Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 PC REPORT RHASP CONTINUED AGENDA REPORT ITEM #2 MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2017- 00001 , ZONE CHANGE 2017-00001 AND FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 4367, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2017041031, making required environmental findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4368, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2017-00001 for changes to the text and Land Use Map to ensure consistency with the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13); and 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4369, recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1498 approving Zone Change 2017-00001 to amend the City of Tustin Zoning Map changing the Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), and Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) zoning designations to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13). BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Planning Commission Public Hearing —August 14, 2018 On August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on the adoption of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and associated General Pian Amendment, Zone Change and Program Environmental Impact Report to establish new land use regulations and design criteria for development within a 36-acre area along Red Hill Avenue (Attachment B — PC report dated August 14, 2018). Red Hili Avenue Specific Plan September 25, 2018 Page 2 At the meeting, eighteen (18) public speakers provided comments regarding the project. The speakers included residents, interested parties, and representatives from all major shopping centers including the Red Hill Village, the Stater Bros. shopping center and Red Hill Plaza. Generally, the individuals spoke in opposition to the Specific Plan and expressed concern about incremental changes having to comply with the Specific Plan requirements. Three (3) individuals spoke in support of the project. Supporters included two (2) representatives of the applicant for the pending mixed used project at 13751 & 13841 Red Hill Avenue and a Tustin Legacy resident who was in favor of mixed use and expressed excitement about what it could bring to the Red Hill Avenue area. The concerns expressed by residents in opposition at the hearing included: • Parking (parking problems already exist — the project will exacerbate the parking problem); • Traffic (additional units & new traffic light will further bottleneck Red Hill Avenue); • Density (too many units are proposed); • The numbers of stories/overall height (four to five stories is too high); • Air pollution — negative impacts; • Water usage — negative impacts; • Neighborhood character; and • School impacts After receiving the public comments, the Commission continued the public hearing to their meeting of September 25, 2018, so that staff could address the concerns expressed by the public as well as questions from the Commission. Specific questionslrequests from the Commission included the following: 1. Building Height/Density/Distribution of Units: What does a five (5) story structure look like adjacent to existing residential? Provide a cross-section that shows a proposed 5-story building next to existing residential. How will the 540 units be distributed within the Specific Plan area? Are they concentrated in one area or distributed throughout? The Plan indicates 395 units north of the 1-5 and 105 units south of the 1-5, but how was it analyzed? Response: In evaluating the overall density of the project area, staff looked at three (3) different land use scenarios for the project area; high, medium and low intensity. The 500 additional units (395 units north of 1-5 and 105 units south of I- 5) and 325,000 square feet of additional square footage within the Specific Plan area represents the medium intensity scenario and was the scenario that was felt to be most appropriate for the area. This scenario also provided thresholds for analysis in the Program EIR. The development buildout and distribution of unit assumptions used in developing the different scenarios are estimates based on several factors in addition to a balance of subjective and objective reasoning that. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan September 25, 2018 Page 3 resulted in the conclusion on threshold assumptions. This reasoning included factors such as: • The identification of parcels with likely potential for revitalization; • Land area for a single residential unit based on unit size, open space per unit, parking land area and a maximum height of 3 stories; • Land area for commercial uses with an assumed parking ratio, open space percentage and height; + Amount of vacant land and probability of development; • Amount of existing commercial development that currently exists in the area and absorption of new development over time; • Consideration of the Kosmont Retail Study, a study prepared to evaluate growth potential in the Specific Plan area; and • Height limitations in the plan and parcels that will most likely be commercial and single-story with surface parking. Attached are several images of three (3)to five (5) story structures, some of which are adjacent to one (1) and two (2) story residential and commercial buildings (Attachment A). Although this type of development pattern would be allowed by the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, it is unknown at this time where specific development may occur. The maximum allowable building height for all mixed use projects within the Specific Plan area is 4 stories in height; up to 5 stories may be allowed subject to specific criteria and additional setbacks(50-58 feet approximately). The maximum allowable building height for commercial projects is 50 feet. The existing Red Hill Avenue corridor is predominately older commercial uses with antiquated site planning and a variety of building heights, which include combination of one, two and three story buildings. Without the adoption of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian, commercial properties could still develop or redevelop with new buildings and/or structures within the 35-50-foot height limitation depending on the existing zoning designation. While future buildings through the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would be limited to 4-5 stories in height, it is not dissimilar to the City's existing maximum allowable building height in the C-2 zone of 50 feet. 2. Parking: Is enough parking being required for mixed use in the Specific Plan and how will it work? Show areas of demand and capacity (and time of use) through an exhibit. Response: The parking requirement of 2.25 spaces per residential unit in the RHASP is consistent with other Specific Plans within the City (i.e. Tustin Legacy Specific Plan and Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan). For non-residential Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian September 25, 2018 Page 4 or commercial uses, the parking ratios provided in the TCC would prevail based on each individual use. For future development projects, an alternative or shared parking arrangement is also allowed and encouraged in the Specific Plan for a mixed-use development or development that utilizes non-traditional hours. A parking study is required for all non-residential uses and mixed-use developments requesting shared parking, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Additionaliy, the RHASP requires the developer/applicant to develop and enforce a parking management plan to ensure that the numberof spaces provided will satisfy parking demand. Measures to ensure that adequate parking will be provided include: • Valet Parking • Other off-site parking • Restrictions on hours or operation ■ Easement or other joint-use parking agreement to share parking 3. Traffic: Describe existing traffic along Red Hill Avenue and what is the percentage increase with the implementation of the Plan. Provide an exhibit to show current traffic volumes (average daily traffic) on streets and what is forecasted for the future, so the overall increase is understood. Response: The Final Program EIR for the Specific Plan analyzed nine (9) intersections within the Specific Plan area including the northbound and southbound ramps of the I-5 at Red Hill Avenue. All of the intersections studied would continue to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) during both peak hours, with the exception of the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the I-5 southbound ramps. The addition of Project traffic from the Specific Plan would cause this intersection to worsen during the evening peak hour based on the City's ICU methodology. The Project's impact using the ICU methodology would be considered a significant impact. As a result, Mitigation Measure 4.13-1 is proposed to address this intersection and is included in the Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Plan of the Final Program EIR. Please refer to Attachment C.4. for additional text and explanation. As indicated in the Traffic Impact Study, there will be increases in traffic due to additional development in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. The 500 additional residential units would result in an average increase of approximately 3% to the average daily traffic volume of each segment of Red Hill Avenue in the Project area (See Attachment I). Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan September 25, 2018 Page 5 4. Existing Shopping Centers: How is the transition for shopping centers from existing uses to mixed use being defined in the Specific Pian so there is not an adverse financial impact as expressed by some of the large land owners? Response: Initially, the Specific Plan would have required improvements to property upon change in tenancy when more than a 50% modification to a tenant space was being proposed. The City has proposed revised text to the Specific Plan contained within an Errata List (see Attachment F). The revised text states that conformance with the regulations and design criteria outlined in the Specific Plan will be required when land uses intensify and/or occupancies change, additional square footage is added or when new development is proposed. This is consistent with the City's practice and policies related to legal nonconforming structure and uses. City Staff has also met with the respective shopping center owners to discuss the Plan and contemplated redevelopment within the area. In order for the goals and objectives of the Plan to be met changes to the existing shopping centers will need to ultimately take place. 5. Cal-Trans 1-5 Widening: Provide more details about the Cal-Trans 1-5 widening at Red Hill Avenue (if the relocation of the existing retaining wall will take away parking) and explain what Cal-Trans is doing to help the City at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and the 1-5 interchange. Response: The 1-5 widening project is a collaboration between the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to relieve congestion by increasing capacity and improving traffic operations on both sides of the segment of 1-5 between SR-55 and 1-405. The City of Tustin, as a stakeholder, has taken part in the process at monthly Project Development Team meetings since the environmental phase of the project study began in 2014. The alternatives include a No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) and one Build Alternative(Alternative 2)which proposes to add one general purpose lane and improve deficiencies in each direction. Alternative 2 has two design variations (2A and 2B) related to the use of Caltrans design standards. Alternative 2A results in the most significant impacts, environmental and monetary, including moving the retaining walls that may affect the street width of Nissan Road between Red Hill Avenue and Browning Avenue. Alternative 2A has an estimated price tag of $960 million versus an estimated cost of $480 million for 2B. Alternative 2B is the same as Alternative 2A except it includes Caltrans non-standard reduced lane and shoulder widths in certain areas (this alternative does not require the relocation of the existing wall). Alternatives 2A and 2B are the same as far as traffic volume and traffic operations. The 1-5 widening project is currently in the environmental review process funded by OC Go (formerly Measure M), a ballot measure approved in 2006 by voters with the promise of bringing relief to freeway mainline congestion.The environmental impacts of the project alternatives were recently presented at public hearings in May 2018. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan September 25, 2018 Page 6 Ramp intersections would be improved only if significantly impacted by the project, and according to the environmental study, the project does not significantly impact the ramp intersections or adjacent intersections in the City of Tustin including Red Hill Avenue. Therefore, the 1-5 widening project is not required to improve the 1-5 on- and off-ramp intersections on Red Hill Avenue. At this time, the exact date for project construction is unknown since there is currently no construction funding, but for analysis purposes it is assumed that the opening year is 2030. 6. Summary of Public Comments: Provide a summary of comments from social media and group comments into major categories and tabulate the number of comments in each category. Quantify the data on a matrix. Response: A matrix is provided for the Commission that categorizes and tabulates the comments received through social media as of September 18, 2018 (Attachment H). The most comments posted were related to traffic, parking and density. Additional Public Comments/Concerns (Attachment G): In addition to the Planning Commission comments, members of the public expressed the following concerns during and after the public hearing: 7. School Impacts: With the 500 additional residential units in the Project area there will be additional children living in the area; how will that affect the existing schools within Tustin? Response: As stated in the Program EIR, if full build-out occurs there are approximately 146 students that would be introduced into the attendance area of the Tustin Unified School District with the 500 additional residential units in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area. TUSD has indicated that there is adequate capacity to serve these students. Through the issuance of building permits, future development projects within the Plan area will be required to pay developer fees to the school district and payment of the adopted fee would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. 8. Water Infrastructure: How will the 500 additional new units impact the existing water system within Tustin? Response: The Program EIR analyzed the existing water supply, sources and ultimate build-out within the City and the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The anticipated growth within the RHASP area falls within the assumptions made for growth in the City through 2040 and sufficient water supply exists to serve the proposed uses and additional 500 units identified in the Specific Plan. In addition, future development within the Specific Plan area would need to Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian September 25, 2018 Page 7 comply with the Green Building Code which includes performance standards for plumbing fixtures, construction waste management plans, and reduction in construction waste. Future development would also be required to comply with the City's Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance for new exterior landscaping or rehabilitation of existing landscaped areas. 9. Affordable Housing: Concerns of lack of affordable housing and the provision of affordable units within the Specific Plan. Response: The City has recently adopted a Workforce Housing Ordinance that will require future developers within the Project area to provide affordable housing units to address the need for a variety of housing types and diverse socioeconomic needs of all community residents. This Ordinance would apply in conjunction with the Residential Reservation Allocation (RAR) process, which is included in both the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan and the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan areas. Unless specifically exempted, all residential projects are required to provide workforce housing units on the same site as the residential project. Depending upon the level of affordability, the project will be required to set aside between 5-15% of the units for affordable housing. 10.Parkland Fees: A request has been provided to consider a required parkland in- lieu fee of $8,000 per unit. Response: The City has clarified the method of calculation for the Parkland fee that is to be paid in-lieu of actual parkland dedication. This method is consistent with the City's parkland dedication and in-lieu fee provision and is based upon 2.24 average persons per dwelling unit, a $2,500,000 land value and a dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons. 11.Open Space: — Concern that there won't be any new parks in an already open space deficient area. Response: The Final Program EIR describes and analyzes the availability of and anticipated demand on parks and recreation opportunities proximate to the Specific Plan. There are two (2) existing parks adjacent to the Specific Plan area; Pine Tree Park located at the corner of Red Hill Avenue and Bryan Avenue and Frontier Park located at the corner of Mitchell Avenue and Utt Drive, just west of Red Hill Avenue, The City's General Plan identifies policies in the Open Space/Conservation/Recreation Element and establishes a parkland standard of 3 acres of usable parkland per 1 ,000 residents. Based on the ratio of 3 acres per 1,000 residents, all residential units as part of a new mixed use project within the Specific Plan area will be required to either dedicate the required acreage or pay a parkland dedication fee, if no land is provided. Please refer to Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 contained within Attachment C.4. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan September 25, 2018 Page 8 12.Sidewalks: Sidewalks need to be wide enough for multiple people to walk side by side, wheelchair use and mandate bike lanes. Response: A 4-foot minimum landscaped parkway (adjacent to the existing curb line) with a 4-foot minimum sidewalk are requirements within the Specific Plan. Sidewalks and landscaped parkways can both be greater than 4-feet, if desired for a particular project. Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan requires ample width and design for ADA access along sidewalks and pathways. A Class II on-street bikeway is planned on both sides of Red Hill Avenue within the Plan area. This bikeway will connect with the existing bikeway segment on both sides of Red Hill Avenue between EI Camino Real and Nisson Road. 13.Plant Palette: Do not use Magnolia or Carrotwood trees since they consume too much water and have surface roots that heave sidewalks. Please consider Chinese Pistache as a better option. Response: The proposed plant palette within the Specific Plan includes a total of six (6)types of parkway trees which includes the Brisbane Box, Japanese Zelcova, After Dark Peppermint Willow, Australian Willow, Crape Myrtle and Fruitless Olive, The Chinese Pistache, Native California Sycamore and Honeylocust are trees proposed for the landscape medians. 14.Airborne Pollutants: Concerns about air pollutants that may affect students who, walk to and attend the various schools adjacent to the Plan area. Response: Airborne pollution is a regional concern within the Southern California region. The Final Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan included an analysis of air quality and related pollutants through the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Please refer to Attachment C.5. for a detailed discussion on this topic and Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding this topic. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan September 25, 2018 Page 9 CONCLUSION Based upon the additional information and/or clarifications included in this report and for the reasons described in Attachment E of Resolution No. 4367 which contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the benefits of the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and consequently, the adverse environmental effects are considered "acceptable" in accordance with Section 15093 (c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council find the Final El adequate, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve the project. Erica H. Denko AICP Elizabeth A. Binsack Senior Planner Director of Community Development Attachments: A. Photo Exhibit: Mixed Use Project Examples B. PC Report dated 8114/18 and attachments thereto C. Resolution No. 4367: Final Program EIR 1. Draft Program EIR (Volume 1) 2. Draft Program EIR (Volume 2 —Technical Studies) 3. Response to Comments 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Resolution No. 4368: GPA 2017-01 1. Exhibit A — General Plan Consistency Analysis/Findings 2. Exhibit B — General Plan Text Amendment 3. Existing and Proposed General Plan Maps E. Resolution No. 4369: ZC 2017-001 1. Ordinance No. 1498 -- Final Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 2. Zoning Map Update F. Errata List G. Public Comments H. Social Media Comments Matrix I. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Exhibit Attachment A Address: S Brea Blvd, Brea CA Details: 3 story mixed use development with ground floor office/retail and two levels of residential above MOL IMFr uq yy �4 h i 9r� iw Street view of 3 story mixed use21 ■i r r AN L 4 r a yy . Street view of 3 y� All, story mixed use Ka r� ka i 'r A r "a. Address: 199 S. Brea Blvd., Brea CA Details: 3 story mixed use development with ground floor commercial and two levels of residential above NEr ,. ,. r - . Y Address: Prospect Avenue & Main Street,Tustin, CA Details:3 story mixed use development with ground floor commercial and two levels of residential above z r I 77 AN w •� 1 r w. a " + s m yy�l r+ r y _ _ Y _t r jM ;, F�ilrrerx5 f,.gOrf:tRa v .�,•,.- x. p.saecrve.f•va•2m° "b•` ,��„ m..� ��7 nnrrrr� a VIA rNil ii - sr 4raw•�201■ "k S j t _ /w ■ vias, ►� w _ �r + r + r• - 1 1 i + + + r -• r ■■ ■ t ■■ • • ■ • • �µ w w dd x * ^X_.`� MND"`. `{ ". ' '�.....��`r.._. - -• ,� r ..:: .._,yam.•". ,y r , S A ry Address: Elan project on corner of Beach Boulevard & Ellis Avenue, Huntington Beach, CA Details: 3-4 story mixed use development with ground floor commercial with three or four levels above. Three (3) stories of residential are shown closer to Beach Boulevard with four(4)stories of residential stepped back. Note existing commercial development adjacent to new project. i 4 4 I ! � ry e r RIA r M i �I e mry mm p", rd Kimley)))Horn Page 2 ADJACENT EXAMPLE (SHARED ' 7717 -1 h it PL if A r _•._ m. .-... xx� Q9µ .,.._. , y t - _ 999 E Santa Ana Blvd, Santa Ana kimfey-hom.cam t�Fuil Address» r<CNfice_r� w i A , 1 + •��. moi...: t. h d�'•`C,1 4{9� ,�M� J� ���� P� f.F.� JL • y. ' e. • ; kimley-horn.com ((Fu41_Address)r s(Offce_r� vF>ai*dxv � V n Y l ..... s UP Kula v LC M. � * G P w 1 _ r y. s lr e • kimley-hom.com ((Full—Address)) oOffce_)s Kimley)))Horn - i ADJACENT ' CONDITION) 1110 t 1 ' +� y ' ' �`9 ��•4Y y��t Y y , J ' s � i t 1 � �wj'• � � .......- a ., w Town and Country Rd, Orange kimley-ham.com crFull Addres��� «C7ffice_a Attachment B ' PC REPORT ATTACHMENTS THERETO r AGENDA REPORT ITEM 95 MEETING DATE: AUGUST 14, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF ASSOCIATED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2017-00001, ZONE CHANGE 2017-00001 AND FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROJECT APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 LOCATION: 36 ACRES ALONG A PORTION OF RED HILL AVENUE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY BRYAN AVENUE TO THE NORTH AND WALNUT AVENUE TO THE SOUTH BISECTED BY INTERSTATE 5 (1-5) GENERAL PLAN: MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND GENERAL OFFICE DESIGNATIONS ZONING: RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1), CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2), COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) AND PROFESSIONAL (PR) ENVIRONMENTAL: A FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FPEIR SCH 2017041031) AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 7 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). REQUEST: ZONE CHANGE 2017-00001 TO ESTABLISH NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) THAT WOULD ALLOW UP TO 500 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 325,000 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND INTRODUCE NEW INTEGRATED MIXED-USE LAND USES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, AND AMEND THE CITY OF TUSTIN ZONING MAP AND CHANGE THE EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATION FROM RETAIL COMMERCIAL (C-1), Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 2 CENTRAL COMMERCIAL (C-2), COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) AND PROFESSIONAL (PR) TO SP-13. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) 2017-00001 WOULD AMEND THE CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AND INCLUDE MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1 . Adopt Resolution No. 4367, recommending that the City Council certify the Final Program Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2017041031, making required environmental findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 2. Adopt Resolution No. 4368, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2017-00001 for changes to the text and Land Use Map to ensure consistency with the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP- 13); 3. Adopt Resolution No. 4369, recommending that the City Council approve Zone Change 2017-00001 to amend the City of Tustin Zoning Map changing the Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), and Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) zoning designations to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP- 13); and adopt Ordinance 1498 approving the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. APPROVAL AUTHORITY Government Code Section 65354 requires the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption/amendment of a general plan and Section 65453 requires a specific plan to be prepared, adopted and amended in the same manner as the general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. California Government Code Sections 65353 through 65355 require: • The Planning Commission hold at least one (1) public hearing before approving a recommendation on the amendment to the General Plan and adoption of a specific plan. • The Planning Commission make a written recommendation on the amendment to the General Plan and adoption of a specific plan. A recommendation for approval shall be made by affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Commission. The Planning Commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body (the City Council). Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 3 • The legislative body (the City Council) holds at least one (1) public hearing prior to amending a General Plan and adoption of a specific plan. OVERVIEW This report is comprised of five (5) parts to assist the reader in referencing the details of the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project, as follows: 1. BACKGROUND 2. SPECIFIC PLAN ORGANIZATION & LAYOUT 3. SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER SUMMARIES 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 5. CONCLUSION BACKGROUND In 2014 and 2015, the City received inquiries and requests to increase density greater than the General Plan allows (25 dwelling units per acre) within the Red Hill Avenue corridor. At the time, the City Council conducted a study workshop and determined that a comprehensive approach and rethinking of the area should be done instead of a piecemeal approach. As a result, the City of Tustin City Council initiated the preparation of a specific plan for a portion of the Red Hill Avenue corridor just north and south of the 1-5 freeway in February 2016 with the goal of promoting revitalization within the existing commercial district. A specific plan is a document designed to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. These plans contain detailed development standards, distribution of land uses, infrastructure requirements, and implementation measures for the development of a specific geographic area. A key component of the planning effort for the Red Hill Avenue area was the public outreach that the City conducted to ensure that the final plan embodies the goals and desires of the community. This outreach effort, which is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the Specific Plan, included a total of three (3) public workshops that took place during the planning process, in which approximately 90 members of the community participated, including property and business owners, community leaders and members of the public. The "vision" created from this input was refined by Kimley-Horn & Associates and was used as the basis for preparation of the specific plan. The proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) area includes approximately 36 acres of land adjacent to Red Hill Avenue. In general, the project site extends one (1) parcel east and west of the Red Hill Avenue right-of-way. Between San Juan Street and Bryan Avenue, the Specific Plan area does not extend beyond the existing right-of-way. Between Mitchell Avenue and Walnut Avenue, the boundary is generally at the right-of- way for Red Hill Avenue as shown on the location map (Attachment 1 and Figure 1). The Tustin General Plan currently provides the land use designation and the Tustin City Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 4 Code (TCC) sets forth the development standards and regulations for the project area. The existing land uses include a mixture of low intensity commercial, retail, office and non-conforming residential which includes approximately 296,446 square feet of existing non-residential uses (primarily commercial) and 21 dwelling units. If adopted, RHASP and General Plan Amendment will guide development within the project area. While it is likely that existing uses and buildings may remain "as is" for extended periods of time, the standards and regulations contained within the RHASP may assist in revitalization of the area and encourage the creation of a unique mixed- use district. L 1 it rr I7 ,. I 11i�j`j-; �. � _ i i ® a.oiect 6aundmv 77�=r ti — nzrr x — `-r ITT- _70L ana Ao I ]� a -,�, � r I Sant ������1����j IlYJJ1JL_LL� _L- I I�IIIItf�I riTiTlro. h T _71 � LSI ; ON rr - �= li , un� Tll J— a 290 wo �Fcee Figure 1: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project Area General Plan Amendment The RHASP requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2017-01) to update the General Plan Land Use Map to illustrate the boundaries and location of the Specific Plan, and an update to the General Plan Land Use Element and other related conforming amendments to General Plan exhibits to ensure that the Specific Plan and the General Pian, as amended, are internally consistent. The General Plan Amendment will Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 5 facilitate SP-13. Attachment 4 — Exhibit B provides the revised pages to the Tustin General Plan. General Plan Consistency The analysis of the Specific Plan's consistency with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan has been prepared indicating that the RHASP would be consistent with the Tustin General Plan, as amended. The RHASP utilizes average density and based on total acreage and the total number of units within the area, it complies with the General Plan. Utilizing this methodology, the RHASP allows approximately ten (10) du/acre which complies with the maximum allowable density of 25 du/acre as stipulated in the City's General Plan. The General Plan Consistency analysis is included within Attachment 4 - Exhibit A and within Table 4.8-1 of the Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). Zone Change/Specific Plan The existing zoning designations within the project boundary will change with the Specific Plan, necessitating a zone change. Existing zoning classifications of Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) within the project area would be changed to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13). Attachment 5 contains the required findings for the Zone Change. The RHASP is the district regulations which provides specific standards and design criteria to guide future development within the area. If adopted, it would replace the City's existing Zoning requirements and regulations for the area. The RHASP would allow mixed-use development including: • 325,000 square feet of additional commercial development; • 500 new dwelling units contained within 4-5 story buildings; • Shared/reduced parking standards; and • Streetscape improvements within the public right-of-way. Specific_Plan Organiza_f on & Layout The proposed RHASP is organized into six (6) chapters: o Chapter 1: Executive Summary/Introduction. Provides the purpose and intent of the document along with background information and history of the area. This section also includes information regarding existing conditions within the Specific Plan area, vision summary and goals, specific plan organization, user's guide and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 6 o Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and. Objectives. Provides the policy foundation for the Specific Plan including the community vision, policy framework, and goals and objectives. a Chapter 3: Development Plan. Provides specific land use, circulation, urban design, and infrastructure plans. o Chapter 4: Land Use and Development Standards. Identifies the allowed land uses and the development standards for parcels within the Specific Plan area. o Chapter 5: Design Criteria. Provides design regulations and guidance for all private properties in the Specific Plan area, including criteria for site planning, building design, and signage. o Chapter 6: Implementation and Administration. Discusses the administrative process and procedure required for review and permitting of land use and development activity within the Specific Plan area as well as development incentives and finding mechanisms. Specific Plan Chapter Summaries.- The ummaries:The following discussion summarizes each chapter of the proposed Specific Plan in greater detail and highlights some of the unique aspects and standards within the Plan. Chapter 1: Executive Summary/Introduction Red Hill Avenue is a major arterial roadway consisting of low-intensity commercial, retail and office uses within traditional shopping centers in an auto-oriented setting. The area lacks a consistent theme and character. The area's commercial corridor, directly north and south of the 1-5, is not meeting its full potential to serve the community and as a result, there is a desire to improve it while balancing the needs of current and future residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles and public transit. The Specific Plan encourages a greater mix of uses within the area, including residential which will facilitate a more walkable, urban environment. Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Objectives The vision for the Red Hill Avenue area includes the introduction of residential units and an increase in pedestrian-oriented retail and commercial uses that will help create a more dynamic, eclectic and attractive place to visit, shop and live for both residents and visitors. The inclusion of residential will allow for both vertical and horizontal mixed-use options for future development while also providing an economic incentive to some property owners to redevelop and revamp existing older commercial retail properties. A greater variety of activities along the street is encouraged through the development of mixed uses that reinforce pedestrian scale and orientation. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program PIR August 14, 2018 Page 7 The Specific Plan incorporates the following elements as part of this Vision: • Sense of place • Compatible land uses in an integrated mixed-use environment • High quality architecture • High quality businesses; and • Improved public streetscape s VY y� e 3Y� I I Figure 2: Conceptual Illustration — Red Hill Avenue North of 1-5 Freeway Figure 3: Conceptual Illustration — Red Hill Avenue South of 1-5 Freeway Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 8 Overall, there are eight (8) goals for the RHASP which includes the following: 1 . Enhance streetscape, landscape, and public amenities throughout the Specific Plan area. 2. Improve visual and functional connections and linkages between Red Hill Avenue, surrounding residential neighborhoods, adjacent public and institutional uses, and Interstate 5. 3. Balance flexible and diverse land uses that foster economic development opportunities and support housing opportunities. Land use in the project area will maximize residential opportunities along with neighborhood-serving retail and commercial uses. 4. Streamline processes to support future development in the Specific Plan area. 5. Improve pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and vehicular circulation to minimize potential conflicts between different users and improve mobility throughout the Specific Plan area and connectivity with the greater community. 6. Implement parking standards that reflect verifiable demand and consider future land uses in the area. 7. Coordinate existing and future development with infrastructure capacity. 8. Ensure development within the Specific Plan area is sensitive to and compatible with surrounding land uses. Over time, the influx of new retail, restaurants, services and new residents will enhance the economic and social vitality of the area and establish the RHASP area as a unique district with its own character. The streets and public spaces will be enhanced through landscaping and street furniture and framed by quality architecture expressed in a variety of building styles. Chapter 3: Development Plan The Specific Plan would establish one (1) new land use category within the area as shown on Attachment 2 (Land Use Map). This category would be Specific Plan 13 (SP-13) and would respond to the Specific Plan goals stated in Chapter 2 by providing a balance of commercial, service, and mixed uses. Land use for all properties within the Specific Plan area is classified as mixed-use, which will allow for freestanding retail and service commercial and/or office uses along with mixed-use developments that include a combination of commercial retail and/or office on the ground floor and either residential or office uses on the upper floors in a vertical mixed-use format or a Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program E!R August 14, 2018 Page 9 combination of commercial/office uses and residential uses in a horizontal mixed-use setting on the same parcel. The Land Use Plan allows for 500 additional residential units within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan allocates 395 dwelling units to the Specific Plan area north of I- 5 and 105 dwellings units to the Specific Plan area south of 1-5. Transferability and conversions of commercial square footage to residential units is allowed between both areas of the RHASP and outlined in Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan. Residential units must be high quality and integrated into a mixed-use development. The residential component of the mixed-use project requires City approval of the units through the completion of the Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) process which is described in Chapter 4. The combination of uses creates a more urban environment which is compatible with the existing vehicular emphasis along Red Hill Avenue and puts residents in close proximity to shopping, dining and job opportunities in the area. The mixed-use environment also helps to improve and area's livability as tenants and/or property owners do not have to drive to complete day-to-day activities, replacing driving with walkability to either within the same building where they live or to a building nearby. Monumenfafion and Branding: With the goal of creating a distinct district, the RHASP includes several elements to brand the area with a new identity. Conceptual gateway imagery and signage is provided in the RHASP to show placement of different elements within the area. w M v Figure 4: Gateway Concept Plan Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 10 While a formal branding process will be initiated by the City at a future date, the RHASP proposes a coordinated landscape plant palette, medians, public art, street furniture and themed signage to help establish the area. Together these elements will work in concert to compliment new private development within the area and further the vision of the Plan to create a new mixed-use community with distinct character.The RHASP will also include development standards and design criteria which will place buildings oriented towards the street, ground floor uses that will engage pedestrians and architectural features that add interest and reinforce the character and scale. The streetscape improvements that will be implemented will contribute significantly to the visual appeal and identity of the Red Hill Avenue public realm. Infrastructure and Road Improvements.- Existing mprovements:Existing infrastructure within the RHASP area includes water, sewer, drainage, stormdrain, electrical, gas and solid waste. Capacity for each utility and service will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the City to determine if upgrades are necessary. Supplemental reports will also be required of private developments to ensure that a project does not exceed allowable limits or capacities. The existing roadways within the RHASP project area will remain intact with the exception of Red Hill Avenue, which will have reduced lane widths to accommodate a Class II bike way on either side of Red Hill Avenue as well as raised medians within certain segments of the roadway. N 7 � � f 1 I r•, d r t Wr � � s^•v r / I Figure 5: Conceptual Streetscape Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZG and Final Program EER August 14, 2018 Page 11 As a major arterial, Red Hill Avenue provides local and regional connections within Tustin and is a point of access to and from the 1-5 freeway. Three (3) through traffic lanes in each direction must be maintained to accommodate existing and future traffic. The proposed streetscape enhancements are designed to create a cohesive and coordinated aesthetic throughout the Red Hill Avenue corridor, by utilizing materials and amenities that promote a timeless look and feel. Streetscape improvements include the installation of street trees, landscaped medians, gateway signage, and reduced lane widths along Red Hill Avenue to accommodate a Class II bike lane. Compatibility wlAd iacent Buildings: Close attention through the design review process will ensure that new projects are compatible with adjacent or existing residential and commercial buildings and uses. New development will introduce a high level of architectural detail and quality materials, setting the stage for overall revitalization of the area. Close attention to building location and size, architectural details, access, parking and the types of uses will ensure that new projects are compatible with established neighborhoods. Chapter 4: Land Use and Development Standards The key section of the proposed Specific Plan is Chapter 4, which contains the regulating code for the project area. Proposed development and improvements would be subject to a set of standards and design criteria that are described within Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan. The regulating code for the Specific Plan is a hybrid of a conventional or traditional zoning code and a form-based code, in which emphasis is placed on the allowed uses with use of illustrative graphics to depict the location, mass and form of the buildings. The main benefit of a hybrid code is a code that encourages walkable, urban environment while continuing to regulate land uses within a given area. Freestanding Commercial & Mixed Uses Freestanding retail and service commercial and/or office uses and mixed-use developments are permitted within the Specific Plan area, which contains specific development standards for both types of uses. No stand-alone residential is permitted unless it is in conjunction with a mixed-use project. Freestanding commercial retail and mixed-use development projects require minimum lot width, applicable setbacks (depending on specific details on the project or surroundings), building separation and landscaping. Commercial retail development has a maximum allowable building height of 50-feet, versus mixed-use projects which have a maximum of four (4) stories in height. An additional story can be granted for mixed-use projects if they meet certain criteria (see Table 4-3). Mixed-use projects must also include a minimum amount of private and common open space which provides livability for the residential units and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 12 necessary open space for projects that are denser than stand-alone commercial buildings. Flexible Format Retail is a new use that will be permitted in the Specific Plan area. This use is defined within the Specific Plan as "...an enclosed space within a development project that permits and is designed for residential and/or commercial uses and may be used as such depending on market conditions and the preferences of the owner or tenant." Flexible Format Retail space is intended to be occupied by business operators who live in the same structure that contains the commercial activity and can function in whatever capacity is deemed appropriate by the owner or tenant as long as it is consistent with the Specific Plan and California Building Code requirements. Flexible Format Retail is permitted in conjunction with any permitted mixed-use project and when fronting Red Hill, must contain a commercial use on the ground level. Other detailed standards for this use are contained within Chapter 4 of the Specific Plan. Non-Conforming Uses and Structures Provisions for the regulation of non-conforming uses and structures are also addressed in Chapter 4. Existing uses shall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards of the RHASP, subject to the provisions of TCC Section 9273, Legal Nonconforming Structures and Uses. When land uses intensify and/or occupancies change, conformance with the regulations and design criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required. Development Standards and Requirements The development standards highlighted in Figure 6 illustrate the required building setbacks and stepbacks from the front, interior and rear property lines to the building fagade (Figure 6). The letters shown above correspond with Table 4-3, General Development Standards & Requirements below. There are required setbacks/stepbacks at the third, fourth and fifth stories of a building to reduce massing and add visual interest and articulation to the building elevation. Additional upper story setbacks may be imposed during the design review process. There are also rear yard setback requirements from an adjoining residential lot or mixed-use lot that contains residential uses. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 13 --------------------------------------------------r------------------ --------------------------------L----- ---------------- J--------------------------------L---_- --- -.-----------------1 Fr'�r,ttrge Street i 1 I 1 I r 1 1 3 1 1 , 1 I I•W rfjfe'{'M1 i Y I IU tif•rgrn Mfiiewe+rM f � j „vrr Upper fJod� � �aaaaaaac 1 I r Strlrrt sI' �, it ( r r I P I Fre*t and$Era■t W. tntor,9,4"Roar Fc s ider;k�al.idja c a rt Figure 6: Frontage/Lot Width & General Development Requirements Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 14 The proposed development standards for the RHASP are shown in Table 4-3 (below): Table 4-3 General Development Standards&Requirements (Standards shown are minimums unteu3pedfiecQ Development Standards Commercial(1) Mixed-Use tib FVIIIIIW­I-i RP,101rOd 70 feet 0 1 CO feel A f r u Lai i d fLr * d Sto,jf. Stories allcr,red sijb ecz to specific criteria and add iir.-Fici sethor_: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 15 Table 4-3 General D"elopment Standards&Requirernerh (Standards Building Separolion G (freestonding buildings 10 FeeI5 10 Feet$ containing residential and adjo(ont building(s) Open Sp.Dce {41 H Private N/A 1 PD Common N/A • 200 sf per vnil 10% of gross lot size See Section 5.4.3 for ' See 5ecrior u .L>esia^ Criferic] for Landscaping Requirements commerc=al landscaping rriae.J- s Ic:rG ::a irc requirements reyr ':r.