit air leakage through the structure and/or within the heating and cooling distribution system; • Use of energy-efficient space heating and cooling equipment; • installation of electrical hook-ups at loading dock areas; -,. • Installation of dual-paned or other energy efficient windows; • Use of interior and exterior energyefficient lighting that exceeds the 2016 California Title 24 Energy Efficiency performance standards; • Installation of automatic devices to turn off lights where they are not needed; • Application of a paint and surface color palette that emphasizes light and off-white colors that reflect heat away from buildings; • Design of buildings with "cool roofs" using products certified by the Cool Roof Rating Council, and/or exposed roof surfaces using light and off-white colors; • Design of buildings to accommodate photo-voltaic solar electricity systems or the installatlon of photo-voltaic solar electricity systems; and • Installation 'of ENERGY STAR-qualified energy-efficient appliances, heating and cooling systemf, office equipment,and/or lighting products. The following specific changes are to effects determined to be mitigated to below a level of significance associated with Air Quality (mitigation measure AQ-9 on page 18). The changes are identified here in stdkeou text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. 5.1 Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Localized Emissions. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for new development projects; that are one acre or larger, , the applicant develo er shall provide modeling of the regional and the localized emissions (NOx, CO, PMiu, and PMz.$) associated with the maximum daily grading activities for the proposed development. If the modeling shows that emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions, the maximum daily grading activities of the proposed development shall be limited to the extent that could occur without resulting in emissions in excess of SCAQMD's significance thresholds for those emissions. EXHIBIT 3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Errata Revisions to Chapter A. Mitigation Monitoring and -Reporting Program The following contains errata to the Mitigation Moniforin'g and Reporting Program of the Draft EIR presented before the City_of Tustin Planning Commission. Changes made are relative to two mitigation measures that were inadvertently not included. They are identified here in underlined text to signify additions from what was previously provided. Responsible for Ensuring Compliance/ Date Completed and Standard Condition/Plan,Program,Policy/Mitigation,Measure Timing Verification initials NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Prior to approval of ademolition_ eEa rmit. Prior to Grading Permit City of Tustin Building grading p1ans, and/or issuance of building permits for construction activities Division within 25 feet of existing residential structures or occupied noise sensitive uses that require the use of large bulldozers, large loaded trucks. jackhammers, pile drivers, and/or caisson drills, the City of Tustin Building Division shall ensure that construction plans and specifications state that the use of such vibratory equipment _shall be prohibited within 25 feet of existing residential structures or occupied noise sensitive uses. Instead, small rubber-tired bulldozers shall be used within this area during demolition an /or grading�onerations to reduce vibration effects. If the use of large bulldozers. large loaded trucks. k m r i!e dei er and./or rills is necessary within 25 feet-aVexisting re5idential structures or occu led Oise sensitive uses. a site-specific analXsis shgll be prepared and submitted to the City of Tustin demonstrofing that gonstruction activity would not result in vibration at sensitive recentors that is more than thp Caltrans thresholds for anno n 4 in/sec-PPV at r ceiv r to tion n m r the Transportation and Construction Vibration Quidonce Monual, September 2013,Tables 1 i in t TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Listed previously under Cultural Resourced Prior to Grading Permit City of Tustin Pl nnin W Division EXHIBIT 4 Draft Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan Errata DCCSP ERRATA LIST DCCSP Page Sentence or Figure Change p. 38 Figure 2.8, Second and Third Street Planned Traffic Move Prospect Avenue Movements label to correct location and add Third Street and C Street labels p. 102 Residential proposals deemed to substantially comply with Per underline and the provisions contained within.this document by'the strikethroug_h text shown approval authority(specified in Chapter 6, Administration and Implementation Plan)wit! may be allocated a portion of the available units remaining within the finite residential housing,allocation bank established by the DCCSP. p. 103 As previously described in Chapter 2, Development Plan, Add Land-Use the DCCSP specifies six primary land use designations: Designations map Downtown Mixed Use (DM), Old Town (OT), Downtown graphic to the page for Commercial (DC), Civic/institutional (CI), Multi-Family(MF), ease of reference and Mobile Home (MH) , Land Use Designations) P. 119 