-n er OleS: {i) Comr ;,r.of•:a erem.:a s end a cr- nr lioffice uses,withavt a residentiol cornpon-,nt.This mcry be a commercial center orMUNI comme >:11 nr c;'`Ic:: L 'i rairgP=a. 4< ,, 0 lc,l r,r v-rti<al Combrnolion of cornrr5ercrr)i,/ofi,Ce vses with a residCnricrl cornpbntmi:Residcnti4 ,.:I:: w, 41 r. I,:,-, process. gr3j cez,; it ❑_,.:= la c:n-n I c:,i n:r: r,.:ul- _IJoci:--alin . o,r c-cr s-:Ejec to a Cily license as specified in TCC Section 9277) €u6 i_or F f i pii:+:,_r .r i n_ r:�'fecIJi rh,_I oilow r_6airior:1 f: _r,:n activih' -Ir; ?, c r r rn_I_r;a,, Chapter 4,5ortion 4 4.3 JMix-e: l.:' ;Cr ,r;; or oddatianfll ragviramcnts- ;: :ru r :i,a:ri :I�, I ri:a i,P. r:ri f., ,rn 11 Ilr•-Valrrl::;w'. ur ra::urs .4.r p i. i, r dt, iA I,i r tiie 1us r:f':= d �:a ul w,ati.ei u.ai i`G unrl ur lass supuroltd 1Jr C:d:&f i :r of 10 or mca faer. N,/,A-Noi Appl,cab c Circulation & Parking: To ensure that sufficient parking areas are provided for a project within the RHASP, all parking is required to be provided on-site. For mixed-use development, the parking ratio stipulated in the RHASP is a total parking requirement of 2.25 spaces for each residential unit plus parking for non-residential, For non-residential or commercial uses, the parking ratios provided in the TCC would prevail based on each individual use. The development community (developers) and Economic Development Department have expressed their concerns with the proposed standards. They have indicated that this standard and requirement is not in keeping with the industry standards and trends. An alternative or shared parking arrangement is also allowed and encouraged in the Specific Plan for a mixed-use development or development that utilizes non-traditional hours. A parking study is required for all non-residential uses and mixed-use developments requesting shared parking, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 16 In addition, the RHASP requires the developer/applicant to develop and enforce alternatives or other measures to ensure parking will be adequately provided. These measures may include: • Valet Parking • Other off-site parking • Restrictions on hours or operation • Easement or other joint-use parking agreement to share parking Flexible Amenity Setback The Flexible Amenity Setback (FAS) is a component of the public right-of-way that adjoins private development in areas of the RHASP that have or will be required to dedicate land to achieve the full 60-foot half-width right-of-way for Red Hill Avenue. Because the driving surface (curb-to-curb) width of Red Hill Avenue will not change as part of the RHASP (+1- 42'-0"), in the interim, if a use or activity needs the full dedication for roadway purposes, the remaining +/- 18'-0" right-of-way may be utilized for a range of uses, including expanded walkways, additional landscape, public seating/plaza areas, sidewalk dining, and other similar uses proposed as part of a design review application for a development project. Outdoor dining areas that encroach into the public right-of-way shall be subject to a license agreement from the City. Additional design considerations for uses within the FAS are contained within Chapter 5 of the Specific Plan. s . e ' ,. c{-. '� Y°i gal -+; ?1 ' R '� ". N ,. ♦, T ,fs 1, A Z 'f [y S ' j1 ° R //---RAISED MEDIAN rwHERE APPLICABLE Red Hill Avenue a' r,-511,e �_Fde F Awa titi Er K i Figure 7: Flexible Amenity Setback & Adjacent Red Hill Avenue Signage All new signage associated with development projects within the RHASP will need to comply with the TCC as well as the additional specific standards or requirements Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 17 provided within the Specific Plan. Projecting, window, wall, awning, neon, monument and portable signs are all permitted within the RHASP. The TCC does not have any sign standards for mixed-use development, so in those instances a Master Sign Plan will be required. Residential Allocation Reservation The allocation of residential units within the Specific Plan through the Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) process is a concept that was introduced in the Downtown Core Commercial Specific Plan (DCCSP) and proposed in the RHASP. There are a total of 500 dwelling units allocated within the RHASP. Table 4-5 below summarizes this information and the total number of units allocated by planning area. Plonroira$Areas Maximum Permftd Urii,% Nor-n Area: Norfh of 1.5 395 6welling units South Areca: South of 1-5 105 d-,gelling units TOTAL 500 civ elliriq units The RAR process would provide a preliminary review of a proposed mixed-use project and its associated residential unit count to determine whether or not it is in compliance with the Specific Plan. RAR findings would need to be made by the Community Development Director. If approved, the RAR serves as a preliminary allocation of residential units for the project and the associated conditions of approval shall set forth time limitations for submittal and approval of the appropriate entitlements, The preliminary RAR allocation of units shall not be considered final until approval of the requested entitlements by the highest approval body (i.e. Community Development Director, Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission). Should the application entitlements be denied or not implemented within the time frame identified in the RAR preliminary approval, the preliminary allocation of units approved under the RAR shall be redeposited into the Residential Allocation Bank for use by other projects. The Community Development Department shall monitor the Residential Allocation Bank and track all residential units reserved, transferred, approved and constructed under a RAR. Chapter 5: Design Criteria As a compliment to the development standards in Chapter 4, the Specific Plan establishes design criteria to further the vision and goals of the Plan. The Design Criteria are contained within Chapter 5 and provide design direction for new development as well as direction for improvements to existing development to enhance Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 18 the character of private property within the Specific Plan area. The Design Criteria apply to all development within the Specific Plan area and are intended to be used as a guide for new development or improvements to existing development. There are five (5) design principles within the Specific Plan that contribute to future development and redevelopment so as to ensure that development activities are integrated, sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods, provide for positive imagery and create an inviting environment for residents and visitors, adhering to the intent of the Specific Plan. These principles include: (1) provide for high quality development, (2) promote a sense of place within the Specific Plan area, (3) provide development that is human scale, (4) create linkages between the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods and (5) create cohesive thematic elements. Architectural Stile Three (3) architectural styles are identified and encouraged within the RHASP; Spanish/Mediterranean, Modern Craftsman and Farmhouse/Agricultural. These styles represent contemporary interpretations of three traditional architectural styles which are drawn from Tustin's varied agricultural heritage with Spanish roots as well as past fruit groves. With time, it is envisioned as an area which integrates existing commercial uses with new development to create a versatile mix of commercial, office, retail and residential uses, which will help to create a sense of place. v r a V}O E a EMS Spanish/Mediterranean Modern Craftsman d Farmhouse/Agricultural Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, zC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 19 Public Realm Chapter 5 also includes design criteria for the public realm, which is the area within the public right-of-way such as the street itself, the parkway, sidewalk, and pedestrian amenity setback. Where private development meets and intermingles with the public realm, specific criteria will guide design such as the creation of public gathering spaces (i.e. courtyards, plazas, outdoor dining and mid-block pedestrian paseos, etc.) through the use of different types of building frontages. { 4 .H a a �. Figure 8: Pedestrian-oriented uses in the Flexible Amenity Setback such as seating, landscaping, awnings and signage Chapter 6: Administration and Implementation: Chapter 6 explains the procedures and outlines the areas of responsibilities and procedures to implement the Specific Plan. The provisions of the RHASP apply to all existing and future development and land uses in the area. Existing uses shall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards in the RHASP, subject to the provisions of TCC and with respect to legal non-conforming structures and uses. When land uses intensify or change, existing structures are modified, additional square footage or new development is proposed, conformance with the regulations and design criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required. In reviewing proposals that include the modification to existing development, however, it is recognized that existing site conditions may constrain the extent to which these development standards and design criteria can be met. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 20 Within the Plan, the following are responsibilities for each of the authorized bodies: • Community Development Department The Community Development Department shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of provisions of this Specific Plan, including processing of applications, providing assistance to applicants, administration of the Residential Allocation Reservation (RAR) and reviewing projects in compliance with the RHASP. • Public Works Department The Public Works Department shall be responsible for overseeing improvement projects involving streets, public rights-of-way, and other public properties and improvements within the RHASP. • Community Development Director/Zoning Administrator The Community Development Director acts as the Zoning Administrator as outlined in the TCC. The Director shall also be responsible for interpretations of provisions and uses, approval of temporary uses, specification of conditions of approval, site plan and design review to determine compliance with the Specific Plan, consideration of transfers and/or conversions of residential dwelling units or commercial intensity, minor adjustments, approval of Final Maps, and authorization of certificates of use and occupancy for both new development and re-use of existing commercial buildings. The Community Development Director may refer an action to the Planning Commission. • Planning Commission The Planning Commission, as defined by the TCC, shall be responsible for approving Variances and Conditional Use Permits; subdivision maps; recommending Specific Plan Amendments and Development Agreements to the City Council; and acting on appeals from decisions by the Community Development Director or Zoning Administrator. • City Council The City Council shall be responsible for adopting the Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments and any future amendments to the Specific Plan; approving Development Agreements; and acting on appeals from decisions by the Planning Commission. Red HIM Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 21 Incentives: There are three (3) incentives to encourage development within the RHASP which include: addition of residential units to the area, an additional story in height for mixed- use projects and overall lot consolidation. An additional story in height, up to a maximum of five (5) stories, may be granted to properties requesting the development of integrated mixed-use projects. As outlined in Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards, buildings may extend beyond the base height of four (4) stories only where the subject property is not adjacent to existing single family residential development. The height incentive shall apply to all mixed-use structures on a site. The RHASP also encourages lot consolidation as a way of maximizing development opportunities and creating better projects that merge smaller parcels into a larger development project that may result in improved design and circulation. Consolidation of lots is considered a benefit to be considered in the allocation of residential units within the RAR process. Con versions/Transfers After the 500 units allowed through the Specific Plan are allocated, conversions of commercial intensity may be allowed between the areas north and south of the 1-5 within the Specific Plan based on certain findings and an evaluation of the vehicular trip assumptions contained within the Program EIR. Transfers of residential dwelling units or commercial intensity between the north and south areas may be permitted at any time subject to approval by the Community Development Director, The ability to transfer residential units or convert commercial square footage allows for greater flexibility as the build out continues and has a potential benefit of creating a better high quality development project with additional housing units for a project when justified. Findings Individual development projects within the Specific Plan area will require Design Review as required by the TCC as well as other specific procedures outlined in Chapter 4. The RHASP contains findings that serve as the basis for determining approval, approval with conditions or denial of development applications that are submitted for projects within the Specific Plan area. The findings are organized into four (4) categories- 1 . ategories:1 . Findings for all new development projects (including separate findings for design review) 2. Findings for mixed-use development projects 3. Findings for residential mixed-use development projects with Residential Allocation Reservation transfers or conversions 4. Findings for exceptions to the Land Use and Development Plan (Chapter 4) and Design Criteria (Chapter 5) Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 22 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Final Program Environmental Impact Report Prior to the preparation of the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR), the City of Tustin circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and held an EIR scoping meeting on April 20, 2017 to determine the concerns of interested parties regarding environmental analysis of the proposed project. The Scoping Meeting notification included only outside/responsible agencies, with the NOP posted on the City's website and at City Hall. Following the scoping meeting, the City of Tustin completed the DPEIR for the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA and ZC. The Draft PEIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the addition of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses to the Specific Plan area. For analysis purposes, the Program EIR assumes a buildout year of 2035. The Draft PEIR analyzed impacts to fourteen (14) environmental topical areas; • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources • Geology & Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation and Traffic • Utilities Table 1-1 of the DPEIR (Attachment 3 -- Exhibit A) summarizes the conclusions of the environmental analysis. Impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, less than significant with mitigation, less than significant, and no impact. For all significant. impacts mitigation measures are identified. The level of significance after imposition of the mitigation measures is also presented. Issues requiring mitigation include cultural resources and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation and utilities. Significant and unavoidable impacts include air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and transportation and traffic. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are included as an exhibit within Attachment 3 — Exhibit D). Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 23 CEQA Comments On February 1 , 2018, the City issued a Notice of Availability of the DPEIR which also initiated a 45-day public comment period in which the public and other outside agencies could review and comment on the document. The comment period concluded on March 19, 2018 and the City received fourteen (14) written letters and/or e-mails of correspondence from affected agencies and interested parties. These correspondences and responses are summarized in Final Program EIR (PEIR). On July 31, 2018, the responses to comments were distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the DPEIR. Although most potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Finding of Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures are identified and can be adopted by the City, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that some impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. As a result, the City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits of the project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable due to specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the project in accordance with CEQA. A Statement of Overriding Considerations in included within Attachment 3 - Exhibit E that outlines the facts that have been considered for approval of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Other Public Comments A comment letter dated March 16, 2018 was received from Rutan & Tucker, LLP on behalf of WTM Tustin Investors, LP, and Lake Union Investors, LP (Attachment 6) and their property interests at 13852 Red Hill Avenue. This letter commented on the following: 1. Comment: What level of improvements/upgrades to existing structures will trigger application of the Specific Plan requirements? Response: Existing uses shall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards in the RHASP, subject to the provisions of TCC Section 9273, Legal Nonconforming Structures and Uses. When land uses intensify and/or occupancies change, conformance with the regulations, and any other design criteria outlined in the Specific Plan will be required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 24 2. Comment: The ten (10) percent landscape coverage requirement in the Specific Plan is excessive. Response: Landscape coverage requirements are specified in Chapter 4 of the RHASP and include a minimum of ten (10) percent of the total commercial gross lot size that must be permanently landscaped. Landscaping shall include a variety of live landscape, hardscape materials, and other design elements such as rooftop landscaping (i.e. green roofs), fountains, sculptures, planters, decorative rock, etc. The proposed ten (10) percent minimum landscape coverage for mixed-use projects is desirous to achieve the vision for the area and necessary to enhance livability for future residents within the Specific Plan area. The City's current landscape coverage requirement does not address mixed-use projects. 3. Comment: Are drive-through restaurants not allowed in the Specific Plan? Response: Table 4-1 on page 4-5 of Chapter 4 of the RHASP identifies that drive-through, drive-in and drive-up facilities are permitted in the RHASP with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Drive-through businesses have additional design considerations related to on-site circulation, noise impacts, vehicular access, outdoor seating, landscaping and other parameters and this is provided in Chapter 5 - Design Criteria. The goal and objectives of the RHASP include a combination of different types of uses within the area including commercial, retail and residential that creates a sense of place and new identity while still balances the vehicular and public transit needs along Red Hill Avenue. As a result, a proliferation of drive-through businesses is not encouraged. 4. Comment: How does the height limitation of light poles within the Specific Plan apply to existing shopping centers within the Plan area? Response: For new mixed-use projects, the installation of new light poles shall not exceed a height of sixteen (16) feet and any new light poles installed on the rooftop of any parking structure located on a lot adjacent to any residential zone shall not exceed a height of eight (8) feet. For existing shopping centers within the Specific Plan area, the existing light poles may be non-conforming relative to the RHASP requirements. As a result, and in accordance with the RHASP, the TCC Section 9273 relative to Legal Non-Conforming Structures and Uses would be applicable for the RHASP. When land uses intensify and/or occupancies change, conformance with the regulations and any other design criteria outlined in the Specific Plan may be required. 5. Comment: Who is responsible for the costs associated with undergrounding overhead utility lines? Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 25 Response: Costs associated with undergrounding overhead utility lines on private property would be required to be paid for by the individual property owner. Undergrounding overhead lines within the public right-of-way may be required through a project's conditions of approval and the subsequent payment of those costs may be determined through a fair-share arrangement between the City and project applicant. 6. Comment: Is shared parking allowed within the RHASP? Response: Shared parking within the RHASP area is included and adressed in Chapter 4 of the RHASP. 7. Comment: Will freestanding retail remain a permitted use within the Specific Plan and are supermarkets allowed? Response: Permitted, conditionally permitted and prohibited uses are identified in Table 4-9 within Chapter 4 of the RHASP. Table 4-9 includes a variety of retail, service, hospitality & entertainment, residential and mixed-use, civic, cultural & public uses, medical and automotive-related uses. Grocery stores are classified as "Food Service" and are a permitted use within the RHASP. Freestanding commercial as well as mixed-use are permitted within the RHASP. 8. Comment: When will public improvements and dedications be required? Will re- tenanting an existing structure with standard tenant improvements trigger this obligation? Response: The dedication of right-of-way to achieve a width of 60 feet from the centerline of Red Hill Avenue will be required at the time of development or redevelopment. Public improvements within the public right-of-way may be completed by the City of Tustin as part of a future Capital Improvement Project or they may be required to be made by a project applicant through conditions of approval for a project when a nexus exists or they may be made through a fair- share cost arrangement between the City and project applicant. 9. Comment: Will existing shopping center agreements and long-term leases be impacted by the RHASP? Will the RHASP require all properties to become mixed-use? Response: Existing shopping center leases are not within the purview of the City and are agreements between tenants and property owners. Existing commercial uses may continue to operate and remain. All new development or mixed-use projects must comply with the standards and requirements of the RHASP. 10.Comment: How will the parking be addressed with the proposed residential development project on the north side of Red Hill Avenue? Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 26 Response: Parking for the pending mixed-use project at 93759 and 93849 Red Hill Avenue is required to be provided on-site, unless alternative shared parking is proposed. For approval of alternative shared parking, a parking study is required for both commercial uses and mixed-use development projects in accordance with the RHASP. The parking study would be subject to review by the City. Additional measures to address potential future parking shortages will also be made a condition of approval. 11. Comment: Please confirm the development standards for mixed-use projects on pages 4-15 through 4-19. Please clarify the meaning of "non-residential". Response: The General Development Standards on page 4-15 through 4-19 apply to mixed-use projects. "Non-residential" includes stand-alone commercial development that is not part of a mixed-use project. PUBLIC WORKSHOPS & NOTIFICATION Notice for the public hearing was sent to property owners and tenants within the project area and within a 500-foot radius of the project area. Notices were also sent to those listed on the City's interested party list. The notice was published in the Tustin News. In addition, notices were posted at Tustin City Hall, various locations within the project boundary, Tustin Library, Tustin Senior Center as well as on the Facebook and Nextdoor. Between July 2015 and February 2018, a total of three (3) public workshops were held. Property owners and tenants were notified within the project boundary as well as property owners and tenants that reside 500-feet outside the Specific Plan boundary. Information was provided on the City's website to keep everyone informed and an interested party list was also developed as the project progressed. The purpose of the workshops was to receive comments on the Draft Specific Plan. The final workshop was also a joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council where the final draft Specific Plan was presented and additional comments were voiced and/or submitted in writing. CONCLUSION For the reasons described in Attachment 3 — Exhibit E, the benefits of the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and consequently, the adverse environmental effects are considered "acceptable" in accordance with Section 15093 (c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, GPA, ZC and Final Program EIR August 14, 2018 Page 27 a H. Demkowicz, AICP Elizabet A. Binsack Senior Planner Director of Community Development Attachments: 1 . Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project Area Map 2. Red Hill Avenue Land Use Map 3. Resolution No. 4367: Final Program EIR A. Draft Program EIR (Volume 1) B. Draft Program EIR (Volume 2 — Technical Studies) C. Response to Comments D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program E. Statement of Overriding Considerations 4. Resolution No. 4368: GPA 2017-01 A. Exhibit A — General Plan Consistency Analysis/Findings B. Exhibit B — General Plan Text Amendment 5. Resolution No. 4369: ZC 2017-001 A. Ordinance No. 1498 — Final Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan B. Zoning Map Update 6. Comment Letter received from Rutan & Tucker, LLP dated 3116118 7. Errata List ATTACHMENT 1 RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA MAP t L! C1 L.� Project Boundary i� Bryan__ve= EE IC7 1} l San Juan St I-5 — Mitchell Ave-I — - — == L -~ _I_i Walnut Ave = o 250 500 mommor--=— Feet TUSTIN !! Exhib 1-2: Spedfic Plan Area 0.E6111LL.aVLNl3E ATTACHMENT 2 RED HILL AVENUE LAND USE MAP f Project Boundary Commercial Commercial-Auto Bryan Ave 0 Commercial-Food Shopping Center Multi-Family Residenital ' ® Single-Family Residential `-' - Agriculture - Institutional t Q Office - Industrial o� Hotel �] Vacant •q, r f i r f Mf i - 'r Y4 F ' r * maea GamR4, — I .. 1-5 Nissan Rd _ �• it � ..�.'�`:�`��. '� 5 c Y - 4 f^k� Mitchell AVe � I � .tea ) � 4-•..i �� w � Walnut Ave _1111114111 - I a 1 u S 1,14 r TUSTIN ` 0 250 500 6d I�tR F ■rra� 4 r�- Feet RED HILLAVENLIE NAN Figure 2: txisting land Use ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 4367: FINAL PROGRAM EIR RESOLUTION NO. 4367 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FINAL PROGRAM- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2017041031) AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AND STATEMENT OF OVERBIDDING CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. B. That to facilitate the intended vision and implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017- 00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 are necessary. C. That collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 constitute a "project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.).. D. That the City determined that a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 is required for the proposed project, circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on April 7, 2017 and held an EIR scoping meeting on April 20, 2017, to determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR). Comments received during the 30-day public review period, from April 7, 2017, to May 8, 2017, are included in the DPEIR as Appendix A of Volume II of the DPEIR. E. That the DPEIR for GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 analyzed impacts to fourteen (14) environmental topical areas listed below.- 1. elow:1. Aesthetics 2. Air Quality 3. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources 4. Geology & Soils 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resolution No, 4367 GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 Page 2 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 7. Hydrology and Water Quality 8. Land Use and Planning 9. Noise 10. Population and Housing 11 . Public Services 12, Recreation 13.Transportation and Traffic 14. Utilities F. That the City issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Draft Program EIR (DPEIR) on February 1 , 2018 with a 45-day public comment period (February 1, 2018 to March 19, 2018), and received comments from the public and other agencies during and after the comment period. The NOA for the DPEIR was sent to all affected agencies and interested parties and published in the Tustin News on February 1, 2018 and made available for public review at City Hall, the Tustin Library and on the City's website. G. That between July 2015 and February 2018, a total of three (3) public workshops were held for the project. The purpose of the workshops was to receive comments on the Draft Specific Plan. The final workshop was also a joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council where the final draft Specific Plan was presented and additional comments were voiced and/or submitted in writing. H. On July 31, 2018, the responses to comments were distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the DPEIR. The FPEIR provides the required written responses to each comment received on the DPEIR pursuant to CEQA. I. That the Final Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan along with its Appendices is incorporated herein by reference. J. In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, FPEIR consists of the following which are incorporated herein by reference: • The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) — Exhibit A; • Response to Comments & Native American Tribal Consultation on the DPEIR — Exhibit B 0 Comments Received on the DPEIR Resolution No, 4367 GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 Page 3 • A list of persons, organization, and public agencies commenting on the DPEIR; • Statement of Overriding Considerations — Exhibit C • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) — Exhibit D • The Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations — Exhibit E K. That the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1 ,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. At buildout, the Specific Plan could generate additional residents and employees within the Specific Plan area. This population increase would result in an increased use of existing and planned City parks and recreational facilities. Because future residential development within the Specific Plan area may not be subject to the Quimby Act or the subdivision provisions of the Tustin City Code, future development projects could cumulatively contribute to the parkland deficiency identified in the City's General Plan. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 is required to ensure park and recreational facilities are provided to serve future residents within the Specific Plan area. L. That the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land at time of project approval which would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. M. That the Planning Commission has considered the FPEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001. N. That while GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified in the FPEIR and cannot be mitigated, these impacts are overridden for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached thereto as Exhibit E. II. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby recommend that the City Council find and certify that the FPEIR for GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 attached hereto as Exhibits A through F has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State Guidelines. Resolution No, 4367 GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 14th day of August, 2018. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4367 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of August, 2018. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibits: A. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the RHASP 1 . Volume I — RHASP Program EIR 2. Volume II - Appendices B. Response to Comments and Native American Tribal Consultation 1 . Comments received on the DPEIR 2. A list of persons, organization, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR C. Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) E. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings of Statement of Overriding Considerations for Final Program Environmental Impact Report Exhibit A FOR A COPY OF THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR AND TECHNICAL APPENDICES FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ( RHASP ) , PLEASE REFER TO THE FOLLOWING LINK : http : //www . tustinca . org/depts /cd/plann ing update . asp Exhibit B RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CONSULTATION RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT S C H NO . 2017041031 Prepared for City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 Date July 2018 City of Tustin Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1AIntroduction............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Format....................................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Cl Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses ..................................................1-1 2 List of Respondents ............................................................................................. 2-1 3 Responses to Environmental Comments.............................................................. 3-1 4 Native American Tribal Consultation ................................................................... 4-1 5 Clarifications and Revisions................................................................................. 5-1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan i Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Tustin Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ii Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 1.0 City of Tustin Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The purpose of this document is to present public comments and responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2017041031) for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan located in the City of Tustin. The Draft Program EIR was released for public review and comment by the City of Tustin on February 1, 2018 for a 45-day review period ending on March 19, 2018. In accordance with the California Fnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Tustin, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Draft Program EIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. 1.2 Format The Final FIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project consists of the Draft Program EIR and its technical appendices; the Responses to Comments included herein; other written documentation prepared during the EIR process; and those documents which may be modified by the City Council at the time of consideration of certification of the Final FIR. The City Council would also consider adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), a Statement of Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project. This Response to Comments document is organized as follows: Section 1 Provides a brief introduction to this document. Section 2 Identifies the Draft Program FIR commenters. Section 3 Provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft Program EIR. Responses are provided in the form of individual responses to comment letters received. Comment letters are followed immediately by the responses to each letter. Section 4 Presents clarifications to the Program EIR, identifying revisions to the text of the document. 1.3 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) directs persons and public agencies to focus their review of a Draft FIR "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 1 1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 1.0 City of Tustin Introduction or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR," CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204(d) states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e) states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 1-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consuitation Section 2.0 City of Newport Beach List of Respondents 2 LIST OF RESPONDENTS In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals and businesses that submitted comments on the Draft Program EIR received as of close of the public review period on March 19, 2018. Comments have been numbered and responses have been developed with corresponding numbers. Letter Date of Page Reference Commenter Correspondence No. C-1 Department of Transportation, District 12 March 19, 2018 3-3 C-2 South Coast Air Quality Management District March 14, 2018 3-11 C-3 Orange County Transportation Authority March 16, 2018 3-23 C-4 City of Irvine February 26,2018 3-26 C-5 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County March 16,2018 3-33 C-6 Kevin Heydman February 4,2018 3-35 C-7 Kathy Hall February 16, 2018 3-38 C-8 Peter Kim February 16, 2018 3-40 C-9 Howard L.Abel March 15,2018 3-42 C-10 Jerry Marcil February 5, 2018 3-46 C-11 Tim Mcc February 22, 2018 3-48 C-12 Qantas Carman March 7, 2018 3-50 C-13 Susan Eilenberg February 6,2018 3-52 C-14 WTM Tustin Investors, LP, and Lake Union Investors, LP March 16,2018 3-54 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 2-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments 3 RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS This section includes responses to all substantive environmental issues raised in comments received on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Draft Program EIR (Program EIR). Comments submitted include questions about conclusions identified in the Draft Program EIR,findings and methodologyfor preparation of technical analyses; position statements for/against the Project; and comments about community and regional issues, The Final EIR provides responses to comments on significant environmental points describing the disposition of issues, explanations of the EIR analysis, supporting EIR conclusions, and new information or clarifications, as appropriate. The Final EIR does not respond to the comments on the merits of the Project nor does it attempt to solve regional issues requiring full countywide input and consideration. When comments did not address the completeness or adequacy of the environmental documentation, or did not raise significant environmental issues,the receipt of the comment is noted, no further response is provided. This section is formatted so that the respective comment letters are followed immediately by the corresponding responses. Where sections of the Program EIR are excerpted in this document,the sections are shown indented. Changes to the EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and `_ : _=:: for deletions. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-1 Department of Transportation, District 12 Marlon Regisford March 19, 2018 Comment Letter C-1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORKA STATE'IRANSK)R 1'A'I ION AC_NC Y EDMUND O.BROWN Jr.,Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 100 SANTAANA,CA 92705 Making Conservnlion PHONE (657)328-6267 a Calrfornta Way of Life. FAX (657)328-6510 TIT 711 www.dot.ca.eov March 19,2018 Erica Demkowicz File: IGR/CEQA City of Tustin SCI l:#2017041031 300 Centennial Way 12-ORA-2018-00809 Tustin,CA 92680 1-5;PM 29.102 Dear Ms, Demkowicz, Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan bordering the Interstate 5(I-5)Freeway.The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe,sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The project proposes 325,000 additional square feet of nonresidential development and 500 additional residential dwelling units.The project is approximately 43.11-acres,inclusive of approximately 7.32 acres of roadway rights-of-way.The project area extends along Red Hill Avenue to Bryan Avenue to the northeast,and generally Walnut Avenue to the southwest.I-5 bisects the Specific Plan area creating the northern and southern portions of the Specific Plan area.Interstate 5 is overseen by Caltrans.Caltrans is a responsible agency and has the following comments: Air Qualit 1. Caltrans recommends that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use.The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multifaceted approach,such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles • The entire length of the Specific Plan is within a mile of Interstate 5.Residents of 1 the new 500 residential units living within the Specific Plan would be exposed to significant concentrations of air pollutants and may be develop health complications.Please consider the creation of vegetation walls to mitigate the effects of air pollutants on residents.Visit the Environmental Protection Agency's website for additional information:httos://www.ena.gvv/sciencematterMivin¢- cIose-roadways-health-concerns-and-mitigation-strategies..Consider this strategy "Provide asafe,saslamable,integrated and efficient Ira rrparraaon sytlem to enhances California's economy and livandity" Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian 3-3 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 2 when implementing the planned streetscape and landscaped median improvements. cont'd • Since a majority of the proposed land use along Red Hill Avenue will be 1 commercial,designate rideshare pick-up and drop off areas,as to not interfere with the general flow of traffic. Traffic Operations 2. The Traffic Impact Study(TIS)reviewed multiple intersections,including: 4.Red Hill Avenue at I-5 NB Ramps 5.Red Hill Avenue at I-5 SB Ramps 2 • Please include queuing analysis for Caltrans on/off-ramps.This complements Objective 7-L:Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan area meets future demands. Transportation Plannim2 3. Caltrans currently has plans for I-5 improvements that includes Red Hill Avenue.The City and Caltrans,along with OCTA,can coordinate to determine what improvements are 3 adequate mitigation for the Specific Plan and fair-share contribution from the City.The City's contribution will be proportional to the extent of its impact on State facilities. 4. The TIS identified existing bus routes that run within the Specific Planning area.It includes Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)Routes 66,71,and 79, • Please include Tustin Metrolink Station into the City's analysis.The station is located three miles away from the Specific Plan.Inform residents,workers,and visitors to the Specific Plan about the transit opportunities available to them.This would complement Objective 2-1:Identify ways to improve and enhance linkages and connections between new development in the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods;of the General Plan. 4 • Caltrans'previous comment letter for the NOP expressed the importance of increasing multi-modal options and accessibility within the Specific Plan. Please consider the development of a multi-modal transportation fund to mitigate transportation impacts of development_This fund can provide capital for the development of the multi-modal alternatives and enhancement of existing transit facilities.This would complement Objective 44:Identify local,State,and Federal funding opportunities that can provide businesses assistance and offer the City the means to upgrade the area,along with Objective 5-3:Promote and develop a transportation system which includes provisions for public transportation,bikes, and pedestrians;of the Specific Plan. "Provide a safe,sustarnable,integrated and eftctent tnansporrolion sysiem to entrance California's economy mid livability" Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-4 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responsesto Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 3 5. The Specific Plan is adjacent to multiple educational facilities of all levels,elementary to high school. • Consider the development of a Safe Routes to School Study.This would not only improve the safety of students,but also improve multi-modal travel options to school from the surrounding residential neighborhoods.Caltrans would like to inform the city of possible funding opportunities for the aforementioned Study. Please consider applying for Caltrans' Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant_ Coordinate with local school districts,local authorities,surrounding local agencies,and Caltrans about applying for the Grant.Please visit: htt :/`NvNyu.doLea.govlhWtpo.'Liants:html for additional information. • The City's Bike Master Plan designates a Class II bicycle facility for the entire length of Red Hill Avenue.The implementation of this proposal not only 5 complements the suggested Safe Routes to School,but also improves multi-modal transportation options along the Specific Plan.The multi-modal transportation fund would help in the construction of the bicycle facility.Red Hill Avenue is a major corridor in the City of Tustin and will experience heavy traffic.Please ensure the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by including bicycle and pedestrian signs along Red Hill Avenue.Increase rider safety by improving the proposed Class U with a colored bicycle path.This complements Objective t-1:Establish a streetscape program using landscaping,signage,street furniture,entry statements, and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. • The City should mitigate the Red Hill/SB I-5 intersection to a less than significant level,which shall not include the removal of bike lanes. System Planning Comments: 6. Explore the potential of establishing a city wide multimodal transportation fee to fund non-auto infrastructure improvement projects.A fee program as such would support the management of vehicular trip demand. • Developments along Red Hill Avenue in the project area can fund the construction of bike and pedestrian facilities.According to Policy 6.14 in the E City's General Plan Circulation Element(2008),new developments are required to dedicate land and fund the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.Dedicated funding(such as the funding mechanisms mentioned in the traffic study)can help ensure construction of the facilities. 7. Please explore a potential partnership with Cattrans to provide,or dedicate spaces in an existing lot,to create a park and ride facility within or adjacent to the project area.A park and ride lot would support Caltrans'initiative to create a network of managed lanes 7 facilities.Policy 5.1 of the City's Circulation Element(2008)supports the development of park-and-ride lots near the SR 55 and I-5 freeways. "Provide a safe,swramohk inregrored and ef"icienl hwuporlation sysrem to enhance Califoralds economy and livabdity Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-5 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 4 8. Future development plans that fall within the project area should be circulated to Caltrans T S for review and concurrence. 1 9. The project should be conditioned to ensure connections to existing bike lanes and multiuse trails to facilitate walking and biking to nearby jobs,neighborhood services,and transit.Providing these connections with streets configured for alternative transportation modes will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)by promoting usage of nearby public transit lines.Mitigation to reduce VMT should include funding the proposed bike paths identified in the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan(2009).These paths include a Class 11 bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from Edinger Avenue to Nisson Road,Class II bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from El Camino Real to First Street,Class lI bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from First Street to Melvin Way,and Class It bike lane on Red Hill 9 Avenue from Melvin Way to North of Irvine Boulevard.The projects provided above have been identified as Regional Priority Projects in the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan. * The Specific Plan proposes that Class II bike lanes be striped through the entirety of Red Hill Avenue in the project area,and development should adhere to this proposal.The proposal would increase connectivity in the bike network and is consistent with the City of Tustin's Bicycle Master Plan,as Red Hill Avenue is identified as a proposed Class lI bike lane.Additionally,there are existing Class 11 lanes located from Nisson Avenue to El Camino Real.These lanes shall not be removed in order to ensure connectivity. 10.We also encourage you to develop Travel Demand Management(TDM)policies to encourage smart mobility and the use of nearby OCTA Bus Routes 71,79,and 79A.To reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the State Highway System please consider requiring future development to adopt the TDM options listed below: • Project design to encourage walking,bicycling,and convenient transit access; • Dedicate carpool parking spaces; • Allocate space for bicycle parking; 10 • Form of a Transportation Management Association(TM.A)in partnership with other developments in the area; • Adopt an aggressive trip reduction target with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement; • Reduce headway times for adjacent transit routes,and • Provide and/or subsidize transit passes for employees and residents on a continuing basis. "Provide a safe,sustainabie.inregrated and efcienr transportation system to enhance California s economy and lnvbihr, Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-6 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 5 Active Transportation Comments: 11.Several schools are located adjacent to the project area.Thus,multimodal challenges and potential safety measures(e.g.,yellow striping,signage,etc.)should be taken into consideration when implementing the Specific Plan.Nearby parks can attract pedestrians 1 and bicyclists,too,so these should also be considered when making improvements. • Development of Safe Routes to School programs can be utilized to help identify sensitive areas and decrease negative impacts around schools. 12.Ramps and other measures(i.e.,truncated domes,sidewalk widths,etc.)shall be constructed or updated at all intersections in the project area to adhere to the Americans 12 with Disabilities Act(ADA)standards.Policy 6.3 of the City's Circulation Element supports this notion. 13.Caltrans supports the development of plans and projects that incorporate Complete Streets features,which increase safety as multimodal accessibility for all potential users of the corridor.Caltrans has developed a guide for implementing Complete Streets features on roadways such as Red Hill Avenue,with the goal of ensuring that plans and projects support mutual transportation,development,livability and sustainability goals. The Main Streets Guide can be accessed here: 13 http://dot.ca.goy.'licl-1.2iiidArcl7`Illainstreet/main street 3rd edition.pdf • In the Circulation Element,Goal 6 is to,"Increase the use of non-motorized modes of transportation,"with subsequent Policies supporting this Goal. Therefore,Complete Streets measures should be implemented to ensure that safety,access,mobility,and sustainability are increased for all potential users, especially since traffic volumes are expected to increase over time. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities.If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at 657-328-6368 or Julie.lugaro@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MARLON REGISFO Branch Chief,Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 "Provide a safe,nistainaNe.lategmred andejjletent transporradon system to enhance Caljornia'x economy and ltvabdio: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-7 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The recommendations of Caltrans related to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, the use of vegetation walls, and ridesharing facilities are noted. The Program EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.2-1 requires project-specific development plans and specifications to designate vehicle parking spaces to be EV ready and that electrical panels are appropriately sized to accommodate future expanded EV use. MM 4.4-2 requires future commercial uses within the Specific Plan area include Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach,such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. With respect to vegetation walls associated with residential development proximate to 1-5, the Program EIR does not evaluate any project-specific developments. Should residential development be proposed in the future within 500 feet of 1-5, the City will require project review including preparing a Health Risk Assessment as set forth in MM 4.2-4. At such time, the City could consider additional development conditions of approval, such as recommended by Caltrans. Response 2 The following summarizes the projected vehicle queues for the morning and evening peak hours for the Red Hill Avenue and 1-5 northbound and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps: Projected Queue(feet) Queuing Distance Number AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Ramp Movement (feet) of Lanes Hour Hour On-Ramp NB Meter 407 2 116, 16' Red Hill at 1-5 NB Ramps WBL 480'a 2 113/200' 131/225` Off-Ramp WBR 3801 a 1 222/344` 383/544` On-Ramp SS Meter 431 2 272 168 a Red Hill at 1-5 SB Ramps Off-Ramp EBL 43043 1 85/154` 293/434` EBR 430'd 1 184/296` 195/309` a. Queue per lane at 80%of maximum service rate b. Plus 500+feet of single-lane off-ramp C. 50`"/951h Percentile Response 3 The comment is noted regarding future improvements to 1-5. As it pertains to the proposed project, the Program EIR evaluates the potential traffic effects associated with buildout of the Specific Plan Project including impacts to Caltrans facilities within the traffic study area. Per CEQA requirements, an improvement has been identified to mitigate the Project impact. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans in its future implementation or in the identification of alternate improvements, if necessary. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-8 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 4 The following provides a description of the transit and rail services available to the area via the Tustin Metrolink Station: The Tustin Metrolink Station is located on Edinger Avenue, west of Jamboree Road, approximately two to three miles from the Specific Plan area. Metrolink trains on the Orange County Line (Oceanside to LA) stop at the Tustin station. Metrolink trains run in the northbound direction from 4:21 AM to 11:46 AM and 3:46 to 9:06 PM, and from 7:51 to 10:23 AM and 2:03 to 10:33 PM in the southbound direction, Monday through Friday. Headways (the time interval between train arrivals) vary between 12 minutes and 1% hours, with the shortest headways occurring during the morning and evening commute periods. Weekend Metrolink service is provided between 9:25 AM and 6:46 PM, with two-hour to three-hour headways. The OCTA bus route closest to the Specific Plan area that serves the Tustin Metrolink Station is Route 472, which travels on Red Hill Avenue to Edinger Avenue to reach the station. The closest bus stop for Route 472 is located at the corner of Red Hill Avenue at Edinger Avenue. Route 472 runs only during the morning and evening commute periods, with 10 to 40-minute headways. With respect to Caltrans' request for the City to consider the creation of a multi-modal transportation fund to traffic impacts and transit facilities, the recommendation is noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. No further response is required. Response 5 With respect to Caltrans' suggestion for the City to prepare a Safe Routes to School Study, the recommendation is noted but is beyond the scope of the Program EIR. With respect to the provision of bike signage, the Specific Plan includes a wayfinding signage program. With respect to a multi-modal transportation fund, please refer to the response to Comment 4. Caltrans' recommendations are noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. No further response is required. The Traffic Study identified the following mitigation measure to mitigate the Project's impact at the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramp: Re-stripe the eastbound approach (the off-ramp) to convert from one shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane to one dedicated left-turn lane and a shared left-through-right lane. This improvement would not require the removal of the bike lane on Red Hill Avenue. While this improvement has been identified per CEQA requirements, the City shall coordinate with Caltrans in its future implementation or in identification of alternate improvements, if necessary. Response 6 Please refer to the response to Comment 4 regarding a multi-modal transportation fund, Red HT Avenue Specific Plan 3-9 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 7 A park-and-ride facility within the Specific Plan area is not currently proposed. However, Caltrans' recommendation and offer of participation is noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. Please also refer to the response to Comment 1 regarding ridesharing. Response 8 The comment is noted. Response 9 The comment is noted. No further response is required, Response 10 The recommendations of Caltrans to reduce vehicle miles traveled are noted. Many of these recommendations are identified in the proposed Specific Plan related to creating a Specific Plan area that encourages options to personal vehicle use including bike paths, bike parking, transit use, and ridesharing (see the response to Comment 1). The City also has a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. Additional options can be considered by the City as site-specific development projects are proposed and reviewed by the City. Response 11 Please refer to the response to Comment 5. Response 12 The comment is noted. The City of Tustin Public Works Department currently has a program to install ADA ramps and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at intersections. Response 13 The comment is noted. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-10 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-2 South Coast Air Quality Management District Lijin Sun,J.D., Program Supervisor March 14, 2018 Comment Letter C-2 dLCEIVEI, South Coast NIAR 19 2018 Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive,Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 COVI'dU rely DEVEI OpMENT T-1101YAR](909) 396-2000•www.agmd.gov BY:---- SENT r:_ __`-_y,SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: March 14.2418 edennkowiczOr tustinca.orx Erica Demkowicz,AICP,Senior Planner City of Tustin,Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Draft Environmental ImQact Report(Draft EIR)for the Proposed Red Hill Avenue 5necific Plan The South Coast Air Oiiailitv (5('AQNIDI stat] appreciates the npportuniq' to comment o,i tare tihove-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as gIiidamce fur the Leud -1_zitc% nnil should be incorporated into the Final EIR. SCAQV SIA.I-s S==law of Project Description The Lead Aealrc% propr:se. to dc%dop a colnprehcr,�,,: . land use plan. rex��ulaton staudards, dc,isn ciit.ris- and ads lni;tl11,1,, mr! io guide future chan�c, pron+ote high-quality [iaC lot an apprnximaatr 43.11-arra Specific Plan area f jopcsed Pi,'ccti Proi=,:Iz,[ Iuiild-out for and non-residential dcvcloprrac.nt would include a nei increa.,e of _ tl i;l .:;it,,!r.. fact of nur,­_;i;iattial LJ-', Ln(I ;0(i additional dwelling units.' The Proposed Prc-J­:, .on,'; a!=,nw Regi ,!iii and i, 'N bounded by Bryan Avenue to the northeast and 1G�!,raa Avenue ru the sou(hu est. lnarstate��1-51)bisects the Red Hill Avenue in the middle ofthe Propo,; d Project. The Proposed Praia i 1, ,p;:cted to be developed over time with an expected buildout year of 2035'. SCAQ\-ID Slaif`.;Air Duality Analysis Based on a ret'i « of the Air QuahtN Section, SCAQ.VD staff found that the Ai; duality Analysis was basal on the expected buildout scenario. The I-cud i,uiict 1141 rnol quu❑IifF ,nsrrnction emissions f because it determined that-'[(IIWlilt it imp indkidriut Nestle da tllopmew's.lir esu ,tons It short-tcnn, temporary construction-related acli�ilies is not pas iblc duc to Srlriability and unccrt;!irdies cor,cet i€n" kccAliorn derailed site plans. cciuipment requireinents. etc.. amongother factors, uiiich are pre54nife un L.auo:n- ince those pararrtrtcrs can varyso widely (and individual project-re€sled CoINIuction actitilies v:uold occur over time dependent upon numerous factarsl, +MntifViTII, , prccke constn;ciion-rclared �wi�5;nns and imparts Would be spertIlarive' Ilowc�er. lhc. I -ad ,A cnc� found thalt uir clwtlit} imJ)tI0S wu.11aI hz caansidercd significant and un:a%oidahie due to the pot;nli,!I 11 aIC.nitud7 or CiHlSTIICti0n that COLI Id occur from implementation of the Specific Plan'.- The I oJld A_ency quantified the Propo;zd trrll>YIUIIS bd,Cli on ilio expccicd huildnol scenario and comparCd lh,� enaiion., tea St.'AC;)MD, regional air qualit} {_'FQA sign1tiCattC0 thrce111)1ds for operation, slier I ilc o rp o 7 at I I Ag Mitil 2aainn 41ta�u,,: \f\11 4.3-1 tftrr,udI1-1 41. whicIl r.yt!ire ILlure projects to acconurodat cleclr;c ccilick chars in' stations. include a utlunur� vanpoole`slatallr ia.,rslt;,riI praLra,n Irar cnnunrrrial use,. Consider anti t.+. int}''act,o!, I.I!Joral air and uleenhousc al;I, ((.,I16 e111 ,inB thr,u lI rcConurtendLtl III itigati;,n n-,Ca;HIT s far fultII site plan;. and Canasta ;I Ilealth Risk Assessttaent ([IRA) lar IUIUrC residential development located Overview.Page 3-I. P r-.i, ; i i-.rn.ental lmpacts.Page 4 2-11 !bui 1' . Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-11 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 within 500 feet of 1-5,the Lead Ageney found that th_Proposed Project's mitigated operational emissions would exceed SCAQIAJJ's regi.-nal CEQA �ignihcani thresholds for NOx emissions, restdting in a significant and unavoidable impact". Althr-ugh the Lead Agency did not conduct a localized significance thresholds(LSTs)analysis or a HRA Lin.ik sis because.as the Lead Agency stated,tlic analysis could only be conducted at tli_ project-specitic I_vel'and were not applicable for regional projects such as Specific Plans, the Lead Agency concluded that sensitive receptors could be potentially exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations or diesel particulate matter(DPi41), resulting in a less than significant impact with implementation of MM 4.2-4. SCr�MD's n l :1ir_Qu_tiilN_ti,hurr_fment Plan On MArch _'01 i, the SCAQMD's Guveming! Board adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQAlf)`, iihich was later apprcccd b, rhe California Air kesuurces Board on 23. 2017. Built upon the prtrgrcss in illipl�°mentirng the 2007 and 2017 AQ'M!`s.the•2016 AQMP prnvidew a regional perspcctive ori air quality and the chalicEige<s Dicing the South Coast Aii Basin. The most significant air quality challenge in die Basin i< ti,achiete an uJditirri.il 45 peru•rii reduction ill oilrocen oxide tNts:t) conl'd emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent itiOz reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment. t (ie�t.�ra1 t'nmincnt, SCAQNID l,ii't lia, ievievaed the Air Quality Analysis in the Draft EIR and has comments on the methodoloa- ['Ica;: „c the attachment for more inlorniation. Additional],. as described in the _'OIG AQMP, to emissions reductions in a tiutelp manner is critical to attaining the National Ambient Air Qu;ait� ',t,audard ;N.AAQS) fir e.°,me before the 20'3 'Incl 2031 deadlines. SCM � is commilicd til '1111 ill, c•�:rn, `�-%AOS as ewl_ditirusl� practicable. The Proposed P:ojecl pliiy< nn imporia:,i? role in Therefore. SC'AQh,1D staff has commenis v;; ,lir qualit% 111itiealion tneas.irt:-.m,1 i cuouuueods additional mitigation measures to fisrther rediir \tip; oi-� a; I Ft fr; f'.A-I .h incl I'M''_� emissinns_ Finally, the attachment inciudes reco[M�i.1,1rtioris to u,ac.ic l iii-,cIi>siun ;ii %�C, QMI)rula5 and regulations. Closin Pursuant to California Public Resources G<<? et:rnn 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b),SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead A�,eney provide SCAQMD staff with written responses Jo all curtm;ent.;contairoed herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition,issues raised in the comments should he addressed in detail gitiinT reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be Load f;aidi. rcasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information tiviit not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15an(c)1. Conclusor} statements do not facilitate the purpose anis go',il of CFQA 09 public disclosure and are not meanimgtul or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. Further,when the Lead Agency makes the finding that the recommended mitigation measures are not feasible,the Lead Agency should describe the specific reasons for rejecting there in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). thiel Page 4.2-20. ]bid Pages 4.2-9,4.2-15.and 4.246. s South Coast Air Quality Management District. March 3, 2017. 2016 .lir Qnahi}- ,Manngenranr Plan. Accessed aC hrtriJlwww.agmd.govAtameili6ran-/clean-air-planvair-yualin-Hier- Iran. 2 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-12 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 SCAQVID staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Ryan Bafiuelos, Air Qualit} Specialist,CFQA Section,at(909)396-3479 cont'd if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. 1 Sincerely, f _`!"`-" Lijin Sun,I.D. Program Supervisor,CEQA 1GR Planning,Rule Development&c Area Sources Attachment LS:RD ORC 1&02(12.02 Contrul Number I I I 'i I t i I li 1 I i 3 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-13 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 ATTACtIMENT Air Quality Analysis—Construction Int Pacl Attttlrsis I• When specific development is reasonabll frreseeahie as a rc ult itf the 11,oals.policies,and guidelines in the proposed Project. the Load Agc11c� should idc111;k on. poxeotial ndver c stir tiu,llilr impacts and,mortes of air poilufion that could occur tttiing its he.>t etforts to t-wd out and a_aud-faith ctPort ill full disclosure in the FIR. '-Dra t1112 an EIR. [...] necessrui1% involves some de ree of tnreca tin While foreseeing the unlittcsccable is not possible.an aucncY must use its best cfii its to Lind out and disclul,c all that it reasonatik cim"ICLQ:1 (_1uiJelines" lion 151=141. 1 he Joxne ofspecificity will correspond to the devree of sl%ecificil'V intvlr i in the underlNing activity «hich is described in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines SeC i011 15146). When quanlit,.iiig air gtla16 emissions. cruissions from 2 both construction(includinc demolition.if any)and operations should b;:calculated. When the precise construction schedule or scenario isunknown,the Lead Agency should identify and quantifi a worse-cat construction impact<cenario that is reasonably foreseeable at the time the Draft FIR is preirtrcd. As shown in 'I able 3-4 and Table 3-5 in the DraR EIR, the Lead Agency has identified the estimated Jev'clopment pumitial in terms of a net increase of 325.0017 non-residentiat square feet and 500 additional dwelling units for the Proposet9 Projccl. Tthe Lead fluency can and should use this information and its best efforts to identity construction activities Ihal v.nnlci be required to implement the maximum build-out scenarios and quantify associated construclion emissions,including emissions from any demolition activities. Alternalkely,the I cad Agency should u,e constructinn scenarios froth other comparable projects to develop an appr}pri,Lte consunuctitm scenario fi)r modeling, the Proposed Project's construction inifact5. For ezamplc, the Doke tmr n Commercial Cure Specihc Plan in the City of Tustin is eWt _-led to be imle Irom ?018 ami 211;5 amt the nmirmun rnrlstnuction ernissinrt5 were quantified and disclosed in the Drdi1 EIR far that project''. Tliuetbre,the Lead Arlene} should use the<unstructioti sccllaliox that Lis already hc�n(11ACIuped for the Dixsnh)\wn Coninerciat Core Specific Plan to quantity the construction air qualit% impact, far the Propos ed Project. Otherwise, there is no substantial evidence to support the Lc.ld A-=eney's lindint- that the fent*o ed project's construction impacts would he si,zniticant and otimoidohle. AirOuatityAnalwsis—Interim tilcslone Years 2. The Draft FIR included one, .: ,\ir Quality Analysis year for modeling:20181°(operational year). 8y 203�. the I'n:hc. t i'rai:'� -. .l9sU 111e i 10 be fully built ha_;td o, r}tc projection;. Although the Propose, Project ma.\ nut ": a� [,.all capacitt in earlier }ears. it is pctosiblo thm due to higher emis,st,w roc,of n'i ie 7:'.,i �'illlylliont in eallicl Gears,peak daily eittissions may occut ill 2018 aha Tlla n.c:tC'i aetis=,ir,;l rates of vehicles,trucks,and equipment are generally higher in earlier .urs a< utc,� c ,trin__nl emissiolt slaluiards slid technotoaies have not been fully 3 hill'IetnC1110d, and tic•ets have n0tu11; turned over. Furthermore, according to lh�: Lead ,�gancy. Canso-Helium Jt61.hies assoeioted k, ith tuulre development would occur in incremental phases over time and rartdd be based on numorous [actors''. Therefore. SCAQMD staff recommends illat the Lead Arena include interim milestone years(Le.,year 20217-vcru'_02>. tm+ ycar 1030h in the Air Quality Aniihsis to ensure the peak daily emissions are identified and itdegruuc!ti disclosed in the Final FIR. The interim milestona tears will also assist in the demonstrdtion Of pro_ress overtime from inipleilwntina air qualily-related mitigation measures and policies included in the Draft EIR. Draft Elk D(mnlown Commercial Core Specific Plan. February 2118. Page 5.2-17. Accessed al.: htto:lliyN%-%'.lusllnca-ore'cii icailfilebarrkblobdload.asnx'BlobiD=284794 10 IML Appendix B:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas,Pages 3.11,20.28,37,and 48. Ibid.Section 4.2.5.Page 4.2-1?• 4 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-14 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz Isdarch 11,2018 Air Otiality Artlesis–Overlapping,!Construction and Operational lnnracts >. 8ttsc I on a 3c iecv 0f the Air Quillit� Anahsk. SC AMDstall fnuril that the Lead Agency did not anaPylc a scenario wheae COnfiif'1101 11 ttcricities ovctlap %%ilk operaticmal activities. Since implementation of the Propositi Project i,,e\pcctcd to occur over it multi-year Giiief'amc of 17,years from 2018 to 201i". an o%erlapping constuclioii and operation scenario is reasmwbly fbrese0a11I0. unless the proposed Project includes requirement{s) that will prohibit overlapping Cnntructirnl ;Inti operational activities. To properly analyze it vur t-case impact scenario that iti real conahl% foreseeshle at the timc the Draft FIR is prepared, w!-f recommends that the Least Agency 4 idcntidy the ocetlapping years, combine construction emissions (including enti ions from demolition) with operational emissions, and compare the conthiiwd emi,Aon, w S('At)MD'5 air qualit3 C'FOA o,,ier;iioaal thresholds of significance to determine the lelel of significance in the Final LIh- In the event that the Lead Agency,after rewisinL the Air(.butane Analysis. tinds Ilial the Prupused Project's air tluulil�. intltacts would be sitnilieant- m911'�JIIun itie.t;tn'e> will be required pursuant to CEQA Cuidclires Section 15126.4 For nine hilbriii,mor on ;u oosled potential mitigation measures as guidance Io the I cad :\wens~, please see Comtrlew No, fi below and visit SCAQYID-s CEQA Air Quality I landbook website''. Air Quality Analysis–Localized Significance Thresholds(LSTs)Analysis 4. When specific development is reasonably fnre5ciable as a result Ot lite goals, policies,and elements in the Proposed Project, the [.cad Agene� should idGntite ane potential nd,crl:- air quality impacts and sources Of'dir a potkitiim thio could ocu usinu it;ltC,t effnrt.F to Bork OUT and a gond-faith effort at Full disclosure in a UkO.% doamtent, In the Drd'i FIR. the Lcad ALcrict dated that -'LSTs are applicab9e to projects w the project-speck-it: level and are no:, ;tl:rpllcahlc It, regional projects such as Specific Plansf SCA[NJ).3003).As sot h.LSV' ti%mild he required fix future decelopment projects, but do not apply In the programmatic: Specific P1;tn anahsist'.' SCAQNiD staff is coilacrttid '',pith this analysis. Detailed comments are discusx.l UCL,c'.. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis To anal ua disclose a worst-case impact scenario that is reasonably foreseeable at the time the 5 Draft FIR. i- prepared, SCr1C)1ML)staff recommends that I11�: Lead A<zeney use itS best efforts,based on s.:tilPable Pro},�t 'mlbnnatiun such as build-out nonresidential use., in square feet Wd dwellintt unit, io gn,uui€ !h, Proposed Project's Incali/.ed emissions and disclose the: localized air queiin impacts it the Fill:tl (flit. St_AQMD'*Llidance liar performing a localized air quality anal}sis is atailohle +)ti MIL}\li) ;.:rhsite�'. Altematively, the Lead Agates 1;1(109,1 Cottsidcl t(1 include a ne%v ;ti, to require a project-level LSTs anile<is prior to is,;uance of a gradin,permit as follow,: P1'Inr fn r �rrt,Tcc'Of t,din �'iPH tot rt_n�[1tr�l I fepll f��'��jdccr Ilt:7f rt-t7!y'Lr�l'r:)r lUr',e,', The aem n1 t_ 112 1 Lrslt,l?rn'nrr,! ,.z �htln- r: !1_t 17i Cif ,it tars/X01. CO ..c"r.i PM? � ur r r .d. r. c nt,r,rnt trrr Itrr!t � rrnt,':tc., 1rCs ,r rJ=;,� t,rs�c —1.., t c.n�zarpLm It y_Y) J, eed St 0111) r air yN:rlr?r ('AW ira'rali_,r1 lhr--Ov3' s 'u,'fh, w vro rs Ih<-,irt 1 mltnt;hrrh grucr u�h�+.rW.,0u 11rL p, _l,r,s<J hrclann;_�n1 i fl.cx cr>td,l c:crri �ri111i a r.+.r,'lrt�T in nn�cf:?I, in excess of _'1 le?.r 7r 1'?sic,:'egyss'ro11: '1'u.{Semon-_N.i`❑,!r 3-35_ South Coast Air Qualitc\laetageinuio District.Acce—d.,r hop:,'rr,w7v.admd.euy-l:rnne.iegulaiin�u ci'gaiair-quai;p-.::na+;i<-hsndh,>nh. n lhid Sectiar 4-2.4-Page 4-2-9- South Coast Air Quality Management District.Localized Significance thresholds.Accessed at: hu p.,S',vgYv.aumd.eovihwtaeircgula[iuns�ccgalair-duality-analysis-htantlhook.'lucalizcd-sign tic:Ince-ihreshoIds. 5 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-15 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,20 18 This mitigation measure crist-IT-CS that the Lead Agency has adequately analyzed the Proposed Project's localized air ", impLici, to the LSTs analysis, that a project- or sit. cont'd Specillc I S I , 111'.0%si il: 11,1 111;1. [LI-Le[ s11i_e, NMI that aii\ nettrhy sensitive ieceptms a['i not ad :I, II I 1_,d 1, r;1-, I'r,p'u>1-d Pro!L'C I'S c 1,11st1LIC I I on aCU.%I t ie5 OW I are pct ill-ri r In C lo?Q pro mllilt% Health Risk Aisessment (Ilk.:,) Anal�sJs ;i o11fur Existing -Mitigation NI easu re(NI NI)4.2-4 According to the I OaLI Al­eiwv,residential units could be constructed as close as 100 feet from the I- 5", To !'Itcilitatc the purposc and goal of CEQA on public disclosure, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead A2mct use app]icahle llrr)Jecl Information lhtti k already available in the Draft EIR to conduct a I IRA analysiti`aiid to dicfo5o the pwnlial holitth mks in the Final FIR". In addition,the Lead Ageiic). as part of iNX%,1 4.'-4. is committed to a project-specific HRA for future residential development pi%qw,ud\%iihin 100 lcct of 1-5, This miti.s;ition measure ensures that the Lead Agency Would a&qt%Elek consider 'the I'VOI)O'C11 hOLINI impacts and that a project-level HRA analysis will be completed in a Lata to facilitate the di�clostjrc of health impacts to prospective residents. Further.the bead Agenc} is committed to niiiil_-aiion Aould a project-level HRA be found to exceed the SCAQMD's HRA threshold,:� Additional Consideration for Existing MRI 4.2-4 a) The Lead Agency should also consider requiring the use of enhanced filtration s'y,;Zems with 6 maximum efficiency rating value(NIERV)of 13 ov better in residential units within 5100 feet of I- 5 to tMSL]re the Illa\hrium rcdu�:tino of hcokli ri,'­ from ccllosm%:�s to diesel particulate matter (I)PNI)emissions from vehicles JIld tllld6 tl';I�elillg Oil tile frcc�xaN. b) If enhanced filtration system is installed,it is important to consider the limitations. In a study that SCAQMD conducted it, investigate tlflturs21`. a cost burden is cNpcctt:il to be wOhill III,: r'Inge of $120 to$240 per year to rq)tact e,icli till,rr. In addition,because the fillers would not hatie an' effectiveness unless the iIVAC i, 1jitning.. there may be increaser] tneiLy cask to the residents. It is typically EssLIMCLI that Ill, .11�rs operate 100 percent of the tim; %tiHilc iesideill5 are indoors, and the encirnnmental alla!1,i. klk)CS]lot gellel`311% ;iCCOLIIII lir the time~ when the ;e idents have their %HILLM, or doors: :'Ctl Of are in common space ureas of the project. these filters hate no Filror out any tOXiL eases 1"10111 V&MC IAIIMJ,t ilie presumed of xtM?Il !,-A, i1• 1.� 11 arty filtrati011 LIT11L, should 1% eti.ltu ted in more detail and disck,s,!d 1 r_,,ilcnces prior[o aSS1.11111TIU, that The-' will �.ltiici.11t�.� ally;late exposures to 011-Ni rHli 4 2-16 R- A-L—IM11 Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobilc Source Die-1 for CEQA Air QualaAnalY si, at: 11 SCAQMD has developed the CEQA -1�nifivancu IhEeAold of In in one FnNinn for cancer rl,!. When S4-,1Q%F)acts as the lead Azctic,.SCAQkID 1 HRA.cwiipire the ni.t\mimm c li-Qe[li�k to The ducaI",Td of 111 il one nlilli.n 10 &t,1111i[IC the ICIc[ L)t 11gilifiC311Cc tor health risk j�j 1.1crIhIldS mi AWA MeASUres I] the rki, is :i,tii,d io LC cir,O-Icanl. 19 111,d Section 4-2.Page 4.2-20. 29 TIE i,study eva[ua(eJ Jlt.,r�rated MERV 13 or better.Acr ,-1 11L, tau I t-SOUCCile(Imiliand I J:1,1 i,11,qiudi,final report ridf. Also see also 2012 Peer Reviciv J...—al xncic b}SCAQMD: 6 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-16 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments I.ric:i t)emkna.ic:: March 14,2018 C) Because of iia^ Ilniitalinns, ';('AQMD staff recornittends that the Leat! A!_=encu ma#c (lie fallOV,iil� di,cln,ure; to hr<a,peciiev residences :uIJ include lheni as rcquircments in tlt2 Final EIR. • Disclosure on potential health impacts io prospective residents From living in proximity to free,VaNs and the reduced effectiveness of air iiltration system when windows are open; • [)isClcrsurC on increased enzr!ry casts for running the HVAC system to prospective residents; • Reroinnlerilud schedules Ic.<<..once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration hails: • Oci«oin'cost,Imrin�stmlugies,if any,for replacing the enhanced filtration units; • Identilic.-iiion ol` the iesponrible implemcnling and culorccment agency such as tilt I.e,td Ay, nt:} l`ur ensuring(hal enlc;ncet€ lill�rti Me iTIA311zc#al residential units before a permit of occapanc� is issued: • Gierltiticatirm of the re,ponsible entity such as Homcmt ncrs Association or property m;tn;t_entent lot ensurin,,:tillers are replaced on time,ifappropriatc and fC;t,ihle: canl'd • C'ritrria itr assessin,i pl0zress in in,trllinq and replacing the enh,uicea tilnratioti unit.,;and 5 • Pro-,o-, for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units at the Proposed Project, Additional Guidance for Siting Sensitive Receptors for Existing MM 4.2-4 d) SCAQ4{D staff recognizes that there arc mom 1'aclor: Lead must consider when making local planning ill Id idnd u,e deCi,iOT Is. Tu f LLilita[e strun; r ceJlaborattion between Lead Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce Loni- wily �,'JLL,s;tare to source-;peciric and cumulative air pollution impacts,SCAQMD adopted the G]i 'r,:.: 1.)ueuillow 1',r 144,vN. mg'Air Ole'llils is.uw: in (J n:r<d Mars and Local Pial rnr, n Ili (.;ttiJance 1JOClllne11t prosidcs recomwn-nd,td policies Ihtu local governments caul tc ii, th;ir General Plans or thrnusb I�ac�ai planning to prevent or rutucc 1�Otcnlial air pollutif�tt impia't.and I)I-Wect public hr.iltn. Thereftxe.. it is r'.1"I nnended tliat Ihe Lead ,Agencti rt:,,.ev. ilii Guidance dOCUIllent in addition to the Calilorni i An Izcauurce--; BOJIJ's Guidance �i r��arcnt--irr Oiurlm Lund tine flandbookr.1 Corninwim H21[liii 1'��r.y?r�rrvir_prior w ai)lirowi.t_the PI I'r,,,jJa:. Additional Recommended Mitigation Measures G. CEQA require.; that alb fca;ible mitigation 111e3sut25 titstt up, hehond +,it:u is require) utilized during prujcct construction and tv minimize ut th.;e impacts; ti( Ii;llli3 staff recommend, then the Lead Ageuc} incoipoi.ite the )reasurc�. m tit- FITI'tl EiR to further reduce ert)issinits. particularly from ROG, Nov ui,J i..rtlni[„'. mntl,ri . J,Ji ional information on potential mi(is=atinn measures i, guidance to the Lead Agency is available on the 5CAQNID CEyQA Air Quatit.% 1-landbook wch_,ite. a) Require all of7-mita clic,*el powered construLi t,11 equ l anent in,-,I or -­_cd Tier 4 off n.,J 7 emi,sions standard,. A cop of tli:. t:c< ,icaicn'.,ti,,n and C ARI, or SCAQNID operating permit shall he the Lead Aoenc, :it it; Om- .�d mobilizsti.iI� itf each applicahlr unit of equipment. fit lh- (lrat all constructi��t; �ytm n ',Ia _tsnnot t;tCc; the Pier-1 wr_in,�certification,tlic Lcad ur}c, w„ r tiMin_s supf,i',rted bt sllb MI1 i it strategics ma} indu&. h)ut +could nu _t lmiitad to, NdIIL601h iiI L:' nLir r a,�d r It cr. ..'r rating ofconstntction equipment,limiting the number of daily construction Moil truek trips to and ='South Coast Air Quality 4tanagctnent District Mary 2005--'Guidance DUCutryent ibr Addressing Air Qualay Issues in General Plans and Local Ptatuting'•Acceswd at” hltn:'tt tttt.aUlndauy 41t�csfdeiault-suurce,'nlann i rte,�air-Dual itv-vuidanwcamtriete•guidance-ducun3rftt.pdt. 7 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-17 Responses to Comments and Tribat Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Derukowic7 March 14,2018 j from the Proposed Project, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously. Include this requirement as a bid or contract specification with contractors. Require periodic reporting and provision of written documents by contractors to prove and ensure compliance. b) Require the use of 2010 model year diesel haul trucks that conform to 2010 EPA truck standards or newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil impor't'export) during construction,and if the Lead Agency de(erraines that 2010 model year or newer diesel haul trucks are not feasible, the Lead Agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements,at a minimum. Include this requirement as a bid or contract specification with contractors. Require periodic reporting and provision of written documents by contractors to prove and ensure compliance. 6) Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels,installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility. cont'd 7 d) Limit parking supply and unbundle parking costs. e) Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. f) Use light colored paving and roofing materials. g) Install tight colored"cool"roofs and cool pavements. h) Require use of electric or altematively fueled sweepers with NEPA filters i) Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. j) Utilize only Energy Star heating,cooling,and lighting devices,and appliances. k) Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. To further reduce particulate matter from the Proposed Project SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include the following mitigation measures in the Final EIR. a) Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as instantaneous gusts or when visible plumes emanate from the site and stabilize all.disturbed areas. b) Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM 10 generation. c) Sweep all streets at least once a day using SCAQMD Rule 1186,1186.1 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials am carried to adjacent streets(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). d) Apply water three times daily or non-tonic sail stabilizers according to manufacturers' Specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas,unpaved road surfaces,or to areas where soil is disturbed. Reclaimed water should be used. 8 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-18 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14.2018 Other Comment. 7. SCAQMD staff found an inconsistency amongst the references included in the Draft ECR. In the Air Quality Analysis, the Lead Agency refers to"NIM 4.2-5" to mitigate threshold 4.2-1; however; the Lead Agency did not proposed or include the "MM 4,2-3" in the Draft EIR- This inconsistency 8 makes the Air Quality Analysis difficult to follow. Therefore, the Lead Agency should correct the inconsistency in the Final EIR. i i i i i /bid Section 4.2.5.Page 42-16. 9 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-19 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The comment provides a summary of the project, the air quality analysis in the Draft Program EIR, the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, general information about the CEQA Guidelines, and introductory comments. The comment is general in nature. Specific responses to subsequent comments are provided below. Response 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 notes that the degree of specificity required in an EIR should correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on the adoption or amendment of a plan, such as the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, "...need not be a detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that may follow." Therefore, the quantification of construction impacts associated with future potential development projects is not required. The Draft Specific Plan Program EIR provides a programmatic analysis of the future development potential allowed by the Specific Plan. ft should be noted that specific development projects are not proposed and are therefore not analyzed within the Draft Program EIR. As discussed under Draft Program EIR Impact 4.2-2, quantifying individual future development's air emissions from short-term, temporary construction-related activities would be speculative due to project-level variability and uncertainties concerning locations, detailed site plans,construction schedules/duration, equipment requirements, etc., among other factors, which are presently unknown. For example, project-specific earthwork and the associated number of haul truck trips have a major influence on construction emissions, and these details can vary drastically depending on specific project requirements (i,e., a project with a subterranean garage would require much more excavation and off-site hauling than a project with only surface parking). Since these parameters can vary so widely (and individual project-related construction activities are time dependent and based upon numerous factors including size, earthwork volumes, timing/duration, etc.), quantifying precise construction-related emissions and impacts would yield unreliable, speculative results. Using construction scenarios that have already been developed for the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan EIR to quantify construction air quality emissions for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan is not necessary or appropriate. They are two separate projects. It is noted that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan EIR quantified construction emissions and determined that construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds and that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Draft Program EIR for the Red Hill Specific Plan reached the same conclusion. As noted above, specific development projects have not been identified as part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Therefore, a program level analysis has been provided in the Draft Specific Plan EIR and worst case potential impacts were disclosed and corresponding mitigation was identified. Project specific analysis and mitigation (if necessary) would be required for future projects. Response 3 The analysis conservatively modeled operations of full build out of the Specific Plan in 2019 as the worst- case scenario. It would not be practical to use 2018 as the operational year because it is the current year and future development projects could not possibly be developed and operational in 2018. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-20 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.4 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Environmental clearance and other approvals would also be required of future development projects within the Specific Plan area. The 2019 operational analysis year is considered conservative because emissions factors decrease in future years due to vehicle fleet turnover and implementation of regulatory improvements. As such, the analysis of future interim milestone years (e.g., 2020, 2025, and 2030, as suggested in the commenter) would result in lower emissions levels than what has been identified in the Draft Program EIR. The lower future emissions levels would only reflect the fleet turnover and regulatory improvements anticipated by CalEEMod and EMFAC. Air quality related mitigation measures and policies included in the Draft Program EIR are already reflected in the emissions modeling for the Specific Plan. There are no additional quantifiable mitigation measures or policies that would be incorporated into future milestone years. Response 4 As described above and in the Draft Program EIR, the Draft Red Hill Specific Plan EIR is a programmatic analysis that addresses impacts as specifically and comprehensively as possible. The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect General Plan policies to guide future change, but does not propose any specific development project. While the analysis of detailed project level actions can eliminate the need for further environmental documentation, those details are currently not available for future potential development projects from an air quality perspective. As such, on a programmatic level, the analysis identifies significant and unavoidable impacts for construction and operations and identifies applicable mitigation. Part of the basis for the impact conclusions was the fact that specific development projects and construction schedules are currently unknown and have the potential to overlap. The Draft Program EIR identifies standard conditions that would ensure compliance with SCAQMD rules as well as mitigation measures that would require future development to mitigate regional air quality impacts during the development review process. Mitigation measures may include energy efficiency measures, water efficiency measures, encouragement of alternatively fueled vehicles, facilitation of ride- sharing programs, provide informational materials on low ROG/VOC consumer products, among others. Response 5 As described above in responses 2 through 4, specific development projects have not been identified and are not analyzed within the Draft Program EIR. The commenter requests the addition of a mitigation measure that requires LST analyses for future development projects. An analysis of localized impacts would be required for future development projects as part of a project specific environmental review as this is the recommended methodology and necessary for an adequate environmental document. Therefore, the addition of a new mitigation measure is not required. Response 6 Although the Draft Program EIR states that residential development could potentially be constructed as close as 100 feet from I-5,there are no development applications for any such development. The analysis of health risk impacts depends on numerous variables, and the location of receivers can greatly influence the results. Therefore, the Draft Program EIR includes mitigation requiring project-specific health risk assessments for projects located within the CARB recommended 500-foot freeway buffer zone. As described in MM 4.2-4, a health risk assessment would be required to first determine if any impacts would Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-21 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments occur based on the project's location and other parameters and also determine which specific measures would be the most effective at reducing that impact. The inclusion of the mitigation measures specified in the comment may not be necessary after the project-level analysis or may become obsolete. Draft Program EIR MM 4.2-4 allows for a project specific analysis and mitigation measures, if necessary, when future development is identified. The commenter also identifies the SCAQMD Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (2005) as additional guidance for siting sensitive receptors. Although not specifically referenced in the Draft Program EIR, the analysis complies with the recommendations in the guidance document. For example, the guidance document recommends the buffer distances to sources of air contaminants that were recommended by CARE in the Air Quality Land Use Handbook, which is what the analysis in Draft Program EIR Section 4.2-4 and mitigation measure 4.2-4 are based on. Furthermore, the Draft Program FIR is consistent with applicable recommended policies in the SCAQMD guidance document through the requirements of MM 4.2-4. MM 4.2-4 requires a health risk assessment for future development projects located within 500 feet of 1-5. The health risk assessment is required to identify mitigation for projects that are shown to exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds. For example, this mitigation measure would require future development projects to ensure that site plans incorporate the appropriate set-backs and other design features to reduce toxic air contaminant exposure (SCAQMD recommended policies AQ 1.1.3 and AQ 1.1.4). Response 7 The Draft Program EIR found impacts associated with construction to be potentially significant due to the unknown nature of construction activities associated with future development projects. As a result, the Draft Program EIR identified standard conditions that would minimize construction emissions. Standard Condition (SC) 4.2-1 requires adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to reduce fugitive dust emissions generated at future construction sites by requiring dust abatement measures, State Vehicle Code Section 23114 requires all trucks hauling excavated or graded material to the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets. SC 4.2-2 requires future construction contractors to adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to limit volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. As addressed in the Program EIR, environmental review would be required for future development projects. Project-specific environmental review would rely on the SCAQMD's significance thresholds to determine the significance level of a future project impact. Projects that exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds would be required to implement all feasible project specific mitigation measures, such as those identified in the comment (e.g.,the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, 2010 model year diesel haul trucks, etc,), Additionally,the particulate matter measures identified by the commenter are part of the recommended measures in SCAQMD Rule 403. As noted above, the Standard Conditions identified in the Draft Program EIR require compliance with Rule 403, Additionally, MM 4.2-3 provides numerous options for reducing operational emissions, similar to the measures recommended by the commenter, It should be noted that the mitigation measure specifically states that these are potential measures and that mitigation measures for future development projects are not limited to those listed in MM 4.2-3. The actual mitigation measures required for future development projects would be determined as a part of project-specific environmental review by the City of Tustin. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-22 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 8 The comment identifies a typographical error in the numbering of the mitigation measure referenced on page 4.2-16 of the Draft Program E113. Page 4.2-16 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR, as indicated below. Therefore, implementation of MM 4.2-154 is required to ensure a project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is conducted for future residential uses located within 500 feet of 1-5. Implementation of MM 4,2-§4 would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to a less than significant level. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-23 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-3 Orange County Transportation Authority Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-3 FA OCTA 60AR0eF DIRECTOR$ M Lisa A t3aa+ea arch 16, 2018 Chair Ms. Erica Demkowicz,AICD, Senior Planner t4ce Cnartmam TM ia City of Tustin [audeDavies Community Development Department Dimclor 300 Centennial Way eadmz Deyui P Tustin, CA 92780 Dirocror An",:.00 Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report— Orma r Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Lad 00nc6ak Direrfor Dear Ms. Demkowicz: kkhae+Renneaaey D"a"or The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Notice of Sew Jones Availabilityof a Draft EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project.The following D"g"°r comments are provided for your consideration: htadr A.Murphy Dupc+ar Active Transportation Comments Ri`;ar�r.,u�hy As noted on Page 3-20 of the DEIR and the City of Tustin General Plan, !:�r-ctar Figure C-5(Master Bikeway Plan),a Class II bikeway is planned on Red Hill Avenue within the project study area. The bikeway exists at 1-5 within Di:�r4r Caftrans managed areas at the interchange ramps. OCTA is supportive of 1 Cirector s nmgmfor the Specific Plan proposed"revisions to the roadway cross section for Red D Erg"et PuAdo Hill Avenue to include a Class II striped on-street bike lane the entire length Dimcw of the Speck Plan area." TcddSpdzor Dumw OCTA is preparing OC Active,the first countywide bike and pedestrian master ,u-rne,ser+ plan. The report and other studies under preparation by OCTA will include 0"&OOr recommended treatments to improve infrastructure for pedestrian rom rad function, OCTA will continue to collaborate with the City of Tustin as a 2 Di`e"Or resource for consideration of engineering treatments to enhance safety for GregoryT VWerou+tom people walking and biking within the community and the project area. Nectcr Ryan Cnamberarn New residential land use constructionrovides an opportunity to encourage a variety of travel choices. We encourage the Specific Plan to also include short and long-term bicycle parking and bicycle facilities for residents and 3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE guests. Short-term parking in the ratio of one bicycle parking space for each Dar,01 Juhnsnn four units might be considered, and inclusion of a secure ground floor indoor CKat Exeruliva 06vr bicycle storage area may serve long-term bicycle parking needs. • New workplace construction provides an opportunity to encourage a variety of travel choices. OCTA encourages consideration of Transportation a Demand Management measures such as long-term bicycle parking, 550 South,fain Street/P.0 Eoa !41orn +_-89/(T t 4)560-CCTA(6282) Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-24 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments employee access to showers,and changing rooms to encourage multi-modal transportation choices. The availability of showers is often noted as the top cont'd item limiting bicycle commuting by employees. 