Applications for Subdivisions shall be processed in Per underline text shown accordance with Section 6.1.4, Approval Authority, of this Specific Plan and Article 9, Chapter 3, Subdivision Code, of the TCC. Approval of a Development Agreement shall be required for approval of a Subdivision Map. Applications for Development Agreements shall be processed in accordance with Section 6.1.4, Approval Authority, of this Specific Plan and Article 9, Chapter 6, "- = Development Agreements, of the TCC. Approval of a - - - Development Agreement shall be required for approval of a Subdivision Map. p. 133 • General Plan Land Use Element Amendment: to Close quotation mark update the Land Use Map to show the boundaries of the DCCSP and re-designate land uses within the Specific Plan area to "DCCSP--Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan._' • General Plan Circulation Element Amendment: to be Per strikethrough text consistent with the circulation changes resulting from shown conceptual improvements to Main Street, First Street, Second Street and Third Street and-seneel b!GyG!e imprevementc tGyarie s streets EXHIBIT 5 DEIR Comments/Response to Comments Errata Revisions to Chapter 2. Responses to Comments The following contains errata to the Responses to Comments of the Draft EIR presented before the City of Tustin Planning Commission. Changes made to the specific response (Letter RI -- Collette Morse; Response R1-6 on page 2-47) are identified here in strikeout text to indicate deletions and in underlined text to signify additions. Letter R1 --Collette Morse Response R11-6: Main Street is currently built as a two-lane street for all but a short segment near Newport Avenue where it expands to four-lanes. The proposed change of Main Street to a two-lane Divided Collector is a change to the roadway's Plan designation only and does not reduce the current roadway capacity such that cut-through traffic onto other neighborhood streets would be expected to result. First Street is currently constructed as a four-lane street, but as shown in Draft EIR Table 4.9.1, Existing Conditions Intersection LOS Summary, the roadway currently operates at LOS A during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which indicates there is currently an excess of capacity along First Street. With the roadway's change to a two-lane Divided Collector, the Draft EIR Table 4.9-3, Existing plus Project Intersection Level of Service, shows that First Street would operate at LOS A and B during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which indicates that sufficient capacity will be available and that cut-through traffic onto other neighborhood streets would not be expected. Also, the Draft FIR Table 4.9-5, Cumulative 2035 plus Project Intersection Level of Service, shows that First Street would operate at LOS A, B and C during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with the exception of the Prospect Avenue intersection, which is forecast to operate at LOS D during the p.m. peals hour under long-range 2035 conditions. In each case, the analysis indicates that sufficient capacity will be available and that cut-through traffic onto other neighborhood streets would not be expected. The proposed Specific Plan's traffic study, provided as Appendix E of the Draft EIR, provides a comprehensive analysis of the new traffic patterns that would result from the proposed changes to the General Pian Circulation Element. Of note, the redesignations to First Street and MainStreet are appreyed OCTA approved Master Plan of Arterial'Highways designations and are in line with'the same designations within the City of Santa Ana.The Downtown Plan does not provide any details on how the street will be redesigned; only conceptual improvements. That will be up to the Public Works Department when it comes time to move forward with a design for the improvements. EXHIBIT 6 Specific Plan Comments/Response to Comments Errata Specific Plan Comments/Responses to Comments Errata LTR. Date Commenter Comment Response/Status Received 2 3-14-18 Wellington Letter conveying formal request The request by the parties Plaza to remove Wellington Plaza representing Wellington Plaza would Association Condominium Property(40 office create spot zoning which violates State regarding condominium owners) located at law. This property is currently located property 500 E. First Street, Tustin, CA in the First Street Specific Plan and located at 500 (NW corner First & Centennial) office uses are allowed in that Specific E. First Street from the proposed Downtown Plan. Likewise, the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan Commercial Core Specific Plan allows (Specific Plan) and allow the office use. As a long term plan for the property to revert to its original Downtown Commercial Core, the zoning of Office Only. Downtown Commercial Core Specific Pian (DCCSP) is appropriate for the *See last sentence of response Wellington Plaza property and other for completion (inadvertently left properties in the DCCSP boundary out). because the DCCSP is intended to guide future development plans per the Specific Plan's vision and consider compatibility of future projects with adjacent uses.