4 Transit Planning Comment • OCTA currently provides transit service near the project site. Should the project have any impacts to nearby bus stops, please coordinate with OCTA to employ measures to reduce potential transit service disruptions.We also 5 recommend the City keep OCTA informed with any potential bus stop interruptions or street closures that may require detours. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this project.If you have any further questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me via phone at (714)560-5907 or by email at WhuC( octa.net. Sincerely, t/ Dan Phu Environmental Programs Manager Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-25 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 OCTA's support of a Class II bikeway on Red Hill Avenue is noted. Response Z The comment is noted. No further response is required, Response 3 The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards, requires an access plan be submitted and approved by the City as a part of Design Review prior to the approval of development projects. The access plan is required to identify the location of bike racks and lockers to accommodate estimated bike user needs which would be defined on a project-specific basis. Response 4 The comment is noted. The Specific Plan is programmatic in nature and encourages opportunities for non-vehicular movement. The suggested improvements (e.g., shower facilities) can be implemented on a project-specific basis. No further response is required. Response 5 The comment is noted. The City will continue to coordinate with OCTA. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-26 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-4 City of Irvine Melissa Chao, Senior Planner February 26, 2018 Comment Letter C-4 OF rrq February 26, 2018 Sent via USPS and email- edemkowicz(btustinca.org Ms. Erica Demkowicz City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: First Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(SCH No. 2017041031) for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13), General Plan Amendment(2017-01), and Zoning Map Amendment in Tustin Dear Ms. Demkowicz: City of Crvine staff has reviewed the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the subject project The proposed project is a Specific Plan for mixed-use development on approximately 43.11-acres, including 7.32-acres of roadway rights-of-way, along Red Hill Avenue generally between Bryan and Walnut Avenue (includes Red Hill Shopping Village to the southwest)in Tustin as follows •The Specific Plan area includes approximately 296,446 square feet of existing non- residential uses (primarily commercial)and 21 existing dwelling units.. •The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that allow for vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments with retail/office and residential uses, streetscape landscaping improvements, gateway/way-finding signage enhancements, on-street bike lanes, reduced lane widths, landscaped medians, pedestrian-friendly design, and public art opportunities. •The Specific Plan will increase existing development intensity by 325,000 square feet of non-residential development intensity and 500 additional residential dwelling units • Build-out of the Specific Plan is assumed by 2035. Based on the review of the Draft EIR, City of Irvine staff would like to provide the foilovving comments: 1. As previously requested in our April 26. 2017 letter regarding the NCP, include the following intersections in the project's traffic impact analysis study area. i • All intersections along Redhill Ave from Imine Blvd south to MacArthur Blvd Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-27 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Demkowicz February 26, 2018 Page 2 of 6 i i • Intersections of Irvine Blvd at Newport Ave., Browning Ave. and Tustin Ranch � Rd. • Intersections of Bryan Ave. at Newport Ave., Browning Ave, and Tustin Ranch Rd. cont'd The additional intensity of this proposed project warrants additional intersection 1 evaluation beyond the limits of the proposed street improvements.These study locations are located within the City of Irvine's Irvine Business Complex(IBC)Vision Plan traffic study area and Irvine's North Irvine Transportation Mitigation (NITM) traffic study area. 2. The ICU worksheets in the Traffic Appendices indicate that in the build-out scenario the intersection of Red Hill at Walnut goes from LOS D in the No Project to LOS E (shown below) in the With Project scenario in the PM Peak hour-, however,the DEIR shows this location as LOS D and no project impact. Revise accordingly. Gertaraled with.[MI vem,m s.oa o0 - - Red HIII Corridor SP Vislro File:l(_% Tustin Red Hill PM.vistro Scenario 4 BO WP PM Report File:A:k,..A•BO WP PM ADJ EX.pdr 1l2Z201$ Intersection Analysis Summary 2 10 Intersection Name Control Type Method worst Mvmt VIC Delay ts/veh) LOS 1 Bryan Ave/Red HIII Ave Signalized ICU 1 WS Thru 0.853 D 2 San Juan St I Red Hill Ave Signalized ICU 1 NO Thru 0.481 A 3 El Camino Real I Red Hill Ave Signalized ICU 1 NO Thru 0.804 D 4 1-15 NO Ramps!Red Hill Ave Skjnatized ICU i WB Right 0.659 B 5 I-1.5 SB Ramps!Red Hill Ave Signalized tCU 1 NO Right 0.972 E 6 Red Hill Ave!Wi on Rd Signa[ized ICU 1 NO Thru 0.847 D 7 Red Hill Ave)Mitchell Ave Signalized ICU 1 NO The; 0.747 C 8 Red HIII Ave I Walnut Ave signalized ICU 1 NO Thru 0.904 E 9 Red Hill Ave I Sycamore Ave Signalized ICU 1 NO Thru 0.665 8 VIC,Delay,LOS:Far twoaway stop,these vatces are taken from the movement with the worst(h ghest)delay value.for all other control types,they are taken for the whole intersection. i I I Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3 28 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms, Erica Demkowicz February 26, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Generated wn>fi�14Gi4ij veteran s,00-aa Intrra.CV—Level Of Service Report Intenectia e:Red Hill Ave7Wfalnul Ave Conitul Type' Stgnal{zed Delay(aec l veh): - AaelyOs Method. ICU T Level Of Sen&a: E A»$os Period: 15 minulaa VONR)e to capadty(VIC): 0,804 ktomoctlon SW* Nome Red MN Aw Red W Ave Welwl A" WdnutAve coflyd A maeh Nantsboond 3-thhvmd Enmurd VA"t*LM 2 Lone cenrlgwadon `ti!� .111F -11 h -1-* TL.Anq MavememLery Thm i R101 Les u T1 R+ght Len Tlvu JWu Len i Th, Riw Larw W"d1h@] 126tl 10.04 I tz,00 tz.ac 12.00 12A0 12.m 1204 tam 12011 1z.00 12.00 Iia.d Lanae F pw.J r 0 a o 0 0 o a o A.&M Length;e; Speedlaw111 50,00 A00 00.00 Grade rM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cm"MAN Yes Yee W Yee Yes __ 3. Several build-out traffic volumes appear to conflict with IBC Vision Plan P2036 turn volume assumptions. Please see the summary comparison table below of bulld-out with project vs. IBC Vision Plan. Provide the traffic counts in the appendices and confirm the build-out volumes utilized. Indicate why the vulumes are significantly less in many cases.The traffic study states volumes have been modified when comparing ITAM vs counts. This should be further clarified. I Excerpt from Kimley Horn TIA dated January 2018 j BO AM WP 3 .,bn�ealen Lhnl a SMa e.y.t bt.-im i el C..*.Put I e.d HO Ain CPhl Ty": 5Vn.1U d 7emtl.cf,+e} &."k W.W ICU I lrvN 171 S.rNC. 0 MtyOi Owiee. le mkna.s 1'.Wn.oCperlry{sky ]atle 7 YrvdLl ab4 I N+.+ esC rte r•. P..as+ll N.. E:Ca-v�e.r iJ=aim e._i _, 9� TunN Ww•frl�_` Ry! .f Tlr, Rvn ef: � nhM LM hu vy. I I I T- �r lye:u_ 1. SW i i X -- -a.00 IN cn�v.:x ra Y. r.. Y. I _ �•w+.. _ rearm. n.c na r,. ! FS C�esv R.+i EI fJNm IbY � a.»vo..c.�m.;..•.+�- :el >•u ole_, ,s Izu °°....�_q l s.y 1st soa sn 1r Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-29 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Demkowlez February 26, 2018 Page 4 of 6 BO PM WP aII.M.Mi.n L-1 Of 4—k,R.pw IM.nac 1;01 canno R..w R.e FID 1. r.ud Type, S@ns`e,d 0,.1—Iw6}. M*%I llneat ICU I L"UfsG•nCi, 0 mo rw P� is mralq va{.te w eaprdry pm): @.aa I.I.n.cw.s.wP t.'a�ra R.d 1#Me. AM Np A. oV.ty A" MC. R.d -- A.lp-.h -- tkvrdst.d aaveo-.,d e..e.l.a ..,cone '-- Snn ff{A�q�pp �t l!I r Tudrq twenurd LM Thn Ihhl LM Tf.¢ Tr. Mot Lo. 7 1 I Rtp,I In.WNAjq 19,w Ia.W am 17m 1204 12mt2.GC 11DJ Izm ta.ca 2W 1122 tc.di— Pp Pond L."JAI aW.el�l w00 ..•� Saps __ Sam Sa.w cm...w Yn Yn I Yn Yn Yd.•y. N.v. ~Y� awe lv Neewt ..i EIL - w r�r...•a„rr.,, 6...vet.,.apl+,nrm1 Iai I 115 yr wl t11 ee.vaL.n.May�..r.Qo I�mv amo i:bri;�tout Imm ,'nm I.um cn,,I s.aiee I wa•I � aio'o Excerpt from IBC Vision Plan 2015 Five Year Update P2035 Cumulative I Baseline cont'd ' 3 I 36 Red Bill AV. at El E:.-,. Haat 1rA4 12.2 (2035 C'Ixmsslative {Ttl;iTtP: LSSCI A.4 PA Newt PM PK Ho7R LkJkF CAPACITY VOL Vic `SOL WC 1t9L 2 3500 394 .32' 128 .L3 I81T 3 5100 613 .i] 454 .L6- 4BR i 1700 213 .I3 317 .19 KeL I 1700 94 .45 255 .15- 56T 3 5104 14. .2ti• 451 .11 SBR 0 0 59 59 LUL 11700 s0 05 32 .02 BBT 1.5 5100 246 1.071' 458 .28• ERR 1.S 265 1.071 172 §254 l.5 X42 1.12 f' 357 1-211 Y01T 1.5 5100 243 .L3 953 .24' HRR 0 46 151 Clea Tanta Ines real .W AS- TOTAL QAP3f:[TY UTILIIATLotf .62 .115 I I i I Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-30 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Demkowicz February 26, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Traffic Volume Comparision Summary r AM Peak Project Build-Out — IBC Vision Plan EBR _ 184 265 SBR ---- 15 _.. 59 WBR 14 — 46 1 cont'd 3 PM Peak. Project Build-Out IBC Vision Plan SBL 37 255 , EBT 305 _.._. 958 WBT 423 963 WBR 27 151 4. Section 6.3 of the Draft Specific Plan (dated January 2018)indicates that"The Tustin General Plan was amended by Resolution concurrent with the adoption of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan to provide consistency between the two documents...' Additionally,Section 6.4 of the Draft Specific Pian indicates that"The RHASP was adopted by Ordinance and defines the zoning for the properties within its boundaries.The adoption of the Specific Plan was accompanied by a concurrent a zoning map amendment to designate the area "Red Hill Specific Plan(SP-13)," It appears the aforementioned amendments (e.g., development intensity summary) are not contained in the Land Use Section(4.8) of the DEIR, but should be included. Please clarify the project component/implementation sequencing,as typically the DEIR would need to be certified prior to approving the proposed Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. i Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-31 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Demkowicz February 26, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. if you have any questions, I can be reached at 949-724-6395, or by email at rnchao cityafiryine.org. Sincerely, Melissa Chao Senior Planner cc: Kerwin Lau, Manager of Planning Services Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Sun-Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst Karen Urman, Senior Transportation Analyst Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-32 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 In response to the City of Irvine letter regarding the NOP, the traffic study area was expanded to include the intersections of Red Hill Avenue at Sycamore Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at Bryan Avenue. Project trips will continue to dissipate beyond these intersections, such that the project trips at the additional intersections mentioned in the letter would be nominal, and would not meet the City's criteria for inclusion in a traffic study. Response 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values for City of Tustin analyses are rounded and reported to two decimals. The Vistro intersection worksheets are generated by the software, which was developed by a third-party vendor. The worksheets display the ICU values calculated to three decimals, and bases the Level of Service on the three-decimal value. This discrepancy between the City's standard and the Vistro software output was corrected by hand in the report. Response 3 The 2035 forecasts are based on the latest [TAM traffic model data available at the time of the analysis. The forecasts were adjusted, if needed, to ensure that all forecast volumes would be equal to or greater than the existing turning movement counts. The 2035 data provided did not include forecasts for the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at San Juan Street. Forecasts were developed for this intersection by factoring existing traffic counts by the average growth for the two adjacent intersections. Response 4 The language in the proposed Specific Plan is applicable subsequent to the City's consideration of certification of the Final EIR, followed by approval of the discretionary actions identified in the Program EIR including an amendment of the General Plan, adoption of the Specific Plan, and an amendment to the Zoning Map. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-33 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-5 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-5 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANGE COUNTY FOR 0 R A N G E COUNTY .•<tLllG 3160 Airway Avenue•Costa Mesa,California 92626.949,252.5170 fax:949.252.607 2 March 16.2018 Erica Demokowicz,Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Subject: Notice of Availability ofa.DEIR Iced Hill Avenue Specific Plan Dear Ms.Demokowicz: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project. The proposed project is not located within the Notification Area(Airport Planning Area)for John Wayne Airport(3WA). However,portions of the proposed project fall within the Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR)Part 77 approach and transitional surfaces for IWA. Although the proposed development is located outside of the Airport Planning Area,please be aware that development proposals which include the construction or alteration of a structure more 1 than 200 feet above ground level,require filing with the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). Structures meeting this threshold must comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law,with the referral requirements of ALUC,and with all eunditions ofapproval impused or recommended by the FAA and ALUC including tiling a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration(FAA Form 7460-1). The proposed project does not include the development of helipores or helist,3ps. Foryour information,should the development of heliports occur within yourjurisdiction,proposals to deFelop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the A[.UC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA,by the ALUC for Orange County and by Caltrans/Division of Aeronautics. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949)252-5 t23 or via email at Ichoum(?ocair.com should you have any questions related to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-34 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan does not propose nor would it permit any structures more than 200 feet above ground level. The proposed maximum building height is five stories which would be substantially less than 200 feet. Additionally, no heliports or helistops are proposed. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-35 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-6 Kevin Heydman February 4, 2018 Comment Letter C-6 Demkowicz, Erica From; Kevin Heydman 4kheydman@gmailxom> Sent: Sunday,February 04,2018 8:50 PM To: Demkowicz,Erica Subject: Hello Mrs,Qemkowics I have some questions about the Red Hill Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Mrs,Demkowics, My name is Kevin Heydman, l currently live in the area for the Red Hill Ave.Plan. How will this affect people who live in the area?From what 1 have read it is to build new shops and residentia]units,but what about 1 the condominiums currently here? Parking on San Juan is already difficult. Are there plans to add parking solutions?Specifically the residents of the neighborhood? Thank you for your time, Kevin Heydman 1 z Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-36 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the addition of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses to the Specific Plan area which extends from Bryan Avenue to the northeast to Walnut Avenue at the southwest. The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect the City of Tustin General Plan policies with project-level development within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides long- and short-term goals and objectives, a land use plan, regulatory standards, Design Criteria, and administration and implementation programs. No site-specific projects are proposed as a part of the Specific Plan or are evaluated in the Program EIR. It is anticipated that further projects would occur over many years. The Specific Plan identifies parking requirements and alternative parking standards. As it relates to parking, Chapter 4, Land use and Development Standards, of the proposed Specific Plan includes off-street parking standards for residential uses and non-residential uses; see Table 4-4. The City's email response to Mr. Heydman's comment letter elaborates on this response and immediately follows this response. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-37 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Demkowicz, Erica From: Demkowicz,Erica Sent: Friday,February 09,2018 1:03 PM To: 'Kevin Heydnian' Subject: RE:Hello Mis.Demkowics 1 have some questions about the Red Hill Specific Plan Hello K,vm, The goals and ohiec_tiues of the Red Hill Specific Plan include continuing thy}commercial corridoi th,:d R�d Hill already is and allowing for mixed use development and improving to pwdustrlan c,I1:-•,i,iv, ithin the use means a combination of either commercial retail and/or office on the.ground floor%virl i-,,idential or office wrlr,above(Le. vertical)or commercial/office uses and residential uses next to each other{i r Porizontal),on thcr :a r lite or property. The Specific Plan would also establish a program of streetscape i 7,hr;r meat;v,,idhin rhe public rights-of-way along Red Hill that includes landscaped medians,street trees,plants and a flexibl: amenity setisack area in front of the commercial or retail buildings that would allow for outside dining,landscaping,plazas for gathering and other such things to enhance pedestrian activities. Existing residential uses within or surrounding the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area would remain"as is"and once the Red Hill area starts to develop(which is anticipated to take many years)there could be taller buildings in and around the area with additional people and cars. The Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR),which analyzes the potential impacts of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan on the area is posted on the City's website at the link below. The EIR document looks at many different areas and contains a discussion of each of the areas with a summary about the potential impacts. If you have an opportunity to look at this information on-line,you will be able to better understand more about the potential impacts. The development standards for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would establish the requirement that any new projects within the area provide all parking on-site. This means if anew project requires a certain number of spaces to meet the parking code,then the parking must be provided on the same property where the project is to be developed. There would also be an alternative option to provide the required parking on a different parcel near the project site,but that option would only be exercised if it is within a certain distance from the project site to be developed. http://www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/i)lanningLjijdate.asi) If you have had an opportunity to look on-line at the Red Hill information and still have some questions,please feel free to give me a call. Regards, Erica H.Dernkowlez,AICP Senior Planner Clty of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714)573-3127 gdem kawicz@tusti nca.or 1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-38 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-7 Kathy Hall February 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-7 Demkowicz, Erica From: Kathy Hall<khall@startmaitcom> Sent: Friday,February 16,2018 10:34 AM To: Demkowicz,Erica Subject: Red Hill Avenue Speck Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Erica, The online material about the Red Rill Avenue Specific Plan is very well done and informative, Please let me add a point about the area which I did not see covered- shopping cart blight. Everyone working on this project should be aware that the current shopping cart ordinance is not working. It is very difficult for residents to arrange for removal of a single stray cart. It takes time making calls,persistence and determination to have a cart identified for pickup.Then it takes days for the cart to actually be removed. Multiply that by new carts being released into the Red Hill area neighborhoods every day,and cart eradication by residents is futile. The worst offender appears to be the Stater Brothers Market at the corner of Red Hill and Mitchell. A polite conversation with the manager there was unproductive.He gave the impression that once a i cart leaves the property of his store, it becomes the responsibility of residents to deal with it.There are also stray carts from the 99 Cent store on Red Hill,but nowhere near as many as from Stater Brothers. Stray shopping carts have long been regarded as an indicator of urban blight. Unless there can be very strict enforcement of shopping cart containment in the Red Hill corridor,the area will under perform in terms of desirability. Thank you for considering my comments. Best, Kathy i Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-39 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Respotlse 1 The commenter raises concerns that the City's shopping cart ordinance is not effective. While the commenter's concern is noted,the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Red Hill Avenue specific Plan 3-40 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-8 Peter Kim February 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-8 Demkowicz, Erica From: Demkowicz,Erica Sent: Wednesday,February 21,2018 10:53 AM To: 'peter888' Subject: RE:red hill draft plan comments Hello Peter, The City is in receipt of ywir comments and they will be added to th puldic record. Information about the potential locations of the medians ctui be found m Chap-r 3 of Ih..,Of,if-,Red 6.101 Avenue Specific Plan. Below is a link to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and Draft Envir:;r,n O .jliwp;-ict 1?=};ort f,.);the Plan for your reference. http://www,tustinca.ora/depts/cdlplanningupdate.asp Regards, Erica H.Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714)573-3127 edemkowlcz@tustirzca,o_r� From:peter888 f i�ailto:peter@cwinsite.com] Sent: Friday,February 16, 2018 5:44 Pik To:Demkowicz,Erica Subject:red hill draft plan comments Hello Erica I would like to add my comments to the red hill draft pian. We are the tenants For the business at 13871 Red Hill Ave, We would like to request a review of the proposed median and Impact of traffic patterns. We would like to request unhindered access to our property from the north bound lanes that currently 1 exist. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Regards, Peter Kim 350 N Glendale Ave Ste 13231 Glendale, CA 91206 310.500-0316 (C) 1 Cwt far wash inske Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-41 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter requests the City's consideration of removing the median at the business located at 13871 Red Hill Avenue and the impact of "traffic patterns." The Specific Plan and the Program EIR identify a potential median location on Red Hill Avenue at this location. The location of the potential medians is shown on Exhibit 3-9 of the Program EIR. The Program EIR does evaluate traffic including the forecasted distribution of traffic within and through the Specific Plan area. Please refer to Section 4.13 of the Draft Program UR, The City, in its response to Mr. Kim's comments, noted that the locations of the proposed medians are identified in Chapter 3 of the proposed Specific Plan, and that the Specific Plan and Program EIR are available on the City's website at http://www.tustinca.org/departs/cd/planningupdate.asp. The commenter's request to remove a potential median from consideration is noted and will be forwarded to City decision-makers for consideration. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-42 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-9 Howard L. Abel March 15, 2018 Comment Letter C-9 RECEIVED ' March 15, 2018 Via Email, US Mail First Class Mail and Hand Delivery MAR X 21 $ To: Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner, City of Tustin COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 300 Centennial Way BY: I Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: edemkowicz@tustinca.org Fr: Howard L. Abel, Trustee Howard L. Abel Family Trust and r Howard L. Abel as President of Mayflower Motors, Inc. Being the General Partner of Mayflower Properties, LP 7 Island Vista Newport Coast, CA 92657 E-mail: luck hwrd aol.com Cell: 949 922-7749 Re: Property Owner's Comments on the Draft Recd Hill Avenue Specific Plan Dear Ms. Demkowicz, We thank you and the other Staff Members for the time spent with us recently going over the current draft of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. As our two firms represent the ownership of the entire city block between San Juan and EI Camino Real on the East side of Red Hill apart only from the two parcels now held by our neighbors, WTM Tustin Investors, LP, and Lake Union Investors, LP, who own the property within the block that is tenanted by Big Lots, we have a significant stake in the outcome of this Specific Plan. We are in agreement with the letter also sent you by M. Katherine Jenson of the firm Rutan and Tucker, LLP that expresses the joint concerns of our full block ownership. We do not wish to just repeat the issues and matters contained in that letter but wish to add a few additional comments as follows: #1 This full block has been burdened since our consolidation of all but the Big Lots parcels by the unwillingness of the long term underlying fee ownership of those parcels to engage in any form of dialog or action to enhance and re-develop the site. With the recent (just as of this past January) acquisition of those two parcels by a consortium of firms that like ourselves, have extensive experience in site development, we are just now able to begin a collaborative effort to address the obvious issues of the properties. In short, the Red Hill Specific Plan is not allowing us adequate opportunity to address for the first time in over 40 years a significant combined response as co-operating developers, #2 Given the uncertainty of the future ability to act as a consolidated and mutually co-operative developmental team, the underlying fee owners have Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian 3-43 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments been forced over the years, including in the recent past, to enter into leases with a wide variety of tenants who now have significant sway over when and how development can proceed. As these leases expire, there will be freedoms that as Owners we do not have available. Unfortunately, we no longer have the former tools such as Redevelopment Agencies with all their powers to aid in moving Specific Plan goals forward on an immediate basis. #3 We have economic realities in that not one of our in place tenants can afford to pay the additional rent needed to fund the contemplated costs that appear to fall to our properties. Also, many of the Specific Plan design goals cont'd j would be of no economic value to any tenant that we have either in these ' properties or in our other commercial projects we own and operate here in the West. Of special concern are the excessive amounts of landscape contemplated (not just as to cost to install but also to maintain) that will also reduce our parking counts and other design criteria that are not typical for these kind of properties as in very low light poles and extensive use of street furniture. #4 Practically speaking, we have to be able to back fill and re-tenant our coming vacancies or we will not be able to pay for any pass through costs of a Specific Plan. If we cannot economically keep our spaces full, the net result will be additional blight to the area as maintenance and upgrades require cash flow. #5 We applaud the use of public set aside funds for the capital improvements in the currently dedicated public right of way. We understand that at times we will have to also participate in part for some of these improvements based on our increasing our density of use or impact on public in fracture. Where there are no budgeted amounts we would suggest delaying costly improvements. #6 While we fully understand the demands and requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan, we have concerns about the massive residential project proposed for the East side of Red Hill adjacent to our properties. The impact on the community of these housing types is not always known until 2 after they are in operation. We would welcome more business for our tenants but would not want to become a free parking lot for that project nor do we believe we should pay for infrastructure costs that their impacts bring about in short order. #7 Mixed use is not viable for our properties without some very significant density allowances as we simply do not have the land area net of the established corner uses to design a residential element that is large enough 3 in unit size and count including parking to attract a developer with the necessary expertise to do a credible job of delivering an economic produce that has existing resident support. i Z Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-44 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments So what do we suggest at this point in time? Obviously the use of existing funds to complete a reasonable level of public right of way enhancement is always well advised, We would co-operate in the reduction of curb cuts and other matters. ' i As Owners, we need to complete the development of the Red Hill frontage by way of back fill of the current Del Taco site and the creation of two additional pads between that site and the Exxon/Mobil/Circle K to the South. The revenue streams from these developments will enhance our ability to take on other site work behind the pads and in the right of way. The Big Lots parcels will need to be back filled and re-positioned without undue limitations on new use(s) or unfair share of onsite and offsite costs. This will help establish a stronger retail presence as a strong anchor will attract more desirable inline tenants in the shops buildings. The coming onsite and offsite costs to be born by our private ownerships need to be within affordable reason, have economic value to our tenant mix, 4 and by charged over time as we re-develop. It may well be that only a very limited Specific Plan will bear fruit at this point in time. While we cannot speak for the entire Project Area, especially for those parcels that are at considerable distance from our location and have little or not relationship to our site, we do believe that the private sector can meet most if not all of the typical public goals and objectives if we are given the time to work together on a phased plan to re-develop the sites under our control. We appreciate this opportunity to share with you some of our thoughts, concerns, and suggestions. We would appreciate that our input be made available to those who are going to be in the decision making process on the Specific Plan. Public hearing time is precious and we certainly do not want to continually address the same issues in the public forum. i I One thing that we would highly recommend is that somehow the other property owners within the Specific Plan boundaries be drawn into the dialog and that the other stakeholders such as small local business owners and area residents express their input. We are a neighborhood center, our life blood is the trade and support of the local residents and business owners. Thank you again for all your considerable time and effort on behalf of this significant planning project. f` / " I Howard L. Abel 3 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-45 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter is addressing the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. However, the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Response 2 The concerns of the commenter are noted. The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the addition of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses to the Specific Plan area which extends from Bryan Avenue to the northeast to Walnut Avenue at the southwest. As addressed in the Program EIR, the EIR does not evaluate in site-specific development proposals, including potential residential development of the vacant parcel on the west side of Red Hill Avenue north of 1-5. The Specific Plan identifies parking requirements. As it relates to parking, Chapter 4, Land use and Development Standards, of the proposed Specific Plan includes off-street parking standards for residential uses and non-residential uses; see Table 4-4. Response 3 The commenter is addressing the development standards set forth in the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. However, the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Response 4 The comments and concerns of the commenter regarding the proposed Specific Plan are noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-46 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-10 Jerry Marcil February 5, 2018 Comment Letter C-10 1 i Demkowicz, Erica From: Gerald Mardi <jermardl@aol.com} I Sent: Monday,February 05,2018 1:51 PM To: Demkowicz,Erica Cc: tarahelang@Yahoo.com;David Delgado Subject: CEQA Red Hill Avenue To: Tustin Planning Dept. From: Jerry Marcil Re: CEQA Red Hill Avenue Dear City Planner, I own the property at 14445 Red Hill Ave (Waterstone Garden Apts)and 14251-351 Browning Ave (Rancho Sierra Vista) a total of 117 apt. units. I am stunned you want to put another 500 units into this neighborhood. This is already a densely populated corridor with plenty of traffic, Five hundred more units next door means 1,800 more people(500x 3.6 people per unit assuming 2 BOM units). There is no way that adding that many people to this neighborhood is going to increase the quality of life of the people already living there. It just means more cars, more noise, more pollution, more people in the schools and parks. I am speaking on behalf of myself and my 400 tenants. Best,Jerry Marcil 1 310-791-2000 cc,Tarah Lang, David Delgado j I • I Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-47 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 As addressed in Section 4.10, Population and Housing, of the Program FIR, the City has an average household size of 3.04 persons (Department of Finance, 2017). Assuming 3.04 persons per dwelling unit, the Specific Plan has the potential to generate 1,520 residents at buildout. The estimated population increase of 1,520 new residents is within the forecasted population increase by the Southern California Association of Governments for the City of Tustin of 5,700 residents between 2012 and 2040 (see Program EIR Table 4.10-1) and would represent approximately 26.6 percent of the expected growth. It is anticipated that the implementation of the Specific Plan would occur over a multi-year timeframe based upon market conditions. For analysis purposes, the Program EIR assumes a buildout year of 2035. The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the introduction of additional residential and non-residential development to the Specific Plan area, including the issues noted by the commenter: traffic, air quality, schools, and parks. With respect to these issues, mitigation is provided to mitigate impacts to the degree feasible. The Program EIR finds that traffic and air quality impacts would have significant unavoidable impacts. Impacts to schools and parks would be less than significant. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-48 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-11 Tim Mcc February 23, 2018 Comment Letter C-11 From:Tim Mcc fmailto:timarteffect@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,February 22,2018 7:24 PM To: Demkowicz,Erica Cc: Reekstin, Scott Subject: Re: RE;Public Comment-Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Yes,I will. The pamphlets I had gotten in the past were just what you all had the workshop for,understandable,But 1 wrote that comment beforehand,and the most recent invitation to the center did not have the diagram attached, I was not aware that the areas aside from the street were discussed Tuesday,the verbage led me to believe it was the very much larger zone off of barranca Warner leading towards edinger. The other thing I picked up was,that your presentation had much to do with the housing and rebuilding of the 3 t acre lot by the church lot and going back,was vaguely discussed.I hope for the best? Bottom tine k that my pov of the air base was that 1/2 was conserved,with the residential outweighing the major coninwicial lots. Perfect placing. I didn't stand up to say it,but was still interested to just listen.My reference as to why my "ratio"was a good one,is the way my home town by the beach overdid residential in a small area by 5 points and golgaiwest in Huntington Beach.Also in fountain valley the City must have laid in on contracting that land for the new 40 foot high industrial work,which is a big wager to succeed,next to newhope- My final inquiry would have been to utilize less space for commercial in the air field,and get technical and labor usage with small lots of shops in a row.w illing small business owners can handle it,repair shops, furniture,landscaping,law offices,etc,(Because#1 on your slideshw %�as op6ons and shopping ease)essential t outweighs luxury to 100%of middle class America and still, 1 say 75%of the"new"middle class. Pay it forward!The reasoning is what is important to this generation is what they learned and will pass on,to survive eonrd i and live what they were promised by hard work alone, I have to support small businesses above all,the way our economy is moving forward. Thanks again. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-49 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The opinions of the commenter are noted. However,the comments do not raise any environmental issues and thus do not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue specific Plan 3-50 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-12 Qantas Corman March 7, 2018 Comment Letter G-12 From:Qantas Corman[mai Ito:gantascorman@hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,March 07,2018 10:40 AM To: Demkowicz,Erica Subject: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Ms.Demkowicz, I was at the Red Hill Specific Plan workshop a couple weeks ago,I don't know if you are still taking comments but,if so, mine is as follows: I live close to Red Hill,not in the plan area but I drive through there a few times a day and shop at a variety of stores within the plan area.I'm excited to see effort being made to improve the area,it has great potential for Tustin.I'm in real-estate development and I've seen the benefit of allowing greater density on a site.The increased density gives a property owner a financial incentive to improve their site through some form of redevelopment.Adding residential as an option for mixed-use is excellent at complimenting the retail.If the vacant site at 13841 Red Hill and the large,older shopping center across the street are developed then that will be a catalyst for additional improvements within the area.Keep up the great work! Qantas Corman 4340 Von Karman,Suite 110 Newport Beach CA 92660 949-325-3025 t Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-51 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter's support for the Project is noted. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-52 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-13 Susan Ellenberg February 6, 2018 Comment Letter C-13 From:Susan Eilenberg[mailto:susan_ei@pacbell.netj Sent:Tuesday, February 06,2018 6:54 PM To: Demkowicz,Erica Subject.RE: RE;Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian Update Hi Erica, It was a pleasure talking with you today at the City Hall when I popped inl Thank you so much for taking the time to share the very good intentions of Tustin to plan and help make our ugly Red Hill corridor more attractive. You clearly know your subject and make me feel better that the intentionality of this plan is to encourage investment and improve the area. 1 If the city is able to show some of the developers proposed designs,I'd sure like to see some at the Feb 20'h workshop. A picture is worth a 1000 words. Regards, Susan Eilenberg 14102 Woodlawn Ave Tustin,CA 92780 From:Demkowicz,Erica[mailto:EDemkowicz@tustinca.orel Sent:Thursday,February 1,2018 3:55 PM To:Demkowicz,Erica<FDemkowicz@tustinca.ors> Cc:Binsack,Elizabeth<EBinsack@tustinca.ora>;Willkom,Justina<J Willkom@tustinca.orey;Reekstin,Scott <SReekstint&tustinca.ore> Subject:RE;Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Update Please find the attached Notice of Availability(NOA)for the Red Hill Avenue Final Draft Environmental Impact Report and information regarding Community Workshop#3 that will be held on February 20,2018. Regards, Erica H.Demkowicz,AICD Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714)573-3127 edemkowicz@tusti nca.ore t Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-53 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter notes that it is the intent of the Specific Plan to improve the attractiveness of the Specific Plan area to encourage investment and improve the area. The opinions of the commenter are noted. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-54 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-14 WTM Tustin Investors and Lake Union Investors M. Katherine Jenson, Rutan &Tucker March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-14 R U TA N M.Katherine,leucon Direct Dial:1714)641-3413 RUTAN&TUCKER.LLP E-mail!I:jensnnrp;rutan.com March 16,2018 VIA E-NIAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Mayor Al Murray and Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Members of the City Council Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Tustin,CA 92780 E-mail: CityCouncil@..tustinca.org E-mail: cityclerk a;tustinca.org Erica Detnkowicz,Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 E-mail:edemkowiczGtustinca.org Re: Red Hill A',cnue Specific Plan Dear Mayor Murray,Chairman Smith,Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and Ms.Demkowicz: Rutan &Tucker, LLP represents WTM Tustin Investors, LP, and Lake Union Investors, LP, with regard to their property interests located at 13852 Red Hill Avenue, in Tustin. Specifically, Rutan has been requested to submit these comments and questions regarding the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan("Specific Plan")and its potential effects on our clients' property interests. The owners of the adjacent properties located at 13742, 13802, 13822, 13872 Red Hill Avenue and 171 E( Camino Real, Mayflower Properties, L.P., and Howard L. Abel, Trustee of the Howard L.Abel Family Trust,have asked to join in the comments contained in this letter. Together,the property owners are referred to in this letter as the"Property Owners"or the "Owners." In a nutshell,while the Property Owners applaud the City's effort to enhance the Red Hill Avenue corridor's aesthetic*and ttc ccssibifity,the Owners are greatly concerned that the Specific Plan 'loll (1) create unceriimi\ a, to what will be expected, of whom, and when; and (2) overburden.w% �ulunt�Wn cfloiis to upgrade the commercial businesses on the west side of Red Hill A',enuc bet\een El Camino Real and San Juan Street. The Owners are concerned that the Specific Plan,as drafted,may actually impede the goal of improving the shopping,dining and commercial services options for Tt.tstin residents. The Owners have a vested interest in advancing Ru;an & Tucker. LLP 1 511 Anton Bled. Shite 1400. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO °ux 1SC. Costa Mesa, CA 92528-1950 1 714-641-51100 1 Fax 714-546-9035 tiv.utxa� oo?1 Orange County I Pal, Alto i w vw niton coni 12411,1174s;ao➢�IrJA Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-55 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 2 that goal and are concerned that approval of the Specific Plan,as drafted,will trigger burdensome and infeasible on-site and oto site improvements. The following are the Owners'primary concerns,questions,and comments at this juncture. 1. What Level of improvements/Upgrades to Existing Structures Will Trigger Application Of The Specific Plan Requirements? The Specific Plan attempts to describe what will trigger its application in several sections. The descriptions are unclear and inconsistent. On page 4-1,it states that the new standards"shall apply to all new development, including additions to buildings, and changes in use...." "New development"and"changes of use"are not defined in the document. On page 5-1,the Specific Plan states that the new Design Criteria will be utilized during the City's design review process, and that the Design Criteria apply to all parcels within the Specific Plan area. The following page (page 5-2) attempts to define projects that are subject to design review. It states that"at a minimum"this includes new construction,zoning applications that"affect"existing exterior elevations,"exterior remodels,""new signage,"any"change in use and/or classification of use of an existing tenant space,"or"any change in the intensification of use of an existing tenant space." Again,no definitions are provided. Additionally,this description of design review differs from the scope of design review described in Section 9272 of the City's Code, which applies to "the issuance of any building permit, including new structures or major exterior alterations or enlargement of existing structures." (Emph.add.) In the section on "Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Parcels" on page 4-291, the Specific Plan provides yet another different description of when the new standards would apply to existing structures_ It lists the triggering requirements as"new construction,"a"zoning application that affects the exterior elevation,"a"chin ue in use."and an"expansion or new development." It then references Section 9273 of the City's Code for"specific standards and provisions." However, the description does not track the City Code,which allows for certain changes in use,provided the new use is in the same or a more restrictive classification. The City Code also provides certain exemptions when nonconformity is the result of right-of-way acquisitions. How will that affect properties that must provide additional road right-of-way under the terms of the Specific Plan? Chapter 6 has an additional description of what will trigger the application of the new Specific Plan standards. Page 6-1 says that existing uses"shall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards"subject to compliance with City Code Section 9273. It goes on to say that, when "land uses intensify or change, existing structures are modified, additional This paragraph also contains a typographical error. The reference to 5.3.1 should be 5.1.3. 1 KUIS13s-aut1 1±0,07481 a4i Ib-IN Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-56 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 3 square footage or new development is proposed,conformance with regulations and design criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required." it subsequently refers to findings that have to be made for"new development projects." (Pages 6-5 to 6-6.) The Owners request two things: (1)that there be a single,consistent description of what type of development project will trigger the application of the new requirements: and(2)that the City make it clear that tenant improvements and minor building modification, necessary Cor re- tenaii1in,an existing building for a permitted u-se do not trigger application ofthe new standards. In such situ;ttiuns, the building is not being enlarged, and the uses are within the scope of the existing entitlements. Without this clarification, re-tenanting existing buildings will be cost prohibitive. This will lead to buildings remaining vacant, attracting vandalism and resulting in disrepair and blight. Vacant buildings produce nothing for the City, its resident, or the Owners. If, when tenants vacate,buildings cannot be efficiently reoccupied with simple over-the-counter building permits far exterior and interior tenant improvements,the effect will be the direct opposite of what the City is trying to achieve with this Specific Plan. 2. Excessive Landscape Coverage Requirements Currently,the City's Zoning Code requires III at 5 of the parking area be landscaped. This is typical. The Specific Plan requires that 10% of the gross lot size be landscaped. If new development were proposed on my clients' site, or even a simple fayade remodel of the existing building,this requirement would translate into more than 10,008 sq. ft. of landscaping(10%of the 100,OSS gross lot sq. ft.). Applying the City's current requirements to that same property results in a requirement of only 3,158 sq. ft. of landscaping.(5%of the 63,174 sq. ft. of parking area), As proposed, this is well over a 300% increase in landscape coverage requirements. Additionally, the Specific Plan calculation must also be based upon the gross lot size, and landscape within the required 18 foot parkway is not to be counted towards meeting the 10% requirement. My clients have extensive experience with development and ownership of shopping centers a ithin California,and have never been subject to landscape requirements as hizh as what is proposed here. Given the drought and ongoing maintenance costs,such a drastic increase in the landscaping coverage requirement is excessive. Moreover,given the numerous additional space- consuming requirements of the Specific Plan,the proposed increase is clearly unreasonable. The Property Owners request that the percentage requirement be dropped, and that the calculation be based upon the size of the parking area rather than the Bross lot size. 3. Drive-Thru Restaurants The proposed treatment of drive-thru restaurants and drive-thru uses is incomplete and the policies are internally inconsistent. The policies do not reflect the desires of Tustin's residents. Table 4-1 on page 4-5 has no letter in column two, next to the Drive-Thru category of land uses. i ia:oisssx-o�aai innfs7aH);,n?b rd I x Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-57 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 4 All other uses are either marked as P—Permitted or C—Conditionally Permitted. We request that a"P"be placed in column two,next to the Drive-Thru category. Page -?4 states that "a proliferation of drive thru businesses is not encouraged in the Specific Plan arca." What does this nican? Given the existing approved uses,what areas is this "discouragement"intended to cover? What is the rationale for attempting to limit them,provided that their operation does not impede traffic flow? In my clients' meeting with City Stag',the issue was explained as a need to reduce curb cuts. That can certainly be accomplished without essentially banning drive-thru facilities. Such businesses are only proposed in areas where consumer demand is present. Drive-thru restaurants and business provide convenience and variety to customers. 4. Height Limitation on Light Poles Given that the overall "Mixed-Ilse"designation consists of both Commercial Office and Mixed-Use components (per pa=e 3-31, it is somewhat unclear whether certain of tine standards identified for"Mixed Use"would apply to traditional Commercial shopping centers. Far example, it is unclear whether the standards contained in 4.4.3 staring on page 4-15 are intended to cover both components of the Mixed-Use designation. This should be clarified. If the intention is to apply the standard to commercial shopping centers, the Property Owners must object to item 10,a.(i),which would limit the height of such poles to 16 feet. Currently,the poles throughout the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center are 30 feet in height. Three times as many poles would be required ifthe height were limited to 16 feet. This would be both expensive and unsightly. We are assuming that the lower heights were intended just for true Mixed Use projects, but would like that contirnted. 5. Undergrounding Overhead Utility lines On page 3-35,there is a reference to the overhead utility lines along Red Hill Avenue being undergrounded "as part of future development." Unlike several of the other requirements, the Specific Plan does not state who would be responsible for this undergrounding or under what circumstances the undergrounding would be completed. In a meeting with City Staff,the Owners were told that there is 5897,794 in the City's Rule20A funds earmarked for this undergrounding project. These Rule20A funds ieere assumed in the recent fee calculations Staff used to determine the deposit amount required to be paid by Del Taco, as part of its new building development,to cover its share of the under-rounding and fitturc signal modifications. The Owners do not wish to unfairly bear the burden of this obligation. This needs to be clarified,and the Rule20A funds and the established prorata calculation:should be included in the Specific Plan. I I":II Issas an11 I'11601IR 7 s)1 1621 V Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-58 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 5 6. Parking The Specific Plan indicates that each parcel must be self-parked. For larger shopping centers with multiple parcels, such as those that exist on the east side of Red Hill Avenue,parking requirements arc typically satisfied through the use of Reciprocal Easement Agreements ("REAs"). This makes sense since the goal is to encourage customers to visit as many businesses as possible during a single stop. We request that the text of the Specific Plan expressly acknowledge and permit the use of REAs to bridge parcels together for reciprocal parking. In addition, it must be remembered that space is finite, and imposing requirement upon requirement is a zero-sum game. Land used for landscaping and right-of-way cannot be used for parking=. Given that the City would like to acquire an additional 10 feet along Red Hill Avenue at some point in the future,my clients would like assurances that,pursuant to Tustin Municipal Code Section 927i(t), if parking spaces are lost, the resulting parking condition will be considered exempt from the City's nonconforming use regulations. 7. Permitted Land Uses As noted above,because"Mixed Use" is used to describe all the private property within the specific plan,my clients would like assurance that freestanding retail will remain a permitted land use in this area, and the buildings within the shopping center on the east side of Red Hill Avenue will not become non-conforming uses. We note that grocery stores are not expressly identified in Table 4-1. We request that you make them a permitted use. 8. Public Improvements and Dedications On page 3-7,there is a reference to"dedications"as"development projects are processed to obtain the full 120-foot right-of-way." We would like clarification that simply re-tenanting an existing structure with standard tenant improvements will not trigger this obligation. In addition,we would like assurances that the referenced traffic signal will be the obligation of the new residential development. What is the"new private development"(page 3-20)that will have to install (or bond) for sidewalks and new landscape improvements between the property line and the curb? Again,this obligation should not be trrngered by the reoccupation of an existing building. 119.615x}x-OU}I Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-59 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 6 A water tine upgrade from 6'- to 12" is shown along the portion of Red Hill Avenue in front of my clients'property on Exhibit 3-12 on pagc 3-36. Please confirm that the responsibility for this upgrade will rest with the residential developer. 9. Existing Shopping Center Agreements and Long Term Leases 1Uhen the Ow'ncrs of the Red Hill Plaza shopping center purchased their interests, they acquired the property subject to the existing shopping center CC&Rs,easements and leases. These documents are legal instruments which are recorded on the property and dictate how the property can be used, where development can occur and what types of tenant uses can take place- The recorded CC&Rs on this shopping center are perpetual in nature and all of the benefits.rights and restrictions called for in the documents have been conveyed to the neighboring O4tiners and the shopping center tenants though guarantees in their leases,all of which are staggered and long term in nattire. The new Specific Plan requires all property within the plan to become Mixed Use, however, the recorded CC&Rs and long term leases on this propertw prohibit any kind of mixed use development from occurring. This puts the Owners in a bind. On one hand, they are not permitted to develop mixed use on site due to the long term recorded CC&R documents. On the other hand, the Specific Plan renders their existing buildings as legally non-conforming and triggers exactions and cost Burdens that make it infeasible for the Owners to simply remodel a storefront or re-tenant an empty unit. It does not appear that any of the recorded CC&R burdens upon the land or the long term nature of the tenant leases were taken into account in the drafting of this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan,rather than promoting investment in the community,is so restrictive with the existing uses that it will prevent the Owners from investing in their assert and actually,to the contrary,promote vacancies and additional blight. This is not just an issue for the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center. These underlying issues are pertinent to all of the shopping centers included within the Specific Plan area. 10.Concerns Regarding Residential De$elopment on North Side of Red Hill Avenue The parking requirements for the proposed residential uses at this location appear low. There is a serious concern that the shopping center parking area will be used by residents, particularly if a mid-block traffic signal is installed. Parking at Red Hill Plaza is for the exclusive use of customers only,not for overnight parking, and is subject to tow. My clients have had this issue at other properties and it becomes a nuisance for the owners of the property,as well as for the City who ultimately receives the majority of the towed car complaints. What can be done to prevent this from happening? 1191711ss3x-0011 11I 074K 1 nf}i.IM1;1K Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-60 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al MwTay and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 7 11. Miscellaneous Clarifications Please confirm that the General Development Standards starting mid-way down on page 4-15 and through page 4-14 are for mixed use projects only. • The heading and land use type descriptions on Table 4-4 on page 4-21 are unclear. Can you confirm whether the "Non-Residential" is intended to include Commercial development that is not part of a mixed-use project? We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Specific Plan and we thank staff for taking the time to meet to discuss this matter. If possible, we would like to schedule a further meeting to discuss the concerns expressed in this letter. Please notify both me and my clients of all upcoming hearings and actions regarding the Specific Plan. Very truly yours, RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP //Y/ /�a M.Katherine Jenson MKJAr cc: Tom O'Meara(via e-mail) Mick Meldrum(via e-mail) Howard Abel(via e-mail) David E. Kendig,City Attorney(via e-mail: dkendig@,wss-law-.com) 110,W.xsx-ao31 L'06(1MR 3 Al 16dlx Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-61 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response The commenter asks for clarification and consideration of modifications of proposed development standards set forth in the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. These comments and questions are forwarded to the City's decision-makers for their consideration. However, the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian 3-62 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 4.0 City of Tustin Native American Tribal Consultation 4 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CONSULTATION On February 6, 2018, Andrew Salas, Chairman, of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation, requested consultation with the City of Tustin on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project, in accordance with both Senate Bill (SB) 18 (California Government Code § 65352.3) and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014). The City of Tustin entered into consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation and participated in a conference call on March 7, 2018. The following individuals participated in the call: Andrew Salas, Chairman, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation Dana Ogden, City of Tustin Erica Demkowicz, City of Tustin Scott Reekstin, City of Tustin Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates No tribal cultural places or tribal cultural resources were identified by Mr. Salas during the consultation, However, Mr. Salas noted the importance of Red Hill, a village or gathering place, located in the hillsides northeast of the Specific Plan area. Following the conference call, Mr. Salas provided the City with additional documentation including a map showing the location of the Specific Plan area in relationship to tribal cultural resources: traditional trading routes, the Kizh Gabrieleno village of Katuktu, and the red hills known by the Spanish as Cerrito de las Ranas. It is noted that these tribal cultural resources are outside of the Specific Plan area. The nearest resource, a segment of a trading route is south of Edinger Avenue and generally traverses from east-to-west. Mr. Salas requested that Native American monitoring be required. In response to this request, the City has proposed a modification to MM 4.3-1. MM 4.3-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Prier to Issuance of any gFadiRg 9r bUildiRg peFlMits aRG1,19F aetien that would permit pFeject site distulcl Plan area, the appkEant shall provide a letter to t-lae—City of TQatia C-eFRMW,;ty Development Department, or designee, fFGFR a qualified prefessieRal al:Eheeleglst at 36 GFR Part 61, AppeRdix A StatiRg that the applieaRt has retained this individual and that the areheelegist shall pFevide en eall services in the event areheelegiral rPr1A­F(:PC; aCe—dlsee.ere-d,Th-e—aFEheelogist Shaul be plreseRt at the pFe-grad'Rg GeRfelre,TCe to aFea, all aetivity within 50 feet of the area —Af diSEEweFy shall cease @Rd the Gity shall be Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 4-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 4.0 City of Tustin Native American Tribal Consultation V rRmediately netified. The arGheGIGgist shall be GeRtafeted tee flag the area in the field apid CEQA Guidelones § 15964.5(a)) and/er unique @Fehaealegieal FeseuFEe (Public Resources Code-fir Rrcj21993.21g" If thp find rAAC;idPFPd u salvage,place ep FeeeveFy,salvage, and treatmeRt-Af the deposits. Recovery,salvage.;;Pd treatmept 21083.2 and State CEQA GHOdelqnes SeGtiens 15964.5 ;-;;;H- 1151-266.4. if undque archaeolegical reseurees shall be prepared to the POIRt e4 identifleation and permanent preseryatieR b'T' these parts ef the uniqye aFEhaeelegical re-reuree th-at%ve-uld be damaged er destroyed by Proor to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the natural or exjsting grade. the applicant/developer shall provide written evidence to the itv Planning Division that_a qualified archaeolagjst has been retained by th deyelQP_er__to_ respond on an aa-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeolog'cal discoveries and anv archaeological requirements (e.g., conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The applicant/developer is encouraged t conduct a field meeting prior to tLe start of construction activity wi h all gon5tructoon staffsupervisors to tra'n to jd n jfv potential ha plo i al resources, In tLe2,ienLtUl arc�aeolp.gical materials are encountered duriog ground-disturbjne actjvitjes work jn the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed e discovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 i determined, If discovered archaeological resources are found to be sjgnifjcant. the archaeologist shall determine. jn consultation with the Qty and anv local Native American groups expressing interest ollowjng notification by the Crtv. appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mjtjgation. Per CEQA Guidehnes_Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the_pref red means to avajd impacts to archaeological resourcesgualifvjng as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126,4(b)(3)(C). jf jt is demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified archaeglog shall op additional treatment measures, such as data recovery, reburial/ relocation, eposjt at a local museum that accepts such_resources or other appropriate measures, 0j con5ultatiu with the implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing interest an prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria far a unique archaeological resource as defined jn Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated i accordance with the provisions of Section 21083 2 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 4-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions 5 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the EER. This section is organized by respective sections of the EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined. Section 4.2, Air Quality A typographical error in the numbering of the mitigation referenced on page 4.2-16 of the Draft Program EIR. Page 4.2-16 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Therefore, implementation of MM 4.2-54 is required to ensure a project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is conducted for future residential uses located within 500 feet of 1-5. Implementation of MM 4.2-54 would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to a less than significant level. Section 4.3, Cultural Resources MM 4.3-1 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.3-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b](31) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. PFi9F tO issuaRee „� @AY ffad.Ag 9F buildiRg permits and/or aetiefl that would peFFn.t pFeject sate disturbanGe Plan area, the appliGaRt Shall aIette{ to the—Gity OfTUStiR C-egyty , m at 96 CPR Part 61, AppeRdix A stating that the appliEant ha5 Fetained this individual and are disGovered. The arGheelogist shall be ffeseRt at the pre gradiRg ceRfelre-Ree #-A aFea, all aetivity withiA. 50 feet ef. the area ef d�5covery shall cease and the City shall be 0 mmed'ately notified. The archeologi6t shall be eontar-ted-te- flag the area in the field- A—Ad- deter;2pipe 'if the deposits meet the GEQA def'Riti-AR Of �qk-tOFical (State Cede room § 21993.2 -11 salvage,21093.2 and State GEQA Guidelines Seoien6 15064­5-apd- 1-51-26-4. if wnique arGhaeglogical resources cannot be preserved ip pl-AP-e A-.r IP-4 OR a1P state, re6E)V2FY, Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 5.0 City of Tustin Cjarifications and Revisions arad_ trea#Pent-shall - regUmFed at the applicant's expeAse. All recevered d salvaged the arGhaeelagist. Resources shall be identified and GWFa!@d ORtO aR established aEEFedited those parts of the Hnique aFEhaeelegmeal FeseHFee that wou�d be damaged or destpayed by Specific Plan Prior to iss-u-ance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more On depth below the natural or existing gQde, the appljcan /d v Ion r shall pro vine written eyidgLL2 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 di ov _ri 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 jdentjfy potential archaeological resources In the event h_at archaeolQg'cal materials are encountered during ground-djsturbjng actjvjtieswork in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaenlogjst has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment pursuaaUQ_CEQA Quidplines Sect'onJ_5DfL4_.a_j'.s determined. If discovered archaeological resources are found to be sjgnmfjcant the arch ealogist shall determine. in consultation with the Gtv and any local Native American groups expressing interest ollowjng notification by the City. appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA Gujdeli.oes Section 15126.4(b)(3). preservation jn alas shall be the preferred means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 4(b)(3)( demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided the qualified archaeologist all develop additional treatment measures such as data [ecovery. 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 r€presentatjyes expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources If an archaeological site cloe� nat qualify as an historical resource but meets thQ criteria for a uniqu-e archaeQlQgical resource as defined in Section 1M,,2. then tbei hall b r a d i accordance with the provisions of Section 2108 Section 4.8, Land Use and Planning Table 4.8-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, has been updated and incorporated into the Final EIR to correct policy references for COSR Policy 1.7 and to correct the reference to SC 4.4-1 as MM 4.4-1. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions Table 4.8-1-General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Tustin General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element COSR Policy 1.7:Create the maximum possible opportunities for Consistent:See response to Q"V CIR Policy 5.1 and CIR PoEity 6.444.As previously addressed,the bicycles as an alternative transportation mode and recreational use. Specific Plan complies with the City of Tustin's Master Bikeway Plan,which shows the entire extent of Red HiF Avenue within the city limits as a desigriated or a potential Class II bike lane, COSR Goal 8:Conserve and protect significant topographical features,important watershed areas,resources,and soils. COSR Policy 8.3:Encourage the practice of propersoil management Consistent:See response to COSR Policy 8.2.Additionally,A4A4 SC4.4-1 requires geotechnical techniques to reduce erosion,sedimentation,and other sail-related evaluations for development projects in the Specific Plan area to identify appropriate engineering problems. design measures to reduce potential impacts. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability,soil strength,position and adequacy of load-bearing soils,the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity,compressibility,liquefaction,differential settlement,and expansiveness. Please also refer to Section 4.7,Hydrology and Water Quality. Construction activities could loosen on-site soils or remove stabilizing vegetation and expose areas of loose soil. These areas,if not properly stabilized during construction,could be subject to increased erosion and siltation runoff, Projects would be required to comply with applicable State and local regulations. COSR Policy 8.5:Review applications for building and grading permits, Consistent.Mitigation PA@a;,-^Standard Condition 4.4-1 requires geotechnical evaluations for any and applications for subdivision for adjacency to,threats from,and development project in the Specific Plan area to identify appropriate engineering design measures to impacts on geological hazards arising from seismic events,landslides, reduce potential impacts from seismic events and other geologic hazards. or other geologic hazards such as expansive soils and subsidence areas. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-3 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions Section 4.12, Recreation MM 4.12-1 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.12-1 For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Code(Article 9,Chapter 3, PaFt 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building nermit� applicants shall pay to the City of r 5+•„ a -.,-s,iand deyel9lam nt fee P _to the - - Af h-1;ICA; dedicate parkland or nay a nark fee, on a per unit basis reflecting th.P- value d_required for park purposes. The value Gf the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedications")_-Cording to the following standards and formula. Standards aod Formula for Lard DediLaWm The public interest. convenient . h al h. welfare, and safetV requires ha hrae d31 acre= of usable park land per one nd (1.000) potential population be devoted to local aark and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shat be computed by multiplying the of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland A r s "E. Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in thQ following table: Dwelling M15-= Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling Unit _Dwelling Unit 41 3-32 .91.4.2 7.115 2.E .0086 2.24 JO= 25.1 & Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon Proposed achieve three (3) acres/ Drodu t tvL) Mobile Home Parks 224 .0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage pe[ dwelling unit shall be. used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three tacres Parkland Per Qne thousand (1.000) u-e=ns. Red Hili Avenue Specific Plan 5-4 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Exhibit C EXHIBIT C Statement of Overriding Considerations Economic A. Provides New Employment The proposed Specific Plan would provide new employment and housing opportunities within an existing, older commercial area of Tustin. During construction of private development projects within the Plan area, which is anticipated to take place over a period of years, temporary employment opportunities would be generated as construction projects will continue until expected build out in 2035. Coupled with on-going private development, the City will be making streetscape improvements, installing bike lanes and adding entry monumentation signage that supports the vision of a creating a more vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, walkable, & bike-friendly commercial-retail district. Permanent jobs would be created after private development projects are completed that includes, but is not limited to the areas of, retail-commercial, service, office and hospitality. The Specific Plan area has approximately 296,446 square feet of existing non-residential uses which include commercial, office, an institutional use and motels, as well as 21 dwelling units. The Specific Plan would add an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses and an additional 500 dwelling units, which could result in approximately 722 new employment opportunities. The Plan provides an economic engine to invigorate business within the Red Hill area by locating residential nearby. B. Stimulates the Economy The proposed Specific Plan would stimulate the local economy of the City of Tustin within the Red Hill Avenue area by bringing in revenue through sales tax associated for goods and services offered and purchased by existing and future residents within the area. The Plan would also allow and encourage a mixture of uses, including residential. The new housing in the Specific Plan area would result in a beneficial impact related to the balance of jobs and housing. An increase in non-residential uses and allowance for mixed-use buildings would bring in revenue for the commercial-retail area within the Specific Plan area as well as in the surrounding vicinity. C. Provides New Housing With the inclusion of residential units to the area through the establishment of a new mixed land use program, additional housing units will be provided for those that will reside along and within the Red Hill Avenue corridor. The Specific Plan would add an additional 500 dwelling units, which could result in approximately 1,520 new residents. The housing would offer additional opportunities to own and/or rent in Tustin, a City which is centrally located within Orange County and easy access to the 1-5 freeway. Social A. Encourages Public Gathering & Open Spaces The Specific Plan would establish a mixed-use land use plan, development regulations, design criteria and administrative & implementation measures that further the vision, goals and objectives to redevelop the area into a pedestrian-oriented commercial-retail area. The Plan would encourage more of an urban lifestyle by placing residents near services,jobs and public transportation. The Plan would also create additional integrated public gathering and open spaces adjacent to Red Hill Avenue that would serve existing and future residents and visitors. These spaces would be immediately adjacent to the commercial-retail frontage in a flexible amenity setback that can be utilized for a variety of purposes such as wider sidewalks, outdoor seating & dining, landscaping, etc. to encourage social interaction and pedestrian activity. As properties develop redevelop over time, pedestrian-friendly linkages to surrounding parks and neighborhoods will also be provided. The inclusion of a flexible amenity setback area will create a sense of place. The revitalization effort would create a social benefit for the City and residents within the community. B. Enhances Gateway to City Red Hill Avenue, the main vehicular corridor within the Project area, does not enhance aesthetics as a person enters this portion of the City either entering or exiting the 1-5 Freeway or from other adjacent intersections in the immediate vicinity. Red Hill Avenue, dominated by automobiles, older commercial development and public transit is immediately adjacent to the 1-5 freeway and as such, lacks a sense of identity, cohesive theme or character. Gateway monumentation signage at the corners of El Camino Real & Red Hill Avenue, at San Juan Avenue & Red Hill Avenue and within the landscaped median north of EI Camino Real are all sign entry gateways for the area. Public art beneath the 1-5 overpass, connecting the north and south portions of Red Hill Avenue is another creative opportunity that will further enhance the area. The inclusion of a new and consistent streetscape theme along the entire length of Red Hill Avenue and for new landscaped medians where they are feasible, will also add to the overall "sense of place" or identity that will further the long-term goals for commercial-retail development and revitalization within the area. The inclusion of a flexible amenity setback, as referenced above, would create a sense of arrival for motorists exiting the adjacent freeway and will reinforce the unique character of this district. Transportation &Circulation A. Provides New On-Street Bike Lanes and Buffered Sidewalks The Specific Plan would set forth a mixed use land use plan whereby residents would be in close proximity to services,jobs and public transportation. Such proximity would reduce local and regional miles traveled and therefore have a beneficial traffic impact on local arterials, collector streets and the State Highway System. On-street bike lanes and buffered sidewalks would also be added to both sides of Red Hill Avenue that will provide a designated area for cyclists and non-motorists to travel safely along the corridor and improve connectivity through the Specific Plan area and to the existing parks and schools within the vicinity. Conclusion For the reasons described above, the benefits of the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and consequently, the adverse environmental effects are considered "acceptable" in accordance with Section 15093 (c) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Exhibit D MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC H NO . 2017041031 Prepared for City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 Date July 2018 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area extends along Red Hill Avenue to Bryan. Avenue to the northeast, and Walnut Avenue to the southwest. Interstate 5 (1-5) bisects the Specific Plan area creating the northern and southern portions of the Specific Plan. The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect General Plan policies with future project-level development within the Specific Plan area. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide future change, promote high-quality development,and implement the community's vision for the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides goals and objectives, a land use plan, regulatory standards, Design Criteria, and administration and implementation programs to encourage high-quality development. The Specific Plan would allow for an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential development and 500 additional dwelling units. The total development in the Specific Plan area anticipated with the buildout potential of the Specific Plan is 521 dwelling units and 621,446 square feet of non-residential development, inclusive of existing and proposed uses. Red Hill Avenue would be restriped within the paved width of the street to include on-street bike lanes, reduced lane widths, turn pockets, and landscaped medians where feasible. 1.2 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor Standard Conditions (SCs) and mitigation measures (MMs) outlined in the Red Hill Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. SCH NO. 2017041031. The Red Hill Specific Plan MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Tustin Monitoring Requirements. Specifically, Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. 1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Tustin is the Lead Agency for the Red Hill Specific Plan Project and is therefore responsible for ensuring the implementation of the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081,6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program. The MMRP is comprised of the Mitigation Program and includes measures to implement and monitor the Mitigation Program.The MMRP defines the following for each SC and MM identified in Table 1, Mitigation Monitoring Requirements: ■ Definition of Mitigation (SC, MM). The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. • Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, an applicant would be the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Tustin or a designated. representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. • Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation or the review of evidence that mitigation has taken place.The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact-related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. The numbering system in Table 1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the EIR.The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Tustin. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Tustin Community Development Department, Planning&Zoning Division. 2 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for {Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SCJ and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility far Monitoring Compliance) AIR QUALITY _. SC 4.2-1:Dust Control. During construction of the future development with the Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development Specific Plan area,project applicants shalt require all construction contractors to Construction Grading and Building Department—Building comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's(SCAQMD's)Rules Contractor Permits Division 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off Monitor during grading and construction site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include,but are not limited to,the following: • Clearing and grubbing.Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. • Cut and fill:Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. • Earth-moving activities:Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts;re- apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete. • Importing/exportingofbulk materials:Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions;maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles;and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions. ■ Stockpiles/bulk material handling;Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site occupied buildings must not be greater than 8 feet in height,must have a road bladed to the top(refers to a road to the top of the pile)to allow water truck access,or must 3 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. ■ Traffic areas for construction activities:Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas;stabilize all haul routes;and direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more acres of grading or with a daily earth-moving volume of 5,000 cubic yards at least 3 times in 1 year. Future development within the Specific Plan would potentially be considered a large operation. Large operations are required to implement additional dust-control measures(as specified in Tables 2 and 3 of Rule 403); provide additional notifications,signage,and reporting;and appoint a Dust Control Supervisor. The Dust Control Supervisor is required to: • Be employed by or contracted with the Property Owner or Developer; ■ Be on the site or available on site within 30 minutes during working hours; • Have the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403 requirements;and • Have completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and have been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class. SC 4,2-2:Architectural Coatings.Architectural coatings shall be selected so Applicant Identify in contractor Community Development that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. specifications Department—Building This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Construction Division Manager During building plan check and construction MM 4.2-1:Electric Vehicle(EV)Charging Stations. Prior to the issuance of Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development building permits,the City's Building Official shall confirm that project plans Building Permits Department—Building and specifications designate that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Division Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use. 4 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for {Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) MM 4.2-2:Vanpool/Rideshare Programs. Prior to the issuance of occupancy Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development permits,the City's Building Official shall confirm that future commercial uses Occupancy Permits Department—Building within the Specific Plan area include Codes,Covenants,and Restrictions Division (CC&Rs)that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach,such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles,and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. This measure is not applicable to residential uses. MM 4.2-3:operational Emissions Reductions. Prior to the issuance of building Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development permits,the City's Panning Official shall confirm that project plans and Building Permits Department—Planning& specifications consider and mitigate the impacts on regional air quality and GHG Zoning Division emissions when reviewing proposals for new development.Impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodologies and procedures. Recommended mitigation measure may include,but are not limited to,the following: • Install heat transfer modules in all furnaces; Install solar panels for water heating systems for residential and other facilities; • Incorporate renewable energy sources in the project design(e.g.,solar photovoltaic panels). • Include passive solar cooling/heating design elements in building designs; • Include design elements that maximize use of natural lighting in new development; ■ Include provisions to install energy efficient appliances and lighting in new development. • Install higher efficacy public street and exterior lighting. 5 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Bate of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) • Increase project density. • Incorporate design measures that promote bicycle,pedestrian,and public transportation use. • Provide preferential parking spaces for alternatively-fueled vehicles. ■ Incorporate measures that reduce water use and waste generation. • Provide informational materials on low ROG/VOC consumer products, cleaners,paints,and other products,as well as the importance of recycling and purchasing recycled material. Informational materials shall be provided to residential and commercial occupants through CC&R requirements. • Incorporate measures and design features that promote ride sharing and consistency with the commute-reduction requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2202(On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options). MM 4.2-4:Toxic Air Contaminants/Health Risk Assessment. A project-specific Applicant Site Specific CEQA Community Development Health Risk Assessment shall be conducted for future residential development Phasing Department—Planning& proposed within 500feetofthe Interstate 5 eight-of-way,pursuant to the Zoning Division recommendations set forth in the CARE Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The Health Risk Assessment shall evaluate a project per the following SCAQMD thresholds: • Cancer Risk:Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million. ■ Non-Cancer Risk:Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of one in one million. The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a"hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level(REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less than one (1.0)means that adverse health effects are not expected. If projects are found 6 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) to exceed the SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment thresholds,mitigation shall be incorporated to reduce impacts to below SCAQMD thresholds. CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES SC 4.3-1:California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5,CEQA Section Qualified County Coroner:within Community Development 15064.5,and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to Archeologist 24 hours of a discovery Department—Planning& be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a Zoning Division location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Native American Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered Heritage Community Development within the Specific Plan area,disturbance of the site shall be halted until the (NAHCCommission Department—Building coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances,manner and necess ]as Division cause of death,and the recommendations concerning the treatment and necessary) disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation,or to his or her authorized representative,in the manner provided in section 5097,98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American,he or she shall contact,by telephone within 24 hours,the Native American Heritage Commission. MM 4.3-1:The State CEQA Guidelines(14 CCR§15126.4[b][3])direct public Applicant Retention of Community Development agencies,wherever feasible,to avoid damaging historical resources of an Qualified archaeologist;Prior to Department—Planning& archaeological nature,preferably by preserving the resource(s)in place. Archaeologist issuance of Grading Zoning Division Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEOA Guidelines include Permit and/or action (1)planning construction to avoid an archaeological site;(2)incorporating the Native American that would permit site site into open space;(3)capping the site with a chemically stable soil;and/or monitor,if disturbance(whichever (4)deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. needed occurs first) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth Recommended below the natural or existing grade,the applicant/developer shall provide attendance of written evidence to the City Planning Division that a qualified archaeologist archaeologist at pre- has been retained by the applicant/developer to respond on an as-needed grade meeting 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 7 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) meeting prior to the start of construction activity with all construction Identify requirements supervisors to train staff to identify potential archaeological resources. In the in approved grading event that archaeological materials are encountered during ground-disturbing and construction pians 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. lied 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 15126.4ib)(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. 8 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) MM 4.3-2:Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any Applicant Retention of Community Development development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan,the applicant Qualified paleontologist:Prior to Department–Planning& shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Paleontologist issuance of Grading Zoning Division Department,or designee,from a paleontologist selected from the roll of Permits and/or action qualified paleontologists maintained by the County of Orange,stating that the that would permit site applicant has retained this individual and that the paleontologist shall provide disturbance on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall Identify requirements be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. If paleontological resources are in approved grading discovered during any development project within the Red Hill Avenue Specific and construction plans Plan area,ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery Attendance of shall cease. paleontologist at pre- If the find is determined by paleontologists to require further treatment.,the grade meeting area of discovery will be protected from disturbance while qualified paleontologists and appropriate officials,in consultation with a recognized museum repository(e.g.,National History Museum of Los Angeles County, determine an appropriate treatment plan. — GEOLOGY AND SOILS SC 4.4-1:projects are required to comply with Tustin City Code,Chapter 9, Applicant Priorto the issuance of Community Development Grading and Excavation. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits,the Registered Grading Permits Department–Building grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering Division reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City. Grading Geotechnical Identified in approved plans shall indicate all areas of grading. Grading plans shall provide for Engineer grading and temporary erosion control on all graded sites scheduled to remain construction plans unimproved for more than 30 days. 4 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) SC 4.4-2:A specific geotechnical survey shall be prepared by a certified Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development geotechnical engineer to confirm/refine engineering design parameters Registered Grading and Building Department—Building regarding site preparation,grading,and foundation design,to assure design Geotechnical Permits Division and/or the Public criteria are responsive to specific development site soils and potential effects Works Department of differential settlements resulting from ground shaking,as well as effects of Engineer Identified in approved subsidence,lateral spreading,and collapse potential. All geotechnical grading and recommendations shall be noted on individual site development plans and construction plans implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Project-specific geotechnical measures shall be developed,as needed,based on the design-level geotechnical report and depicted on plans prepared by the geotechnical engineer of record or on plan sheets included within final grading plans,and subject to the approval by the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Public Works Department. SC 4.4-3:Future developments shall limit grading to the minimum area Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development necessary for construction. Final grading plans shall include best Registered Grading and Building Department—Building management practices(BMPs)to limit on-site and off-site erosion and a Geotechnical Permits Division and/or the Public water plan to treat disturbed areas during construction and reduce dust. The Engineer Works Department plans shall be submitted to the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit.. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MM 4.6-1:Prior to issuance of grading permits,a human health risk evaluation Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with qualified Grading and Building Department—Building Orange County Health Care Agency,Environmental Health Division(OCHCA-EH) Permits Division for any individual site application proposed on a site with a current or former Environmental hazardous materially regulated facility to determine if there is a contamination Professional risk to the proposed land use. Remedial activities,if necessary,may be required,in consultation with OCHCA-EH. 10 Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing JResponsibility for Monitoring J Compliance) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY SC 4.7-1:Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development Applicant Prior to issuance of Public Warks Department projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that would disturb more than Grading and Building one acre,the project applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Permits Works an approved copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and Notice of Intent(NOI)to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities,confirming to the Current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)requirements. The SWPPP shall be made part of the construction program. This SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that would be in effect during construction to minimize the individual project's impact on water quality and stormwater runoff volumes. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices{BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the future development is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. SC 4.7-2:Prior to issuance of grading permits for any development projects Applicant Prior to Issuance of Public Works Department under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan,the project applicant shall prepare Grading and Building and submit a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)for the project, Permits subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. The WQMP shall include appropriate BMPs and low impact development(LID)techniques to ensure project runoff is adequately treated. SC 4.7-3:Projects within the Specific Plan area would be subject to conditions Applicant During grading and Community Development imposed by the City of Tustin Community Development Department and the construction Department and the Public Public Works Department in accordance with Section 4902(Control of Urban Works Department Runoff)of the Tustin City Code which requires the project applicant to provide all drainage facilities necessary for the removal of surface water from a site and to protect off-site properties from a project's water runoff. The storm drain system must be designed in accordance with the standards of the Orange County flood Division. t� Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Rate of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) MM 4.7-1:Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any Applicant Prior to issuance of Public Works Department development projects underthe Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan,the project Grading and Building applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works a Permits hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by the proposed project flow rates. MM 4.7-2:Prior to issuance of any grading or buildings permits for any Applicant Prior to issuance of Public Works Department development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that do not Grading and Building have a direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system,shall Permits provide to the Department of Public Works hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. NOISE SC 4.9-1:To ensure compliance with Tustin City Code,grading and Applicant Condition of Grading Community Development construction plans shall include a note indicating that loud noise-generating and Building Permits Department—Building project construction activities(as defined in Section 4616(2)and Section ConstructionManager Monitor during grading Division 4617{e)of the Tustin City Code)shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. and construction Loud,noise-generating construction activities are prohibited outside ofthese hours and on Sundays and City observed Federal holidays. SC 4.9-2:Development projects are required to meet or exceed the 65 dBA Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development CNEL exterior noise level standard,as defined by Table N-3 of the City of Construction Grading and Building Department—Building Tustin General Plan Noise Element,and the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level Manager Permits Division standard of the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element,and by Title 24, Part 2,of the California Building Code. MM 4.9-1 Construction Noise. Prior to approval of grading plans,the City of Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development Tustin Building Division shall ensure that plans include Best Management Construction Grading and Building Department—Planning and Practices to minimize construction noise. Construction noise Best Manager Permits Building Divisions Management Practices may include the following: Identify in approved • Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment,fixed grading and or mobile,with properly operating and maintained mufflers,consistent construction pians with manufacturers'standards,and all stationary construction 12 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC]and Mitigation.Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from Monitor during grading the noise sensitive use nearest the construction activity. and construction ■ The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity. ■ The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Tustin City Code Article 4,Chapter 6,Section 4617.The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise. ■ Construction activity within 50 feet of occupied noise sensitive uses shall reduce construction noise levels exceeding 8S dBA Leq at nearby sensitive land uses by one or more of the following methods to reduce noise to below 85 dBA Leq: 1. Install temporary construction noise barriers within the line of site of occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities that could generate noise exceeding 85 dBA Leq.The noise control barriers)must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall; a. Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket(e.g.vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets)attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; b. Be maintained and any damage promptly repaired.Gaps, holes,or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired;and c. Be removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. 13 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for iSignature;bate of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) 2. Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment(e.g,graders,dozers, heavy trucks).The dampening materials must be capable of a 5- dBA minimum noise reduction,must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment,and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use. MM 4.9-2:Construction Vibration. The following measures shall be Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development implemented by applicants for development within the Red Hill Avenue Construction Grading and Building Department—Building Specific Plan area to reduce construction vibration at nearby receptors: Manager Permits Division a. Avoid impact pile-driving where possible. Identify in approved Public Works—Traffic b. In areas where project construction is anticipated to include pile drivers grading and Engineer in close proximity to schools or historic structures,conduct site-specific construction plans vibration studies to determine the area of impact and to present Monitor during grading appropriate vibration reduction techniques that may include the and construction following: • Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring should be conducted,set up a vibration monitoring schedule,define structure-specific vibration limits,and address the need to conduct photo,elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. • Identify construction contingencies for when vibration levels approach the standards. • At a minimum,conduct vibration monitoring during pile-driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. ■ When vibration levels approach standards,suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. 14 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) Conduct a post-survey on any structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of vibration. ...._....---.._.._...— PUBLIC SERVICES SC 4.11.1:Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for any Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development development project underthe Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan,the applicant Grading and Building Department–Building shall submit a Fire Master Plan to the.Orange County Fire Authority for Permits Division review. Payment of fees and Fire Master Plan approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. SC 4.11-2:Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development prior to the issuance of building permits for any development projects under Building Permits Department–Planning& the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan,the applicant shall pay developer fees to the Zoning Division Tustin Unified School District;payment of the adopted fees would provide fuP and complete mitigation of school impacts. SC 4.11-3:New development under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan shall be Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development subject to the same General Obligation bond tax rate as already applied to Building Permits Department–Planning& other properties within the Tustin Unified School District for Measure G Zoning Division (approved in 2008)based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. RECREATION – SC 4.12-1:Prior to the approval of the final map for subdivisions under the Applicant Condition of approval Community Development Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan,applicants shall comply with the City of Tustin of Tentative Tract Map Department–Planning& Subdivision Code(Article 9,Chapter 3,Part 3,Section 9331 of the Zoning Division Tustin City Code). Developers may dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu or a Land dedication at final map recordation combination of both. The value of the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be In lieu fees prior to required for dedication. Dedication of land may be required by the City for a issuance of Building condominium,stock cooperative,or community apartment project which Permits exceeds 50 dwelling units. 15 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) MM 4.12-1:For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development Code(Article 9,Chapter 3,Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code),prior to the Building Permits Department—Planning& issuance of building permits,applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a park Zoning Division fee,on a per unit basis,reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for Land Dedication: The public interest,convenience,health,welfare,and safety requires that three(3)acres of usable park land per one thousand(1,000)potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling Units per Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0-7 3.39 .0102 7.1-15 2.85 .0085 15.1-25 2.24 .0067 25.1&Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve three(3)acres/ product type 1,000 Population Mobile Home Parks 2.24 0067 These density ranges,average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three(3)acres of parkland per one thousand(1,000)persons. 16 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsi bi I ity Foe (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MM 4.13-1:Red Hill Avenue at Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps:Re-stripe the Applicant Prior to issuance of Public Works—Traffic eastbound approach(the off-ramp)to convert from a shared left-through Grading and Building Engineer lane and one dedicated right-turn lane to one dedicated left-turn lane and a Permits shared left-through-right lane. This improvement would provide additional capacity for the heavy eastbound left-turn volume. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at Level of Service D or better during both peak hours. The California Department of Transportation'(Caltrans)approval and cooperation would be required to implement this improvement. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS SC 4.14-1:Future development within the Specific Plan area would comply with Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development Article 4,Chapter 10,Section 4952 of the Tustin City Code which seeks to Building Permits Department—Building reduce water consumption through(1)permanent water conservation Division requirements during non-shortage conditions and(2)four levels of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented within the City during times of declared water shortage. The program would prevent waste or unreasonable use of water;maximize the efficient use of water;and ensure a reliable and sustainable minimum supply of water for public health,safety,and welfare. SC 4.14.2:Future development within the Specific Plan area would comply Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development with Article 9,Chapter 7,Section 9704 of the Tustin C;ty Code which Building Permits Department—Building establishes procedures and standards for the design,installation,and Division maintenance of water-efficient landscapes in conjunction with new construction projects within the City to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and to prevent the waste of available water resources. SC 4.14-3:Applicants shall prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development Demolition Waste Management Plan(CDWMD)for a project. The CWMP Grading and Building Department—Building shall list the types and weights or volumes of solid waste materials expected Permits Division to be generated from construction. The CDWMP shall include options to divert from landfill disposal,nonhazardous materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight or volume jar requirements in place at the time of project entitlement). 17 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ].8 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations EXHIBIT E FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2017041031 1. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR, 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. 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. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. 1 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where 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. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR) and the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR) for the Red Hill Specific Plan Project, State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2017041031 (collectively, the Final EIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby adopted by the City of Tustin (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the Project. These actions include the approval of the following: ■ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report ■ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ■ General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-001 ■ Zoning Map Amendment (Zone Change [ZC] 2017-001 These actions are collectively referred to herein as the Project. 2 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings of Fact (2) Section 2 provides a summary of the Specific Plan Project and overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project's goals and objectives. (3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the Specific Plan that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the Project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period either not to be relevant to the Project or which were determined to clearly not manifest at levels which were deemed to be significant for consideration at the project-specific level. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of standard conditions and/or mitigation measures, In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project and adopted as conditions of the Project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which will or which may result from the Project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Specific Plan. (7) Section 7 consists of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which sets forth the City's reasons for finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the Specific Plan Project outweigh the Project's potential unavoidable environmental effects. B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Specific Plan are located at the City of Tustin Community Development Department, which serves as the custodian of the Administrative Record for the Project. Copies of these documents are available upon request. 3 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations To obtain information regarding the Administrative Record, please contact the following: Ms. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 ebinsack@tustinca.org (71.4) 573-3031 C. Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Specific Plan Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: ■ City of Tustin General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating thereto; ■ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan; • Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; • Scoping Meeting held during the 30-day NOP period; • Final Program EIR including the Draft Program EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments document, and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Program EIR. The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments of the Final EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 45-day public review comment period on the Draft Program EIR and included in the Responses to Comments document; • Planning Commission public hearing on August 14, 2018; • Staff report responses to public comments submitted either in writing or orally at the August 14, 2018 Planning Commission hearing; • City Council public hearing on September 4, 2018; • All final City Staff Reports, and exhibits and attachments thereto and documents referenced therein, relating to the Final EIR, and the Project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps or other planning documents relating to the Project, the Final EIR prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or any responsible agencies; • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City for the Project; • Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein; 4 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations • These Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City for the Project, and any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings are based are located at the City of Tustin Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Tustin. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 2. SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY A. Specific Plan Location The approximately 43.11-acre Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area, inclusive of approximately 7.32 acres of roadway rights-of-way, extends along Red Hill Avenue to Bryan Avenue to the northeast, and generally Walnut Avenue to the southwest. Interstate 5 (1-5) bisects the Specific Plan area creating the northern and southern portions of the Specific Plan area. Existing uses include commercial, retail shopping centers, professional office, residential, motels, and an institutional use, and vacant land. B. Specific Plan Description The Specific Plan is a policy and regulatory document to promote revitalization of the commercial district by providing a mixed-use land use plan accompanied by goals and objectives, regulatory standards, design criteria, a streetscape program and various implementation strategies to improve jobs/housing balance, improve aesthetics, and promote mobility. The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan provides planning regulations and criteria that connect the City of Tustin General Plan policies with future project-level development within the Specific Plan area. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide future change, promote high- quality development, and implement the community's vision for the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan proposes 325,000 additional square feet of non-residential development and 500 additional dwelling units. The total development potential in the Specific Plan including existing development is 521 dwelling units and 621,446 square feet of non-residential development. The Specific Plan seeks to facilitate compatible land uses in an integrated mixed-use environment with appropriate connections to existing parks, by limiting intensity near single- family homes, retaining the primarily commercial character in the Specific Plan area, and using thematic elements to create a cohesive environment in the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan would encourage high-quality architecture with traditional but contemporary architecture and a high level of architectural detail. It would facilitate high-quality land uses by providing development incentives for the revitalization of vacant or underperforming properties. The Specific Plan would establish a program of streetscape landscaping improvements within the public rights-of-way along Red Hill Avenue, as well as gateway signage enhancements. The 5 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations intent of these streetscape improvement concepts and gateway enhancements is to provide a "sense of place" or identity within the Specific Plan area, providing a consistent streetscape concept with expanded amenity areas adjacent to new development. The Specific Plan would balance vehicular needs with landscaped parkways, street trees, landscaped medians, and cohesive street furniture; pedestrian-scaled streets where pedestrians feel secure; the extension of bicycle paths from the existing community; cohesive entry and wayfinding signage throughout the Specific Pian area; safe, improved pedestrian crossings; and opportunities for public art. The improvements to Red Hill Avenue would include the addition of on-street bike lanes, reduced lane widths, and construction of landscaped medians where feasible. This requires restriping within the paved width of the street to include the reduced lane widths, turn pockets, and bike lanes. Parking on or adjacent to Red Hill Avenue on private property or within the Flexible Amenity Setback area would be considered by the City on a case-by-case basis as part of a development application. Construction of new, raised medians can be accommodated where they do not conflict with required turning movements. The Specific Plan would be implemented over a multi-year timeframe based upon market conditions; a buildout year of 2035 is assumed. The City may implement the public improvements, including public streetscapes, landscaped medians, and gateway/wayfinding signage in advance of, or concurrent with, private development. C. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the Project within the City of Tustin will require several actions by the City, including: ■ Certification of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report; ■ Adoption of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan by Ordinance; ■ Amendment of the General Plan to provide consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. GPA 2017-0001 would include an update to the General Plan Land Use Map to show the boundaries of the Specific Plan and an update to the General Plan Land Use Element, and other related conforming amendments to the General Plan, as warranted; and ■ Amendment to the Tustin Zoning Map (ZC 2017-0001) to change the Specific Plan area to a designation of"Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan" (SP-13). D. Statement of Specific Plan Goals and Objectives The statement of goals and objectives sought by the Specific Plan Project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows: Goal 1: Enhance streetscape, landscape, and public amenities throughout the Specific Plan area. ■ Objective 1-1: Establish a streetscape program using landscaping, signage, street furniture, entry statements, and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. 6 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Objective 1-2: Develop coordinated gateway design treatments that establish entry statements and a sense of place at key locations within the Specific Plan area. ■ Objective 1-3: Encourage a "sense of place" within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design, and public improvements as part of future development. ■ Objective 1-4: Coordinate a bus shelter and transit stop improvement program to ensure that all bus stops have the appropriate amenities. Goal 2: Improve visual and functional connections and linkages between Red Hill Avenue, surrounding residential neighborhoods, adjacent public and institutional uses, and Interstate 5. ■ Objective 2-1: Identify ways to improve and enhance linkages and connections between new development in the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods. ■ Objective 2-2: Develop design criteria that encourage optimal building configuration and design, parking strategies, signage, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and appropriate, timeless architectural styles. Goal 3: Balance flexible and diverse land uses that foster economic development opportunities and support housing opportunities. Land use in the Specific Plan area will allow for residential opportunities along with neighborhood-serving retail, office, and commercial uses. ■ Objective 3-1: Establish a land use program that encourages a mix of land uses responsive to market demands and Tustin community priorities. ■ Objective 3-2: Refine allowable land uses within the area to encourage the desired development envisioned by the Specific Plan. ■ Objective 3-3: Establish development standards for future land uses that are compatible with the surrounding area and preserve the small town feel and community character. ■ Objective 3-4: Develop land use standards that focus on retention and enhancement of commercial development, but supports integrated mixed-use development, sidewalk- adjacent development, parking behind building frontages and pedestrian activity. Goal 4: Streamline processes to support future development in the Specific Plan area, ■ Objective 4-1: Adopt a program-level environmental clearance document to utilize in subsequent development proposals within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area. ■ Objective 4-2: Establish a tiered environmental review process for discretionary development application review to streamline the approval process as described in Chapter 1 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. ■ Objective 4-3: Establish development incentives such as tailored development standards or streamlined review processes, to encourage new development that fulfills the vision of the Specific Plan. ■ Objective 4-4: Identify local, State, and Federal funding opportunities that can provide businesses-assistance and offer the City the means to upgrade the area. 7 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Goal 5: Improve pedestrian and bike accessibility and vehicular circulation to minimize potential conflicts between different users and improve mobility throughout the Specific Plan area and connectivity with the greater community. • Objective 5-1: Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and facilities, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive parking lots. At these locations, accessible pedestrian connections from the sidewalk to building entrances should be encouraged. • Objective 5-2: Minimize curb cuts or driveways onto arterial roads and collector streets. • Objective 5-3: Promote and develop a transportation system which includes provisions for public transportation, bikes, and pedestrians. Goal 6: Implement parking standards that reflect verifiable demand and consider future land uses in the area. ■ Objective 6-1: Promote the development and maintenance of adequate parking facilities commensurate with parking demand. ■ Objective 6-2: Monitor parking supply and utilization to identify deficiencies or conflicts with the movement of traffic as new development occurs. Goal 7: Coordinate existing and future development with infrastructure capacity. • Objective 7-1: Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan area meets future demands. ■ Objective 7-2: Coordinate future land use planning with sustainable transportation and infrastructure planning. Goal 8: Ensure development within the Specific Plan area is sensitive to and compatible with surrounding land uses. ■ Objective 8-1: Ensure that the form, scale, and design of new development, including new construction, renovations, or additions, does not negatively impact the existing surrounding uses and structures. ■ Objective 8-2: Implement "four-sided architecture" principles that consider the aesthetic quality of development from all sides, whether visible from the public right-of-way or not. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Final Program EIR includes the draft Program EIR dated February 2018, written responses on the Craft Program EIR that were received during the 45-day public review period, and written responses to those comments and clarifications/changes to the Program EIR. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project. ■ Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30-day public review period beginning on April 7, 2017. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies and the State of California Office of Planning and Research (C)PR) State Clearinghouse and was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder's office and on the City's website. 8 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ During the NOP review period, one Scoping Meeting was held to solicit input on the content of the Program EIR. The Scoping Meeting was held for agencies and the interested persons and groups. Attendees were provided an opportunity to provide verbal and written comments on the range of actions, alternatives, and environmental issues they felt should be addressed in the Program EIR. The Scoping Meeting was held on April 20, 2017 at the Clifton C. Miller Community Center, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. The notice of the public Scoping Meeting was included in the NOP. ■ The Draft Program EIR was made available for a 45-day public review period (February 1, 2018 to March 19, 2018). The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Program FIR was published in the February 1, 2018 edition of the Tustin News, a newspaper of general circulation. The NOA was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder's office on February 1, 2018. Copies of the Draft Program EIR were made available for public review at the City of Tustin Community Development Department and the Tustin Branch Library. The Draft Program EIR was placed on the City's website: http://www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/planningupdate.as. ■ The Final Program EIR includes the Draft Program EIR, agency and public comments on the Draft Program EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the Draft Program EIR, and appended documents. The Responses to Comments were released on ' 2018. In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies at least ten days prior to certifying the Final EIR. ■ A notice of the Tustin Planning Commission hearing of August 14, 2018 for the Specific Plan Project was published in the , 2018 edition of the Tustin News, a newspaper of general circulation; and mailed to all property owners within feet of the Specific Plan area, a minimum of ten days in advance of the Planning Commission hearing consistent with the Tustin City Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. ■ A Planning Commission public hearing was held on August 14, 2018. ■ A notice of the Tustin City Council hearing of September 18, 2018 for the Project was mailed on , 2018 to all property owners of record within feet of the subject site and all individuals that requested to be notified. A notice for the City Council hearing was posted at City Hall as required by established public hearing posting procedures. Additionally, notice for the hearing was published in the 2018 edition of the Tustin News, a newspaper of general circulation. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT As a result of the NOP circulated by the City on April 7, 2017, in connection with preparation of the Draft Program EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental effects noted below, and therefore, determined that these potential environmental effects would not be 9 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations addressed in the Draft Program EIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft Program EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft Program EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the Project would have an impact on the identified environmental topics within the following environmental areas: (a) Aesthetics and Visual Resources — Scenic Highway Resources: There are no rock outcroppings or any other scenic resources within the Specific Plan area. There are ornamental trees located in landscaped areas but the trees are not considered scenic resources. Additionally, there are no State scenic highways adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is not within a State scenic highway nor is the Specific Plan area visible from any officially designated or eligible scenic highway. (b) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The Specific Plan area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the Specific Plan area is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Specific Plan area does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. (c) Biological Resources: The Specific Plan area is in a developed part of the City and does not contain sensitive habitat or protected species. It does not contain riparian habitat or any water resources. (d) Geology and Soils: Land uses within the Specific Plan area do not require the use of septic tanks. Therefore, whether soils can support the use of septic tanks is not relevant to the Project. (e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires and the Specific Plan area is not located within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. (f) Hydrology and Water Quality: The Specific Plan area is outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. The area is also approximately 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean and approximately 100 feet above mean sea level. The area is not at risk from tsunami inundation, a seiche, or mudflows. (g) Land Use and Planning: The Specific Plan Project would not divide an established community. The Specific Plan's goal is to promote revitalization of the area by adding a mix of land uses. The Project would not introduce new roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect the existing uses. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (h) Mineral Resources: The Specific Plan area is not currently being used for mineral mining purposes nor is it zoned for such uses. (i) Noise: The Specific Plan area is not within two miles of a private or public airport and is not located within the John Wayne Airport's Airport Environs Land Use Plan. 10 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (j) Population, Housing, and Employment: The Project would not displace existing residential units or residents. As a result of the preparation of the Program EIR,the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the Specific Plan would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the topics noted below; no standard conditions or mitigation measures would be required. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Program EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft Program EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the Project would have an impact as noted within the following environmental areas evaluated in the Program EIR: (a) Aesthetics and Visual Resources: There are no scenic vistas within or viewed from the Specific Plan area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would alter the existing visual character with the goal of improving it. With compliance with the Specific Plan Design Criteria and Land Use Regulations, the City's General Plan, and the Tustin City Code, impacts to visual resources would be less than significant. Future development within the Specific Plan area would introduce new sources of lighting. Compliance with the land use regulations and the Design Criteria of the Specific Plan, the General Plan, and the Tustin City Code would preclude significant impacts. (b) Air Quality: Proposed land uses are not considered uses associated with odor complaints by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (c) Cultural Resources: Implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would not cause significant adverse effects to historic resources. (d) Geology and Soils:The Specific Plan area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the area. The Specific Plan area is relatively level without threat of landslides. (e) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not interfere with the implementation of the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), or the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) Scoping Plan consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32. (f) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Allowable land uses would not emit hazardous emissions or materials within one-quarter mile of a school or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. (g) Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge or deplete groundwater supplies. (h) Land Use and Planning: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable land use policies. (i) Noise: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Specific Plan area. 11 Exhihit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (j) Population, Housing, and Employment: The Specific Plan's forecasted population, housing, and employment growth are within SCAG's overall projections for the City of Tustin. (k) Public Services: The Project can be served by the Tustin Police Department without adverse effects on police services. New residents would nominally increase the demand on library services. The Tustin Library would continue to meet the County's standard for library size with buildout of the Specific Plan. (1) Transportation and Traffic: Road segments within the traffic study area would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. No Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities would be impacted. No impacts related to air traffic patterns are associated with the Project. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts related to design features or incompatible uses with compliance with applicable Tustin City Code standards and the design review process for individual development projects under the Specific Plan nor would circulation through the Specific Plan area adversely affect emergency access. Lastly, the Specific Plan encourages public transit, and would provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (m) Utilities: Wastewater flows would not exceed the established wastewater treatment requirements. Utility service providers can serve buildout of the Specific Plan without adversely affecting their ability to continue serving the area. There would be less than significant impacts to additional demand for electric and natural gas services and infrastructure with implementation of the Specific Plan. 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Program EIR, and the effects of the Project were considered in the Program EIR. Where as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), the following potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(x)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1) that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment," which is referred to herein as "Finding 1". Where the potential impact can be reduced to less than significant solely through adherence to and implementation of standard conditions, these measures are considered "incorporated into the project" which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant effect, and in these situations, the City also will make "Finding 1" even though no mitigation measures are required. Where the City has determined pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that "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," the City's findings is referred to herein as "Finding 2". Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that either: (a) even with compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level; or 12 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (b) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(x)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report," referred to herein as "Finding 3". Air Quality (1) Potential Impact: With respect to potential conflicts with the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the AQMP provides controls sufficient to attain the Federal and State ozone and particulate standards based on the long-range growth projections for the region. Implementation of the Specific Plan would incrementally exceed population growth forecasted in the RTP/SCS on which the 2016 AQMP is based, as well as exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of Standard Condition (SC) 4.2-1 and SC 4,2-2 and Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3 (set forth below), this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Although the Project's long-term impacts would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and SCAG's goals and policies, the Specific Plan's exceedance of population forecasts and operational nitrogen oxide (NOx) thresholds would potentially result in a long-term impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Construction-related air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable due to the potential magnitude of construction that could occur from implementation of the Specific Plan. Impacts associated with AQMP compliance would be significant and unavoidable due to the exceedance of SCAQMD's NOx operational thresholds. The Specific Plan Project, which encourages mixed-use, infill development with access to alternative transportation, is consistent with regional policies established in the 2016 RTP/SCS that promote alternative modes of transport and "livable corridors" to reduce air quality impacts from vehicle emissions. Specific Plan implementation would improve the job-housing balance in the City, which reduces vehicle miles traveled by residents to employment opportunities outside the City. Although the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions, the Project would exceed population forecasts on which the AQMP is based. implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however, the combined emissions from future new development in the Specific Plan area would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds. 13 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQMP, CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. SC 4.2-1 Dust Control. During construction of future development within the Specific Plan area, project applicants shall require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. ■ Cut and fill: Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. ■ Earth-moving activities: Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; re- apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete, ■ Importing/exporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions. ■ Stockpiles/bulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site occupied buildings must not be greater than 8 feet in height, must have a road bladed to the top' to allow water truck access, or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. ■ Traffic areas for construction activities: Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; stabilize all haul routes; and direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more acres of grading or with a daily earth-moving volume of 5,000 cubic yards at least 3 ' Refers to a road to the top of the pile. 14 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations times in 1 year. Future development within the Specific Plan would potentially be considered a large operation. Large operations are required to implement additional dust-control measures (as specified in Tables 2 and 3 of Rule 403); provide additional notifications, signage, and reporting; and appoint a Dust Control Supervisor. The Dust Control Supervisor is required to: • Be employed by or contracted with the Property Owner or Developer; ■ Be on the site or available on site within 30 minutes during working hours; ■ Have the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403 requirements; and ■ Have completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and have been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class. SC 4.2-2 Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. MM 4.2-1 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City's Building Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications designate that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use. MM 4.2-2 Vanpool/Rideshare Programs. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City's Building Official shall confirm that future commercial uses within the Specific Plan area include Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. This measure is not applicable to residential uses. MM 4.2-3 Operational Emissions Reductions. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City's Planning Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications consider and mitigate the impacts an regional air quality and GHG emissions when reviewing proposals for new development. Impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodologies and procedures. Recommended mitigation measure may include, but are not limited to, the following: • Install heat transfer modules in all furnaces; 15 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Install solar panels for water heating systems for residential and other facilities; ■ Incorporate renewable energy sources in the project design (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels). ■ Include passive solar cooling/heating design elements in building designs; ■ Include design elements that maximize use of natural lighting in new development; ■ Include provisions to install energy efficient appliances and lighting in new development. ■ Install higher efficacy public street and exterior lighting. ■ Increase project density. ■ Incorporate design measures that promote bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation use. ■ Provide preferential parking spaces for alternatively-fueled vehicles. ■ Incorporate measures that reduce water use and waste generation. ■ Provide informational materials on low ROG/VOC consumer products, cleaners, paints, and other products, as well as the importance of recycling and purchasing recycled material. Informational materials shall be provided to residential and commercial occupants through CC&R requirements. ■ Incorporate measures and design features that promote ride sharing and consistency with the commute-reduction requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2202 (On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options). (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project would violate air quality standards and/or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality standard. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. However, the City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2, and MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.3, this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activities would consist of grading, demolition, excavation, cut-and-fill, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. Construction worker vehicle trips, building material deliveries, soil hauling, etc. would occur during construction. Quantifying individual future development's air emissions 16 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations from short-term, temporary construction-related activities would be speculative due to project-level variability and uncertainties concerning locations, detailed site plans, construction schedules/duration, equipment requirements, etc., among other factors, which are presently unknown. Depending on how development proceeds, construction-related emissions associated with future development could exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, construction-related air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable due to the potential magnitude of construction that could occur from implementation of the Specific Plan. Specific Plan-generated emissions would exceed SCAQMD recommended thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and NOx. The SCAQMD's significance thresholds would be relied upon to determine the significance level of a future project's operational impact. While some of the individual development projects may be able to incorporate design and reduction features that would reduce emissions to below SCAQMD thresholds, the overall Project was evaluated for significance consideration. At a programmatic level, operational emissions would exceed thresholds and impacts would be potentially significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 are applicable (see above) MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2, and MM 4.2-3 are applicable (see above) (3) Potential Impact: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment under an applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. However, the City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2, and MMs 4.2-1 through 4.2-3, this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the Federal and State one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the Federal and State PM1c standards, the Federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and the State and Federal annual PM2.5 standard. Future Specific Plan development could result in increased emissions of regional criteria air pollutants and precursors that would be forecasted to exceed SCAQMD's project-level significance thresholds. Although these thresholds are intended to apply to individual development projects, future development within the Specific Plan area could contribute to an increase in frequency and/or severity of air quality violations, which may delay attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Emissions with some future projects could 17 Exhibit E Red Hiil Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations potentially exceed SCAQMD-recommended significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project's contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 are applicable (see above) MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2,and MM 4.2-3 are applicable (see above) (4) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR, as a result of the implementation of MM 4.2-4. Facts in Support of Finding: 1-5 bisects the Specific Plan area. Residential units could be constructed as close as 100 feet from 1-5. The proximity of potential future development to 1-5 poses a concern for toxic air contaminants (TAC) exposure. MM 4.2-5 requires a project- specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) be conducted for future residential uses proposed within 500 feet of 1-5. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.2-4 Toxic Air Contaminants/Health Risk Assessment. A project-specific Health Risk Assessment shall be conducted for future residential development proposed within 500 feet of the Interstate 5 right-of-way, pursuant to the recommendations set forth in the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The Health Risk Assessment shall evaluate a project per the following SCAQMD thresholds: ■ Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million. ■ Non-Cancer Risk: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of one in one million. The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less than one (1.0) means that adverse health effects are not expected. If projects are found to exceed the SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment thresholds, mitigation shall be incorporated to reduce impacts to below SCAQMD thresholds. 18 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (1) Potential Impact: Grading and excavation activities could impact unknown archaeological resources. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of the mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: An archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS); no resources within the Specific Plan area have been recorded. Although the Specific Plan area has been disturbed, there is the potential for Project implementation to affect previously unidentified archaeological resources. MM 4.3-1 requires future developments under the Specific Plan to retain an archaeologist to determine if any found archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code § 21083.2(g)). CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following mitigation is applicable: MM 4.3-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. 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 19 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 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. (2) Potential Impact: Grading and excavation activities could impact unknown unique paleontological resources. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: A paleontological records search identified no vertebrate fossil localities within the Specific Plan area but here are nearby localities from the same sedimentary deposits that probably occur subsurface at the area. The records search determined that surface grading or shallow excavations in the younger Quaternary deposits would likely not uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. MM 4.3-2 requires that a paleontologist be retained to determine if any found paleontological resources require further treatment. MM 4.3-2 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County of Orange, stating that the applicant has retained this individual and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. If paleontological resources are discovered during any development project within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. If the find is determined by paleontologists to require further treatment, the area of discovery will be protected from disturbance while qualified paleontologists and appropriate officials, in consultation with a recognized museum repository (e.g., National History Museum of Los Angeles County), determine an appropriate treatment plan. 20 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Potential Impact: The Project would not disturb any known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan area has been previously disturbed and developed. There is no indication that there are burials present and it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered during future development. In the event that human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, SC 4.3-1 addresses procedures to follow the discovery of suspected human remains. Compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human resources would not occur. SC 4.3-1 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CEQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the Specific Plan area, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 74 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. (4) Potential Impact: Grading and excavation activities could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of the MM 4.3-1. Facts in Support of Finding: An archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the CHRIS; no tribal cultural resources within the Specific Plan area have been recorded. In compliance with AB 52 and SB 18, the City provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives and entered into consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation. Although the Specific Plan area has been disturbed, there is the potential for Project implementation to affect previously unidentified resources. MM 4.3-1 is applicable. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following mitigation is applicable: 21 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations MM 4.3-1 is applicable (see above) Geology and Soils (1) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan area is in a seismically active area. Development could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The City is in an area designated to have a moderate to high potential for ground shaking associated with regional earthquake activity. Future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the seismic design requirements of the California Building Code (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. Projects would need to comply with the Tustin City Code which regulates grading, drainage, and cut and fill activities. SC 4.4-1 identifies that the issuance of grading permits is subject to approval of geological and soils engineering reports. SC 4.4-2 requires geotechnical evaluation to identify appropriate engineering design measures to reduce potential impacts relative to strong seismic ground shaking. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.4-1 Projects are required to comply with Tustin City Code, Chapter 9, Grading and Excavation. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City. Grading plans shall indicate all areas of grading. Grading plans shall provide for temporary erosion control on all graded sites scheduled to remain unimproved for more than 30 days. SC 4.4-2 A specific geotechnical survey shall be prepared by a certified geotechnical engineer to confirm/refine engineering design parameters regarding site preparation, grading, and foundation design, to assure design criteria are responsive to specific development site soils and potential effects of differential settlements resulting from ground shaking, as well as effects of subsidence, lateral spreading, and collapse potential. All geotechnical recommendations shall be noted on individual site development plans and implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Project-specific geotechnical measures shall be developed, as needed, based on the design-level geotechnical report and depicted on plans prepared by the geotechnical engineer of record or on plan sheets included 22 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts In Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations within final grading plans, and subject to the approval by the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Public Works Department. (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan could expose people or structures to liquefaction during a seismic event. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Earth materials underlying the Specific Plan area are susceptible to limited amounts of seismically-induced liquefaction. Most of the Specific Plan area is mapped as a Liquefaction Zone (CGS, 2001). Site-specific geotechnical investigations would be required for future development projects. Remedial grading including the replacement of unsuitable soil materials with suitable engineered fill materials can preclude liquefaction impacts. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2 are applicable (see above) (3) Potential Impact: Future development within the Specific Plan area could result in soil erosion. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: During construction, future development projects would be required to comply with the NPDES permitting process for sites greater than one acre or the City's requirements for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for sites less than one acre; see SC 4.4-3, SC 4.7-1, and SC 4.7-2. The NPDES permitting process requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The General Permit would include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented throughout the construction process which would prevent or reduce erosion. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. Upon completion of projects, sites would be fully developed and landscaped. The potential for soil erosion or loss would be extremely minimal. SC 4.4-3 Future developments shall limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction. Final grading plans shall include best management practices (BMPs) to limit on-site and off-site erosion and a water plan to treat disturbed areas during construction and reduce dust. The plans shall be submitted to the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Public Works 23 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. SC 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that would disturb more than one acre, the project applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works an approved copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (N01) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities, confirming to the Current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The SWPPP shall be made part of the construction program. This SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that would be in effect during construction to minimize the individual project's impact on water quality and storm water runoff volumes. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the future development is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. SC 4.7-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. The WQMP shall include appropriate BMPs and low impact development (LID) techniques to ensure project runoff is adequately treated. (4) Potential impact:The Specific Plan area includes expansive soils. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Soils that expand and contract in volume ("shrink-swell" pattern) are considered expansive and may cause damage to aboveground infrastructure as a result of density changes that shift overlying materials. Fine-grain clay sediments are most likely to exhibit shrink-swell patterns in response to changing moisture levels. Where expansive soils are present, remedial grading including the replacement of unsuitable soil materials with suitable engineered fill materials is anticipated to be required. The City's continued compliance with State and local regulations, inclusive of SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2, would preclude potentially significant impacts. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following mitigation is applicable: SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2 are applicable (see above) Greenhouse Gas Emissions 24 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (1) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan's cumulative contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would exceed SCAQMD's 4.1 metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalent (COze) per year threshold, and the Specific Plan's cumulative GHG impacts would also be cumulatively considerable and potential impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 and MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3, this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Annual (construction, operational, and mobile) GHG emissions from implementation of the Specific Plan would total approximately 9.1 MT of COZe per service population. Under a worst-case scenario, these emissions would exceed the 4.1 MT COze per year threshold. Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG reduction programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS strategies, implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed growth projections for the area in the RTP/SCS and result in an increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 are applicable (see above) MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2, and MM 4.2-3 are applicable (see above) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan could potentially create a hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater, as a result of a previous hazardous material incident at a property within the Specific Plan area. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: There are hazardous materials regulated facilities within the Specific Plan area with known or unknown history of contamination. The contamination status of each property would be reevaluated, when the individual site changes land use. In addition to known facilities, future development on a site with a current or former hazardous materials regulated facility would need to be evaluated in consultation with Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division (OCHCA-EH) to determine if there is a contamination risk to the proposed land use. Remediation of a contaminated site to applicable standards for the proposed land use may be required as described in MM 4.6-1. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State and regional 25 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overri6ng Considerations regulations, and implementation of MM 4.6-1 would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment. MM 4.6-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a human health risk evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division (OCHCA- EH) for any individual site application proposed on a site with a current or former hazardous materially regulated facility to determine if there is a contamination risk to the proposed land use. Remedial activities, if necessary, may be required, in consultation with OCHCA-EH. (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan area is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan area is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC, 2017). However, review of regulatory databases through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (El the California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor indicate that there are multiple listings currently present within the Specific Plan area that have or previously had cases associated with hazardous material spills,violations or incidents. Implementation of MM 4.6-1 would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment from a hazardous material site. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.6-1 is applicable (see above) Hydrology and Water Quality (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan would have the potential to adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through the discharge of runoff that contains various pollutants of concern. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project may impact water quality by induced sheet erosion of exposed soils and the subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages. Grading activities and sediment stockpiles can lead to exposed areas of loose soil that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow and wind erosion. Impacts can also occur from sediment laden runoff and mobilization of pollutants associated with vehicle staging and operation. 26 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding.Considerations In compliance with NPDES regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit). The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants (SC 4.7-1). Prior to issuance of any grading permits for any development project within the Specific Plan area, a preliminary WQMP would be submitted as part of the entitlement process for development projects; the preliminary WQMP would outline the required quantities of storm water required to be treated and the appropriate treatment methods (SC 4.7-2). CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.7-1 and SC 4.7-2 are applicable (see above) (2) Potential Impact: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Specific Plan area in a manner which would result in a substantial on-site or off-site erosion or siltation, flooding, or polluted runoff. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding: Because of the predominately developed nature of the Specific Plan area, it is anticipated that the storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns and connectivity. Construction within the Specific Plan area would not substantially increase or change the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Individual drainage areas could be slightly altered. Hydromodification measures would not be required but BMPs would be required to treat the drainage associated with the proposed impervious areas. MM 4.7-1 requires an applicant to prepare a hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by Project flow rates. Where a development site does not have a direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system, MM 4.7-2 requires an applicant to prepare a hydraulic analysis of the downstream storm drain system to demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure, CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.7-1 and SC 4.7-2 are applicable (see above) SC 4.7-3 Projects within the Specific Plan area would be subject to conditions imposed by the City of Tustin Community Development Department and the Public Works Department in accordance with Section 4902 (Control of Urban Runoff) of the Tustin City Code which requires the project applicant to provide all drainage facilities necessary for the removal of surface water from a site and to protect off-site properties from a project's water runoff. 27 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The storm drain system must be designed in accordance with the standards of the Orange County Flood Division. MM 4.7-1 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the project applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works a hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by the proposed project flow rates. MM 4.7-2 Prior to issuance of any grading or buildings permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that do not have a direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system, shall provide to the Department of Public Works hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. Noise (1) Potential Impact: Future projects within the Specific Plan area would generate noise associated with construction activities, stationary equipment, and operational activities. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction Noise: Individual projects within the Specific Plan area would generate temporary construction noise that could exceed existing ambient noise levels in the area, but construction noise would be short-term in duration and would cease with the completion of individual development projects. Noise impacts associated with construction activity are a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction of individual projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to occur within the hours, as specified in the Tustin City Code, per Section 4616(2); refer to SC 4.9-1. MM 4.9-1 provides Best Management Practices such as noise barriers, using sound dampening mats or blankets on engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment, and limiting haul trips. Stationary Noise: New stationary noise sources would result in small noise level increases that in some instances would be proximate to noise-sensitive land uses. Projects would be required to comply with SC 4.9-2 which establishes exterior noise levels at set forth in the General Plan Noise Element. No significant impacts would occur. Operational Noise:The Specific Plan would increase the number of delivery and trash hauling trucks traveling through the Specific Plan area. Tustin City Code Chapter 3, Section 4313 prohibits the collection of solid waste from within 200 feet of any residences in the City between the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM and on Federal holidays. Delivery and trash truck trips in the Specific Plan area would be a periodic source of operational noise. Trash trucks 28 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required to comply with the Tustin City Code standards for trash collection vehicles and delivery trucks would be subject to State regulations. Due to the existing ambient noise and traffic noise within the Specific Plan area, potential future residential units could be exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL, which is considered normally incompatible by the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element. The City requires proposed developments to prepare and submit an acoustical report to demonstrate compliance with the General Plan and to identify all reasonable and feasible measures to satisfy the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard and 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard. With implementation of existing regulations, as implemented through SC 4.9-2, impacts related to development of residential units within the Specific Plan area would be anticipated to be less than significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.9-1 To ensure compliance with Tustin City Code, grading and construction plans shall include a note indicating that loud noise-generating project construction activities (as defined in Section 4616(2) and Section 4617(e) of the Tustin City Code) shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Loud, noise-generating construction activities are prohibited outside of these hours and on Sundays and City observed Federal holidays. SC 4.9-2 Development projects are required to meet or exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard, as defined by Table N-3 of the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element, and the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard of the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element, and by Title 24, Part 2, of the California Building Code. MM 4.9-1 Construction Noise. Prior to approval of grading plans, the City of Tustin Building Division shall ensure that plans include Best Management Practices to minimize construction noise. Construction noise Best Management Practices may include the following: ■ Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive use nearest the construction activity. ■ The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity. ■ The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Tustin City Code Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4617. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise. 29 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations ■ Construction activity within 50 feet of occupied noise sensitive uses shall reduce construction noise levels exceeding 85 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive land uses by one or more of the following methods to reduce noise to below 85 dBA Leq: 1. Install temporary construction noise barriers within the line of site of occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities that could generate noise exceeding 85 dBA Leq. The noise control barrier(s) must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall: a. Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; b. Be maintained and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; and c. Be removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. 2. Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment (e.g. graders, dozers, heavy trucks). The dampening materials must be capable of a 5-dBA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use. (2) Potential Impact: Construction of individual projects within the Specific Plan area could generate vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activity associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would be a temporary source of groundborne vibration. Buildings near a construction site respond to vibration to varying degrees ranging from imperceptible effects at the lowest levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and up to minor damage at the highest vibration levels. Vibration levels attenuate quickly over distance, so vibration would not be noticeable at receptors outside of the immediate vicinity of construction. MM 4.9-2 would minimize and avoid vibration impacts should pile-driving be required associated with a future development project. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.9-2 Construction Vibration. The following measures shall be implemented by applicants for development within the Red Hill Avenue Specific. Plan area to reduce construction vibration at nearby receptors: 30 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations a. Avoid impact pile-driving where possible. b. In areas where project construction is anticipated to include pile drivers in close proximity to schools or historic structures, conduct site-specific vibration studies to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate vibration reduction techniques that may include the following: • Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring should be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. ■ Identify construction contingencies for when vibration levels approach the standards. ■ At a minimum, conduct vibration monitoring during pile-driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. ■ When vibration levels approach standards, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. ■ Conduct a post-survey on any structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of vibration. Public Services (1) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with fire services. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan would allow for an increase of up to 500 additional dwelling unit, and 325,000 sf of additional non-residential uses. This increase in development would incrementally increase the demand for fire apparatus, equipment, performance, and personnel. All new development would be required to comply with the existing International Fire Code and California Fire and Building Codes in the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, SC 4.11-1 requires future development projects to prepare a Fire Master Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. CECZA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: 31 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations SC 4.11-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for any development project under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit a Fire Master Plan to the Orange County Fire Authority for review. Payment of fees and Fire Master Plan approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with school services. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Specific Plan buildout is anticipated to generate 81 elementary school students, 32 intermediate school students, and 33 high school students. School funding comes predominantly from Federal, State, and local contributions, such as business and personal income taxes, sales tax, and property tax. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995 and the Tustin City Code, the School District requires all new development to pay fees to help offset the effects to school facilities from new residential, commercial, and industrial development. Payment of fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with development in the Specific Plan area by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools. The School District would be able to provide adequate school facilities for the projected students and payment of impact fees would ensure that impacts are offset and remain less than significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.11-3 Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, prior to the issuance of building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall pay developer fees to the Tustin Unified School District; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. SC 4.11-4 New development under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan shall be subject to the same General Obligation bond tax rate as already applied to other properties within the Tustin Unified School District for Measure G (approved in 2008) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. Recreation (1) Potential Impact: Buildout of the Specific Plan Project would increase the use of existing and planned parks and recreational facilities. 32 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: In accordance with the Quimby Act, a jurisdiction may establish a parkland dedication standard based on its existing parkland ratio, provided required dedications do not exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons. The City's parkland dedication requirements of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is the same as the Quimby Act. The City identifies parkland acreage requirements by multiplying the number of dwelling units by the parkland acres per unit based on the established density categories in the Tustin City Code. The Specific Plan does not establish density ranges. Because the Project proposes multi-family residential development and encourages it to be provided in a mixed- use setting, the Program EIR uses the 15.1 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre category in the Tustin City Code which assumes 2.24 persons per unit or 0.0067 acre of parkland per unit.' If future residential units were subject to the Quimby Act (because of a subdivision), the total amount of new parkland would be approximately 3.35 acres. The Tustin City Code also notes that dedication of land may be required by the City for a condominium, stock cooperative, or community apartment project which exceeds 50 dwelling units, regardless of the number of parcels. Therefore, the City may require the dedication of land regardless of where the future residential development projects within the Specific Plan are subdivisions. General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Policies 14.6 and 18.4 encourage future parks to be designed as joint-use facilities with public schools to reduce overall operations and maintenance costs. A source of additional funding for the maintenance and construction of new parks and recreation facilities is the City's General Fund, including property taxes collected from residents. Because future residential development within the Specific Plan area may not be subject to the Quimby Act or the subdivision provisions of the Tustin City Code, future development projects could cumulatively contribute to the parkland deficiency identified in the City's General Plan. In order that park and recreational facilities be provided to serve future residents within the Specific Plan area, mitigation is required. MM 4.12-1 applies the parkland dedication and development fee provisions set forth in the Tustin City Code to new residential dwelling units within the Specific Plan area that would not be subject to Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 9331.d (Parkland Dedication). CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.12-1 Prior to the approval of the final map for subdivisions under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, applicants shall comply with the City of Tustin Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code). Developers may dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu or a 2 The California Department of Finance,Table 2: E-5, 2017, identifies a citywide average of 3.04 persons per household which includes single-family, multi-family,and mobile home dwelling units. 33 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations combination of both. The value of the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication. Dedication of land may be required by the City for a condominium, stock cooperative, or community apartment project which exceeds 50 dwelling units. MM 4.12-1 For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a park fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for Land Dedication: The public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling Units per Gross Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0-7 3.39 .0102 7.1-15 2.85 .0086 15.1-25 2.24 .0067 25.1&Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve three(3) product type acres/ 1,000 population Mobile Home Parks 2.24 .0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons. Transportation and Traffic (1) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project would not conflict with applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. MM 4.2-1 is applicable. However, Finding 2 identifies that "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 34 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations other agency". The City of Tustin cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, traffic improvements that would require the approval of Caltrans are considered significant, unavoidable impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce this impact to a less than significant. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Specific Plan would have significant impacts to the level of service (LOS) of one intersection within the traffic study area. All other intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of services with buildout out the Specific Plan Project. Using the City's Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, the addition of Project traffic would cause the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps to worsen to LOS E in the evening peak hour. The level of service would still be LOS C during both peak hours using the Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The Project's impact using the ICU methodology would be considered to be a significant impact. MM 4.13-1 identifies improvements that would achieve an improvement level of service. However, the City cannot impose mitigation on another agency or jurisdiction. Because of the uncertainty of whether Caltrans would allow for the implementation of the improvement, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. All roadway segments would continue to operate at acceptable levels of services with implementation of the Specific Plan Project. Impacts would be less than significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MMI 4.13-1 Red Hill Avenue at Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps: Re-stripe the eastbound approach (the off-ramp) to convert from a shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane to one dedicated left-turn lane and a shared left- through-right lane. This improvement would provide additional capacity for the heavy eastbound left-turn volume. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at Level of Service D or better during both peak hours. The California Department of Transportation' (Caltrans) approval and cooperation would be required to implement this improvement. Utilities (1) Potential Impact — Buildout of the Specific Plan Project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities in a manner that would cause significant environmental effects. Sufficient water is available to serve the Project. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. 35 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan would be served from existing entitlements; new or expanded water entitlements would not be needed due to diversified supply and conservation measures. The City can meet all customer demands within the service area through the purchase of significant reserves held by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local groundwater supplies, and through implementation of conservation measures in multiple dry years. The City's water supply is reliable. As set forth in the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, proposed growth in the Specific Plan area falls within the assumptions made for growth in the City through 2040 and sufficient water supply exists to serve the proposed uses identified in the Specific Plan area. To provide potable water and fire service to the existing and proposed land uses within the Specific Plan area, additional water infrastructure would be required. The City has a long- range plan to upgrade sections of water mains in the area. Other anticipated improvements include public meters and backflow devices that would be required for domestic water service and/or separate fire lines for individual developments as they occur. The Specific Plan can provide sufficient water infrastructure improvements to provide water to the projects within the Specific Plan area, as needed. Projects would be required to comply with SC 4.14-1 and SC 4,14-2. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.14-1 Future development within the Specific Plan area would comply with Article 4, Chapter 10, Section 4952 of the Tustin City Code which seeks to reduce water consumption through (1) permanent water conservation requirements during non-shortage conditions and (2) four levels of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented within the City during times of declared water shortage. The program would prevent waste or unreasonable use of water; maximize the efficient use of water; and ensure a reliable and sustainable minimum supply of water for public health, safety,and welfare. SC 4.14-2 Future development within the Specific Plan area would comply with Article 9, Chapter 7, Section 9704 of the Tustin City Code which establishes procedures and standards for the design, installation, and maintenance of water-efficient landscapes in conjunction with new construction projects within the City to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and to prevent the waste of available water resources. (2) Potential Impact—Storm drainage can be provided to development sites within the Specific Plan area without significantly impacting City infrastructure. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Projects would be required to apply for encroachment permits for connection to the City storm drain infrastructure. For future development projects 36 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations within the Specific Plan, direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system is preferable provided that the existing tributary areas and flow rates to the existing drains are not exceeded by new development. Alternatively, applicants may provide hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. In all cases, storm water quality requirements must be met. New on-site storm water drainage facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Applicants for future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to demonstrate that existing flow rates would not be exceeded with project development. For all development, post-construction measures under the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) require co-permittees to implement structural and nonstructural BMPs that mimic predevelopment quantity and quality runoff conditions for new development. No large net increases in storm drainage rates or volumes are expected due to implementation of the Specific Plan. Adherence to all applicable provisions within the Orange County DAMP and City permits would result in a less than significant impact, CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.7-1, SC 4.7-2, and SC 4.7-3 are applicable MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 are applicable. (3) Potential Impact—The Specific Plan Project would not impact solid waste services. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation was required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The Bowerman Landfill has a daily maximum intake load of 11,500 tons per day with an 8,500-ton per day annual average. The remaining disposal capacity of 205 million cubic yards, as of February 29, 2008, which is the most current published data. Buildout of the Specific Plan would generate approximately 7,740 pounds of solid waste per day (3.87 tons/day or 1412.5 tons/year). The estimate refuse generation of the project is a nominal percentage of the maximum intake load. Based on the remaining capacity of the Bowerman Landfill and the County's long-term planning programs required to meet CalRecycle requirements, there would be adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County's landfill system to meet the needs of the Project. Projects would be required to comply with SC 4.14-3. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.143 Applicants shall prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CDWMD) for a project. The CWMP shall list the types and weights or volumes of solid waste materials expected to be generated from construction. The CDWMP shall include options to 37 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations divert from landfill disposal, nonhazardous materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight or volume (or requirements in place at the time of project entitlement). 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Reiected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft Program EER. Among the factors that can be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an Program EIR are "failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines §1.5126.6[c)). Alternatives were eliminated during the scoping/planning process either because they were determined to be infeasible or because it could be determined that they would not avoid or eliminate significant environmental impacts when compared to the Project. 1. Alternative Site The Alternative Site scenario assumes 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non- residential uses would be constructed within a defined area elsewhere in the City. The City is proposing the revitalization of other properties including within the historic downtown area. While the proposed land uses identified in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan could be implemented elsewhere in the City, the purpose of the Project is to promote the revitalization of this specific commercial district to create a vibrant and dynamic area within the City. Development at a different location would be anticipated to require similar discretionary approvals as the Specific Plan Project and result in similar physical impacts to the environment. Therefore, the development of a Specific Plan in an alternative location was reviewed and eliminated from consideration. 2. Alternative Land Use The Alternative Land Use scenario assumes intensification within the Specific Plan area with only residential uses. The Specific Plan assumes an additional 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses; this alternative assumes between 500 and 975 additional units within the Specific Plan area. The residential uses could be developed both north and south of I- 5 on both vacant and underutilized properties. This alternative would not provide for the integration of mixed-use development projects within the Specific Pian area and would not promote the revitalization of this predominately commercial area in the same manner envisioned in the Specific Plan. The Alternative Land Use scenario would have similar discretionary approvals. This alternative assumes less overall development than the Specific Plan; however, it would continue the pattern of the persons living in one area and commuting to jobs, shopping, and services in a different area of the City or outside of the City. As such, this alternative did not meet the objectives set forth in the Specific Plan and was rejected from further consideration. B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis 38 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[a]). Two alternatives were evaluated. The alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Project. Given the nature and scale of the Project, complete avoidance of significant impacts was not feasible. The following alternatives were analyzed: • Alternative A: General Plan/No Specific Plan • Alternative B: Reduced Development The City's Findings and Facts in support of Findings with respect to each alternative considered are provided below. Consistent with the guidance set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Findings address whether the alternative would feasibly attain most of the basic goals and objectives of the Project; whether it would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project; and whether the alternative is feasible, as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, as being "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors". Alternative A: General Plan/No Specific Plan Description: Alternative A is the "No Project" alternative required by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) which allows the decisionmakers to compare the potential impacts of the Specific Plan Project to the potential impacts associated with the ongoing development in this geographic area consistent with the City of Tustin General Plan. Alternative A would not change the existing policy documents that govern the Specific Plan area; the City's General Plan would remain the guiding document. The existing land use designations for the Specific Plan area include a mix of commercial and professional office land use designations. The General Plan Community Commercial (CC) land use designation applies to more than 90 percent of the properties. The other land use designations are Planned Community Commercial/Business (approximately eight percent) and Professional Office (approximately two percent). The Specific Plan area has approximately 296,446 square feet of non-residential uses, including but not limited to commercial, office, an institutional use and motels, as well as 21 dwelling units. The General Plan estimated maximum buildout for this geographic area is 913,724 square feet of non-residential development with no additional residential units. Alternative A represents an increase of approximately 617,278 square feet of additional non-residential development. When compared to the Specific Plan, the General Plan represents an increase of 292,278 square feet of non-residential uses. It is estimated that Alternative A would generate approximately 1,372 additional employment opportunities compared to 1,520 new residents 39 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and 722 new employment opportunities associated with the Specific Plan Project3. Additionally, Alternative A would not include streetscape, landscape, and other public improvements which are a part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative A's environmental impacts as compared to the Specific Plan Project is set forth in Section 6.4.1 of the Program EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. With implementation of Alternative A, some effects (impacts on schools, public services, recreation, and utilities) would be reduced because of the elimination of residential development. However, it should be noted that the Project would have less than significant impacts with or without mitigation associated with these environmental topics. Alternative A would have the same or potentially greater impacts on other topical areas because of an increase in non-residential development. For example, Alternative A would generate more traffic than the Project. Air quality operational impacts and GHG emissions would also be greater than the Specific Plan Project. Ability to Achieve Specific Alan Project Goals and Objectives:This alternative would fulfill some of the Specific Plan's objectives but would not realize the objective to increase housing opportunities through mixed-use development within the Specific Plan area or allow enough new development to provide increased vibrancy in the Specific Plan area. Feasibility: Alternative A is feasible. Under Alternative A, the area could continue to be developed but not in the same manner envisioned in the Specific Plan. Finding: This Alternative would not avoid or eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. It would not achieve many of the goals and objectives established for the Project in the Red Hill Specific Plan to guide future change, promote high-quality development, and implement the community's vision for the Specific Plan area. For these reasons, the City finds that the Specific Plan Project is preferred over this alternative Alternative B: Reduced Development Description: Alternative B was developed to evaluate whether a reduction in the amount of development could meet Specific Plan objectives and reduce Specific Plan impacts. This alternative would reduce both dwelling units and non-residential development and, in that respect, would incrementally reduce impacts that are associated with the Specific Pian. However, it would not avoid the significant impacts associated with the Project. Alternative B would reduce the amount of new development; it assumes up to 284 additional dwelling units and up to 241,237 square feet of additional non-residential development. When compared to the Specific Plan, Alternative B reduces the number of units by 216 units (a reduction of approximately 43 percent) and reduces the non-residential uses by 83,763 square feet (a reduction of approximately 26 percent). This development would occur within the same 3 Population projections were developed based on a generation factor of 3.04 persons per household,as determined in the California Department of Finance 2017 estimates. Employment projections assumes 450 square feet of retail per employee, per SCAG's Employment Density Summary Report. 40 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Specific Plan area footprint. Alternative B would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the Specific Plan. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative B's environmental impacts as compared to the Specific Plan Project is set forth in Section 6.4.2 of the Program EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. Alternative B would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with the intensity of development. When compared to the Specific Plan, Alternative B would reduce but not eliminate significant unavoidable air quality impacts and GHG emission impacts. The reduction in traffic associated with Alternative B may preclude a significant impact to the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps to worsen to LOS E in the evening peak hour. As with the Specific Plan Project, standard conditions and/or mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential significant impacts associated with the remaining environmental issues. Ability to Achieve Specific Plan Project Goals and Objectives: With 284 additional residential units and 241,237 additional square feet of non-residential uses, this alternative would meet many of the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. However, Alternative B assumes incrementally less development than the Specific Plan. Feasibility: Alternative B is feasible. Under Alternative B, less development would occur than envisioned in the Specific Plan. Finding:While Alternative B would lessen some of the environmental effects of the Specific Plan Project, it would not eliminate all significant and unavoidable impacts. For these reasons, the City finds that the Specific Plan is preferred over this alternative. 41 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction The City of Tustin is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve a project. In making this determination the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental 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, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 1.5091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Specific Plan Project, none of which both meet the Project goals and objectives, and is environmentally preferable to the Project or feasible for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. 42 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The Tustin City Council, having reviewed the Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Although most potential Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some Project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures, the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CFQA Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15093. 43 Exhibit E ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 4368: GPA 2017-001 RESOLUTION NO. 4368 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT [GPA 2017-00001] INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITS/MAPS FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13). The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated the preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction in conjunction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. In conjunction with the RHASP the revision of text and maps within the General Plan is necessary to make all elements internally consistent and consistent with the proposed Plan. B. That General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-00001 shall include amendments to the Land Use Element and other minor text amendments to various related sections as well as related graphic exhibits and maps. C. That the City of Tustin, as Lead Agency, has determined that collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) has been prepared and environmental impacts associated with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project have been analyzed as referenced in Resolution 4367. D. That the Planning Commission has considered the FPEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017- 0001 . E. That California law requires that a specific plan be consistent with the General Plan of the adopting locality. A General Plan Consistency Analysis has been prepared as part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that finds the project to be consistent, with adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment. F. That California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Resolution No. 4368 Page 2 Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project. G. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project on August 14, 2018, by the Tustin Planning Commission. H. That the Commission has reviewed and considered FPEIR prior to recommending approval of GPA 2017-00001; and II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve GPA 2017-00001 authorizing a change to the General Plan Land Use Designations of Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) within the project area to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) and text amendments as identified and attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 14'" day of August, 2018. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4368 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4368 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14th day of August 2018. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibits: A. General Plan Consistency Analysis B. Revised General Plan text, exhibits and maps associated with the RHASP C. Existing and Proposed General Plan Maps Exhibit A Exhibit A General Plan Consistency Analysis Following a thorough analysis of the City of Tustin General Plan, the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) has been found to be consistent with the Tustin General Plan, as amended. The text below includes a discussion on the relationship of this Specific Plan to relevant General Plan goals from the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation, Public Safety and Noise Elements as follows: 1 Land Use Element • Goal 1: Provide for well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open space and community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future services. • Goal 2: Ensure that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning. • Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints and the City's unique character and resources. • Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses, • Goal 5: Revitalize older commercial, industrial and residential uses and properties. • Goal 6: Improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods, commercial and business park districts. • Goal 7: Promote expansion of the City's economic base and diversification of economic activity. • Goal 8: Ensure that necessary public facilities and services should be available to accommodate development proposed on the Land Use Policy Map. The vision of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) is to create a vibrant, commercial-retail district through the establishment of a new land use plan that provides a complementary mix of commercial, retail, office and residential uses in an integrated, pedestrian friendly, mixed—use setting. Greater emphasis will be placed on the pedestrian and bicyclist, in addition to the needs of the automobile and public transit through allocation of the use of space within the public right-of-way. The evolution of land uses will enhance the economic and social vitality of the area. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 2 of 6 Adding residential uses and increasing pedestrian-oriented retail and commercial uses will help create a more dynamic, eclectic, and attractive place for both residents and visitors. A greater variety of activities along the street will be encouraged through the development of either horizontal or vertical mixed-uses that reinforce pedestrian orientation.The increased demand for commercial uses and services will lead to a revitalization of the area's underutilized parcels. Open space and community facilities and City services to serve the future residents of the area are also promoted, which in conjunction with the commercial uses will allow the RHASP to preserve a healthy, varied economy sufficient to provide future services. The RHASP and the RHASP EIR evaluated existing public facilities and infrastructure and determined that the existing facilities and services were adequate to serve the development proposed in the RHASP. The development standards and design criteria of the RHASP provide regulations and criteria to ensure the compatibility of new development with the adjacent character of the nearby existing single-family and multi-family neighborhoods through consideration of adjacent uses, building setbacks and site planning. Development will be directed to reflect the vision and enhance the overall architectural theme of the area. The Community Development Department will enforce these standards through the design review process. The RHASP area includes only the commercially-zoned properties along Red Hill Avenue and does not include any residential or industrially-zoned properties. The RHASP ensures that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning through a master planned approach with design criteria and standards that will guide future development for the area. The RHASP planning effort included community workshops, meetings and public input which promoted public interest in, and understanding of, the General Plan and regulations relating to it, including this Specific Plan. This effort led to the plan presented in the RHASP. 2 Mousing Element • Goal 1: Provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio-economic needs of all community residents. • Goal 3: Increase the percentage of ownership housing to ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing within the City. • Goal 6: Ensure that new housing is sensitive to the existing natural and built environment. The Specific Plan would promote revitalization of the commercial district by providing a mixed-use land use program, design criteria and a streetscape program to improve jobs/housing balance, aesthetics and promote mobility. As stated in the consistency discussion under the Land Use Element section, the RHASP allows residential uses in a mixed-use setting which will create more housing opportunities and increase the diversity of housing offered within the City. Depending on the product type, different price General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 3 of 6 points would be offered which will help meet the diverse socio-economic needs within the community and help ensure that a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing is maintained within the City. New development and reconstruction of existing uses within the Specific Plan area would be constructed using the California Green Business Standards, which require energy efficiency, water efficiency, and material conservation and resource efficiency. The Specific Plan would also be in compliance with the Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 7, Section 9704 which establishes standards for water-efficient landscapes, Development standards contained within the RHASP would also ensure that new mixed-use developments will be compatible with the existing adjacent commercial and residential area. 3 Circulation Element • Goal 1: Provide a system of streets that meets the needs of the current and future inhabitants and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City consistent with the City's ability to finance and maintain such a system. • Goal 4: Maximize the efficiency of the circulation system through the use of transportation system management and demand management strategies. • Goal 6: Increase the use of non-motorized modes of transportation. • Goal 7: Provide for well-designed and convenient parking facilities. As referenced in the consistency discussion under the Land Use Element section,the vision for the RHASP includes the creation of a distinct commercial-retail district that is both pedestrian & bike- friendly while also accommodating automotive and public transit needs. This is accomplished by introducing more residential uses in either a vertical or horizontal mixed use setting, utilizing the public right-of-way with an enhanced streetscape plan and encouraging enhancements to commercial uses. The Plan proposes revisions to the Red Hill Avenue roadway to include a striped on-street bike lane along the entire length of the Specific Plan area to promote more multimodal travel opportunities. Enhanced bikeway signage would also be introduced to promote bike usage and provide directions on how to connect to other bikeways or key points in the City. There are existing continuous sidewalks on Red Hill Avenue and cross streets within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan proposes improvements to the public realm in the Specific Plan area with an enhanced streetscape that would balance vehicular and pedestrian needs with a Flexible Amenity Setback adjacent to the public right-of-way with landscape parkways, street trees, landscape median and cohesive street furniture; allowing pedestrians to feel secure; cohesive wayfinding signage throughout the Specific Plan area; and safe, improved pedestrian crossings. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 4 of 6 The development standards within the RHASP include parking regulations to ensure future development within the Specific Plan area provides sufficient off-street parking for all land uses. The development standards also provide provisions for the shared use of parking facilities for future development within the Specific Plan area. 4 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element • Goal 1: Reduce air pollution through proper land use, transportation and energy use planning. • Goal 2: Improve air quality by influencing transportation choices of mode, time of day, or whether to travel to establish a jobs/housing balance. • Goal 3: Reduce particulate emissions to the greatest extent feasible. • Goal 4: Reduce emissions through reduced energy consumption. • Goal 5: Protect water quality and conserve water supply. • Goal 8: Conserve and protect significant topographical features, important watershed areas, resources, and soils. • Goal 10: Reduce solid waste produced within City. • Goal 11: Conserve energy resources through the use of available energy technology and conservation practices. • Goal 12: Maintain and enhance the City's unique culturally and historically significant building sites or features. • Goal 13: Preserve Tustin's archeological and paleontological resources. • Goal 14: Encourage the development and maintenance of a balanced system of public and private parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces that serve the needs of existing and future residents in the City of Tustin. • Goal 18: Ensure that recreational goals and policies are pursued and realized in an organized, incremental, and cost-effective manner and consistent with the City of Tustin's financial resources and legal authorities and the appropriate responsibilities of other agencies, the private sector, and individual and group users. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 The RHASP encourages environmentally-friendly practices that would reduce air pollutant emissions, energy consumption, and water use. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Mitigation Program set forth in the RHASP FIR Section 4.2 (Air Quality) regarding operational emission reductions and Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) relative to recycling of wastes and use of recycled materials. Individual development projects within the Specific Plan area would comply with water quality regulations. Stormwater runoff generated from individual development projects would be managed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local water quality rules and regulations to effectively preclude significant impacts on water quality. A Water Quality Management Plan and/or SWPPP, which includes site-specific best management practices (BMP's) for erosion and sediment control, would be prepared and implemented for projects within the Specific Plan area. As with all development in the City, projects in the Specific Plan area are required to submit grading plans, which would be accompanied by a soils engineering report, engineering geology report and drainage calculations that would analyze existing topography, soils and any associated potential impacts. Standard conditions (SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2) contained within Section 4.4 (Geology and Soils) of the RHASP EIR also specify the preparation of geological and soils engineering reports. Future development within the Specific Plan area would be constructed in accordance with the California Green Business Standards, which require energy efficiency, water efficiency, and material conservation and resource efficiency. Development would also be required to comply with Title 24 California Uniform Building Code requirements which include measures related to solar, energy and water efficient building design, appliances and fixtures. The Specific Plan area is not in an area that is considered sensitive for archaeological resources and there is low likelihood for paleontological resources or other unique geologic features within the Specific Plan area. The records search determined that surface grading or shallow excavations would likely not uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.3 (Cultural Resources) of the RHASP EIR which requires developers or new projects to retain an archaeologist to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any applicable archaeological requirements. The RHASP EIR supports the City's policy of providing adequate parkland in compliance with Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 9331.d. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with applicable City requirements and the Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.12 (Recreation) of the RHASP EIR which requires projects not subject to parkland dedication requirements to pay a parkland development fee to the City of Tustin. 5 Public Safety Element • Goal 3: Reduce the risk to the community from geologic and seismic hazards. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 6 of 6 • Goal 4: Reduce the risk to the community's inhabitants from exposure to hazardous materials and wastes. • Goal 5: Reduce the risk to the community's inhabitants from fires and explosions. • Goal 6: Stabilize demand for law enforcement services. Development projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to design all development and associated infrastructure in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code seismic design standards. The Code contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site, The Specific Plan would also require new developments to adhere to the California Fire and Building Code, which references the use of fire-retardant materials to reduce hazards and severity. The Specific Plan area is in a developed area that is currently served by the Tustin Police Department. The Specific Plan would introduce new residential and commercial uses and increase the population of the City; however, tax-base expansion from development with the Plan area would generate funding for the police protection services. 6 Noise Element • Goal 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. Future developments within the Specific Plan would be reviewed to ensure compliance with noise requirements. Section 4.9 (Noise) of the RHASP EIR identifies and addresses the General Plan's noise standards, including land use compatibility. Exhibit B residential densities, traffic circulation, controlled growth, environmental preservation, and crime prevention (a complete summary of the survey results is available in the Planning Department); o Two public "Open House" sessions held early in the process to solicit input for issues identification and goal formulation; o Opportunities to publicly address decision makers directly regarding issues, concerns, and desires at Planning Commission and Joint City Council/Planning Commission General Plan Workshops, both prior to preparation and during review of the Preliminary Draft General Plan; and o Public review and comment on the Draft General Plan and its supporting documents during public hearings held before the City's Planning Commission and City Council. o For the 2001 amendment of the General Plan associated with the reuse of MCAS Tustin, a public "Open House" was held to review the Draft Amendment, followed by public hearings held before the City's Planning Commission and City Council. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS As amendments to the General Plan are considered and adopted by the City, a general description of each should be identified and added as an attachment to the Introduction to the Plan. Amendment of Table 1-2 as an attachment to the Introduction Chapter below will not require an amendment to the General Plan. Table 1-2 below identifies each amendment and the General Plan elements affected. TABLE I-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Amendment Name Date of Affected Amendment Description Adaption Elements 2016-00001 XX XX 1 Recd Hill Avenue Specific Plan S Land Use Resolution Na. is-XX CITY OF TUSTIN INTRODUCTION GENERAL PLAN 10 ]UNE 2018 INTRODUCTION TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element is a guide to the allocation of land use in the City and provides a framework or context for the issues and subject areas examined in the other Elements of the General Plan. PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT The purpose of the Land Use Element is to describe present and planned land use activity, and to address issues concerning the relationship between land uses and environmental quality,potential hazards, and social and economic aeeabject Lives. The Element identifies the general distribution and location of residential and non- residential land uses, as well as quantifiable density and building intensity.The Land Use Element constitutes official City policy for the location of various land uses, and provides guidance to ensure orderly growth and development. Goals and policies included in the Land Use Element establish a constitutional framework for future land use planning and decision making. The Land Use Plan portion of the Element promotes the achievement of these goals by establishing logical,organized land use patterns and standards for future land use.The Plan accomplishes this through the use of descriptive text, tables, charts, and maps. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ELEMENT The Land Use Element includes the City's goals and policies for the long-term growth, development and revitalization of Tustin The Element contains text describing land use goals and policies, descriptions of land use types, a Land Use Policy Map, and a statistical summary of the City's future land use composition. A primary component of this Element is the Land Use Plan Policy Map which graphically identifies future planned land uses within the planning area.The Land Use Element contains a narrative description of the land use designations depicted on the Land Use Plan Policy Map. CETY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 7 JUNE 2018 COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT o The intermixing of land uses in some areas without adequate buffering has resulted in land use incompatibilities, such as those related to physical scale,noise,and traffic.Specific types and examples of incompatible land uses include the following. ■ obtrusive industrial uses adjacent to residential development; ■ commercial uses abutting residential development without adequate buffering; ■ high density residential adjacent to lower residential densities without adequate buffering; ■ noise sensitive uses adjacent to freeways, highways and railroads. o The market trend for mixed-use housing opportunities within a walkable downtown as well as within the Red Hill Avenue coi-nnierci l ,area has created a desire for a mix of compatible commercial, office and residential uses. a New development, if not regulated, can interfere with public vistas and views of the surrounding hillsides, public monuments, and other important viewsheds. REVITALIZATION OF OLDER COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND PROPERTIES o While most of Tustin's housing stock is in good condition,. certain neighborhoods, such as the Southwest area of the City, are in need of concentrated rehabilitation and code enforcement efforts. o Tustin contains numerous historically and architecturally significant structures whose maintenance and preservation is important to the heritage of the community. o Some of the City's older residential areas are impacted by adjacent freeways, commercial and industrial land uses. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 7 TTj-c, AUGUST 2018 Policy 11.4: Integrate existing uses,new development and potential future redevelopment uses. Policy 11.5: Upgrade the edge conditions between industrial/ business park uses and residential development through private development standards and onsite landscaping of industrial/business park uses. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER IN THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area is envisioned to be a distinctive,vibrant and thriving district with interconnected commercial,office,and residential uses in a mixed-use setting. The area serves as a prominent gateway to the City with Interstate 5 northbound and southbound on and off-ramps at Red Hill Avenue,allowing for residents,retail comulercial customers and existing business owners within the area to leave immediate freeway access. _ Goal 12: Enhance streetscape, landscape, and public amenities, improve visual and functional connections and linkages between Red Full Avenue, surrounding residential neighborhoods, adjacent public and institutional uses and Interstate 5 balance flexible and diverse land uses that foster economic development opportunities and support housing opportunities, streamline processes to support future development improve pedestrian and bike accessibility and vehicular circulation to minimize potential conflicts between different users and improve mobility,implement parking standards that reflect verifiable demand and consider future land uses,coordinate existing and future development with infrastructure capacity, and ensure development within the Specific Plan area is sensitive to and compatible with surrounding land uses. Policy 12.1: Establish a streetscape program using landscaping, signage,street furniture,entry statements,and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. Policy 12.2: Develop coordinated gateway design treatments that establish entry statements and a"sense of place"at key locations within the Specific Plan area. Policy 12.3: Encourage a"sense of place"within the Specific Plan area through quality site design,architectural design,and public improvements as part of future development. CITY Of TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 25 P':E,AUGUST 2018 Policy 12.4: Coordinate a bus shelter and transit stop im rovement program to ensure that all bus stops have the appropriate amenities. Policy 12.5: Identify ways to improve and enhance linkages and Formatted:Font:Bold connections between new development in the Specific Plan area and surrounding properties. Policy 12.6: Develop desigrr criteria that encourage optimal building _ Formatted:Font:Bold configuration and design, parking strategies, signage, pedestrian amenities, landscaping,and appropriate,timeless architectural styles. ,Policy.12.7: Establish a land use program that encourages a mix of Formatted:Font:Bold land uses responsive to market demands and Tustin community priorities. Policy 12.8: Refine allowable land uses within the area to encourage ._-- Formatted:Font:Bold the desired development envisioned by the Specific Plan. Policy 12.9: Establish development standards for future land uses that - Formatted:Font:Bold are compatible with the surrounding area and preserve the small town feel and community character. Policy 12.10: Develop land use standards that focus on retention and _ Formatted:Font:Bold enhancement of commercial development, but supports integrated mixed-use development,sidewalk-adjacent development,parking behind building frontages and pedestrian activity. _Policy 12.11: Adopt a ro am-level environmental clearance_------(Formatted:Font:Bald document to utilize in subsequent development proposaIs within the RHASP area. Policy 12.12: Establish a tiered environmental review 2rocess, for _ Formatted:Font:Bold discretionary development application review to streanilirre the approval process. .oliey 12.13: Establish development incentives such as tailored - Formatted:Font:Bold development standards or streamlined review processes, to encourage new development that fulfills the vision of the Specific Plan. Policy 12.14: Identify local, State, and Federal grants and other _ Formatted:Font:Bald funding opportunities that can provide business assistance and offer the City the means to upgrade the area. Policy 12.15: Improve and enhance pedestrian Connections aidFormatted:Font:Bold facilities,particularly in areas that contain large,expansive parking lots. At these CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 26 I AUGUST 2018 Iocations,accessible pedestrian connections from the sidewall,to building entrances should be encouraged. Eolicy 12.16: Minimize curb cuts or driveways onto arterial roads and - Formatted:Font:sold collector streets. Policy 12.17: Promote and develop a transportation system which.-,-----I Formatted:Font:Bold includes provisions for public transportation,bikes and pedestrians. ,Policy 12.18: Promote the development and maintenance of adequate_ Formatted:Font:Sold parking facilities commensurate with parking demand. Policy 12.14: Monitor parking supply and utilization to identify - Formatted:Fant:sold deficiencies or conflicts with the movement of traffic as new development occurs. i<'olicy 12.20: Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan _ Formatted:Font:Sold area meets future demands. f olicy 12.21: Coordinate future lands use planning with sustainable Formatted:Font:sold transportation and infrastructure planning. Policy 12.22: Ensure that the form, scale, and design of ntW _ -- Formatted:Font:Bold development, including new construction, renovations, or additions, does not negatively impact the existing surrounding uses and structures. .Policy 12.23: Implement "four-sided architecture" principles that Formatted:Font:Bold consider the aesthetic quality of development from all sides,whether visible from the e public right-of-way or not. NORTH TUSTIN(UNINCORPORATED AREA) The North Tustin unincorporated area has a low density,,semi-rural character.This desirable character is sensitive and vulnerable. GOAL 1312: Maintain the semi-rural and low-density character of North Tustin. Policy 1312.1:Ensure that any infill development in North Tustin is compatible and complimentary to the existing North Tustin community. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 27 AUGUST 2018 Policy 1312.2: Review and consider the possible development and adoption of pre-zoning designation for the North Tustin unincorporated area as part of any annexation proposal. Policy 1312.3:Identify the North Tustin Specific Plan Area and entire North Tustin unincorporated area as a Special Management Area. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER OF TUSTIN LEGACY(FORMER MCAS TUSTIN) GOAL 1413:Continue to implement the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed use,master planned development and that includes the following qualities seeking to create results that are very special and worthy of the site's present and historical importance. Policy 1413.1: Promote new uses and design which will peacefully coexist with surrounding residences and businesses in Tustin and adjacent cities,minimizing impacts on noise,air quality,traffic, and other environmental features wherever possible. Policy 1413.2: Encourage a development pattern that offers a connectedness between buildings and uses,and has a strong sense of place through architectural style and creative landscape design. Policy 1413.3:Encourage a mixture of uses that enable people living or working on the site to choose to meet a significant part of their daily needs within the site. Policy 14 .4: Implement the balanced reuse plan that responds to community needs but which does not drain City resources.Wherever possible,tax revenues generated by uses on the site should offset the costs of public services. Policy 1413.5: Promote high quality architecture, landscaping, signage, open space design, circulation patterns, and landscape patterns distinct from surrounding areas. Policy 1413.6:Encourage the distinguished history of the Base to be preserved in one or more locations on site. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 28 LWF AUGUST 2018 Policy 1443.7:Promote uses and institutions which will accommodate and attract 21st Century jobs and technologies. Policy 1413.8:Encourage uses that benefit broader community's needs and which are balanced with development that is compatible with the Tustin community. Policy 13.9: Ensure that land and water are clean and safe to use and that other environmental considerations are taken into account during design. Policy 14 .10: Promote a successful transition from military to civilian use that reasonably satisfies the public interests at local, countywide,regional,state and federal levels consistent with the need for any reuse plan to be fiscally sound and to foster economic development. Policy 1413.11: Strategically place development in a manner responsive to requirements for hazardous material cleanup, circulation and infrastructure capacity,and market absorption. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES The goals and policies described in the Land Use Element are related to and support subjects included within other General Plan elements. In turn,many goals and policies from the other elements directly or indirectly support the goals and policies of the Land Use Element. These supporting goals and policies are identified in Table LU-1.. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 29 AUGUST 2018 TABLE LU-1 LAND USE RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT Land Use Issue Ind HousinCirculation Conservation/ Public Growth Area Use g cuaon Open Space Safety Noise Management Balanced 1.9,3.1 1.10,5.2, 2.12,8.11, 1.1,2.5,2.6, Development 5.6 14.12, 2.7,2.8,4.1 14.13,15.2 Compatible/ 1.11,4.4, 1.3,1A,73, 1,6,3.3, 1.2,1.9, Compkmentar_v 4.5,5.1, 7.4,8.1,8.5, 3.9,4.5, 23,24, Development 6.2, 8.7,8.9, 7.1,7 2 25,2 7, 6.12 8.10,8.12,8.13, 2.8 8.16,14.7,14.8, 14.9,17.3,18.5 Revitalization of 1.2,1.3, 12.1 9.1 Older 5.1, Development 5.3,5.3 Improved Cih,- 1.18 1.2,1.9, L2,1.5,5.3, 5.2,6.5 7.6 Wide Elrban 1.14,6.8 7.1, Design K6,11.1,11,2, 12.3,14.1,17.2 Economic 2.5 Expansion, Dig ersini,Rion Public Facilities/ 1.16,69 2,10,5.6,14.5, 3.2,5.3 3.1,3.2 Services 14.6,16.10, Coordination 18.4 East Tustin 7.6,8.15,8.17, Character 14.14,14.15, 15.1 Old Town/First Street Character Pacific Center East Character Red Hill Avenue S Pccihc Plan North Tustin (Unincorporated Area Tustin Legacy 16.8 (Former MCAS Tustin) Character CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 30 JUNE, UGUST 2018 a I�#r • �, III III ,►� , ♦♦♦♦ + 4 i' . ' II II ♦ ♦_ � ISI ���,f I �` �� _, �_ �'`'r', I•',III �� r, oy /j,af"M SVIi•� ,rf � r I I� Ij ,ij • /'"' � �► ►III Ir ♦ %��� �����,' . �� �►i ��✓� �► tilt tf�µ«Y`++a *'r► ♦ �#� . . ! ►�t�t tt is t♦+ �`�. { � . Elm ■■■ ■ .�► r Er _ .aA = o W v E _ - o _ rn rn a o0 c a ID Ili v�' _ n rNi ca E — Q c Q� m ° a y c v cc 6 k ❑ E `� ❑ _ �Q b rn v as �� � _ � � iqT7 E U O U A v E y ❑ o y v ° areas, to allow for an unforeseen need for public utilities, and to recognize that some owners will maintain their land in an undeveloped state beyond the time span of the Plan. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has recommended that plan capacity overage not exceed approximately 20 to 25 percent of the projected population. The measurement of overage is accomplished by dividing the maximum population capacity of the plan by the projected population. For the Tustin Planning Area, the maximum population capacity of the Plan is 129,655, and the projected population is 104,312 resulting in an overage of approximately 24 percent. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS Certain areas within the planning area have special characteristics or unique properties which require continuous City management to ensure that City policy is implemented and desired results are achieved.These "Special Management Areas" (SMAs)are regulated in different ways by the City and other public agencies having specific responsibilities for methods and timing of land development. For these reasons,two Special Management Area Policy Maps have been prepared to identify these areas consistent with Land Use Element goals and policies and related policies, contained in other General Plan elements which impact land use decisions.Special standards for development in Special Management Areas are applicable regardless of other land use descriptions on a property. Figures LU-4 and LU-5 delineate the boundaries of Special Management Areas in the Tustin planning area. Existing Specific Plans Specific plans are designed to implement General Plan goals and policies by desegregating land uses, densities, developments and design standards. Adopted specific plans within the planning area include: East Tustin, Pacific Center East, Downtown Commercial Core,Red Hill Avenue, North Tustin,and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). East Tustin Specific Plan: The East Tustin Specific Plan area represents a portion of the Irvine Company property which was annexed to the City of Tustin incrementally in 1977, 1980, and 1981 CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 52 Jb-N€AUGUST 2018 , t r � J ---------------- IN _-- --s ! +-� , , a ,. 75, uc f f r Specific Plans - �l�lli7 Dov ut rw-n CutruwrCia+Ccre j RustTwin f,� r v[ikfTT Uft„ pS'rrih Tustin wCAs 1)1Sr`n ®rity.wTusQn ® Red Hill Avenue ED5uls:rE of Tafhxxic.�FlatirrR rea TUSTIN Figure LU-4 Special Management Areas GI...I ER L PLAN SUccificPlans Updates)June 29,2016 r R) Red_Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP): The RHASP focuses on a portion of Red Hill Avenue north and south of the existing Interstate 5 freeway within the City. The planning area includes approximately 36 acres of land and extends from Bryan venue to the northeast and Walnut Avenue to the southwest. The area was primarily developed in the 1960's as primarily a vehicular corridor with a mixture of low-intensity commercial, retail, restaurant and office uses within traditional shopping centers. The RHASP intends to encourage a greater mix of uses within the Specific Plan area with an emphasis placed on the pedestrian and bicyclist in addition to the needs of the automobile and public transit. The goals of the Specific Plan include the addition of residential uses in either a horizontal or vertical mixed-use setting with retail commercial or office that_reinforce a pedestrian orientation with a greater variety of activities along the street. The RHASP creates an identity and vision for the area with the option of doing development projects that combine residential living with commercial uses through a discretionary review process which_evaluates and encourages high-quality mixed use. North Tustin Specific Plan:The North Tustin Specific Plan applies to portions of the unincorporated area of North Tustin in the general vicinity of 17th Street and Newport Avenue. All development activities within this area of the County are subject to provisions of the North Tustin Specific Plan. A more lengthy discussion of the plan can be found in the Land Use Technical Memorandum. The North Tustin Specific Plan (NTSP) is a County document presently controlling development under the County's jurisdiction. It was formulated by community consensus in response to a perception that this area forms a buffer zone between commercial development to the south and west and low density residential to the north and east. This General Plan recognizes the continued need for stable specific designation for this sensitive area by requiring that development regulation in this NTSP be utilized in review of any development proposals within this area under the Tustin General Plan. Should the subject area or any part of it be annexed to the City of Tustin, the NTSP document will be revised to reflect the changed jurisdiction and authorities. In the case of ambiguity due to map scale, or other special concerns such as topographic or environmental constraints, the County of Orange's exhibit maps in conjunction with CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 57 1 20-18 Exhibit C ��♦� ��� -��1���i�� i����V�tai\�i��S�i►%/ �� / �SI�������� ����• SII ������♦♦ �� ,. . IIIIIII��III���II�'��♦ �•jI� •�����I♦♦♦;♦♦�I $ • ,� IIS�'�IIIII� IIT a I�,♦�,� ® ' '.Torii=`••'_',�, � ,� pp 1,,�iii 1►11�t �. � - Lo CL prw- IS �•,,,�.�Q II♦ III �♦♦♦� ��� . ��� �►�� PIPA rO O I ♦t���♦ ♦��, �II,� � .: �il�il �i�l.�♦� ���,. •��•.o,� ��j �i��� �, .'fir �,, ' � ��j IIIII Ij��� �����i�� ,��0♦��O ��� ` I/II / O �r. � m��� �►��I� I�III ��i���i� �������;�p���'�®� IIS � fi � �. _' �j�I II �i ���O ��� ♦ N '.,, ��1��♦�♦ Tip�i'ii nnlulnnnnnn � � <; I I . . ` /.x.21 - - � -�_.•- • ' .�W .• ate_ iia3l r� �..`. -fir% •� E C� � .♦i ♦Y•O�a��i lir '•o !' _ Yi Yi i1 l ♦! \ ••. Iy..�♦ �/•� ••♦fie r .. ,{�° ♦fir� 4C. ��r Sp�s•O�.•i•i0 O rq : ls o: ►�♦1►44v yyAll��tie�O•I�I:O♦!�.,e, I r �. i Ai y ♦♦y.'�`l3�d�0 r•"••••.•:•.`�•'" (1 M ,•fid♦d�9 •'•�'.. ► ,av,• -�'� ss::i:7 mg :a: ,��_-....•l--[.Qo".•- ::tea � .;... �i.. .fit, 'I� y '. h,• c• '`iii ��•_" Ir. '� ••i. I •t. - r a. -1 :•. tee= -= t♦ ♦.'1=- 1 'N•Ah Ci.v:' inn. - - _ :3i i♦i%:`♦�Vi+`,+:::• •••uglp•�♦:cr °': ------------ =74 : q- ♦ ti�►♦•v�♦,;jsiri�',y��ii ♦1�'�•�i�- • ♦�y��r•• °y•. ♦/'i r�`■a�♦♦6r ♦+}1► ♦ Y •ter�_,.a �1 ;r%'�Y�a•♦�r.,1 tc rl�■1■Ifw'ri�r�l-l:Cl7 M�'iy.7.,:�r♦i�3i ice.:,�•'yt�►1►...�. ���III���/����� ♦i�Gly%. I:::i3,.•:.Q. i�1 Iii C.,l •C tiL��:�•�:1 ' %a�� l' -'• .1111`' *, • ` d '' `rel ` r�+ *;♦ `�i*�� ♦♦ ♦ �� . NONNI 11 nn uEd,uii ups un � � � NVd 3sn 4NV G-m 3ansij u!}snl jo Al!o 43SOdOad dew Ueld leaauaD ueld oyloadS anuanV IIN Pab-dSVHal ueld oyloadS woo leopawwo0 uMoluMoO-ds000 veld oyloadS uysnl SVOW-SVOW -. leuollnlysul/ollgnd Allunwwo0 pauueld IdOd- sa�iW G S'0 9Z'0 0 leuollnl!lsu Uoll4nd-Id- leu;snpul-I- N ssaulsngAeloJawwo0 Allunwwo0 pauueld-800d- lopowwo0 Allunwwo0-00 ^�\, 80yl0 leuolssalad-Od We a i o ��� 1 \ �I d awo H I.4W-dHW leyuaplsaa Apnwwo0 pauueld-b0d lequapisaa 4suaCl ON-WIH lepuaplsaa Allsua0 wnpaW-LjC]h _J leyuaplsab Rlisa❑mol-?Jal UOROUBisaa ueld 1e3auaE A \ u!lsnl 41JON sl!w!l 41!0 upsnl � Am 11" f a {moi\, pff N I ' ,'ROOT-. - l yr PTP l.Z u ` I x a y ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. 4369: ZC 2017-001 RESOLUTION NO. 4369 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 2017-00001 FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. B. That to facilitate the intended vision and implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP), General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017- 00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 are necessary. C. That ZC 2017-0001 will amend the Zoning Map and adopt SP-13, the RHASP. D. That SP-13 would establish a new, integrated mixed use land designation for the area and would include residential uses in addition to commercial, retail and office uses. The mix of uses would encourage development in the area and provide incentives to redevelop existing underutilized parcels. The RHASP would allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional nonresidential square footage to the area. E. That SP-13 (Ordinance No. 1498) will be consistent with the Tustin General Plan, as amended by GPA 2017-00001. That the proposed SP- 13 will further the goals and policies for the long-term growth, development and revitalization of the Red Hill Avenue commercial corridor. F. That the City of Tustin, as Lead Agency, has determined that collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) has been prepared and environmental impacts associated with the RHASP project have been analyzed as referenced in Resolution 4367. Resolution 4369 Page 2 G. That the Planning Commission has considered the FPEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on ZC 2017-00001 . H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project on August 14, 2018, by the Tustin Planning Commission. I. That California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1498 approving ZC 2017-00001 authorizing a change to the Zoning designations of Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) within the project area to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) as attached hereto and adopt the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan document. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 14th day of August, 2018. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution 4369 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4369 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14�h day of August, 2018. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibits: A. Ordinance No. 1498 approving Zone Change 2017-00001 for the RHASP B. Revised Zoning Map C. Final Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan — dated July 2018 Exhibit A DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1498 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 2017- 00001 INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE TUSTIN ZONING MAP. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the Tustin City Council has indicated a desire to encourage revitalization and economic development while emphasizing business retention and attraction for the Red Hill Avenue area. Many of the existing commercial shopping centers and retail areas within the Specific Plan area represent antiquated site planning and layout. As a result, the area has not reached its full potential. Based upon this, the Tustin City Council initiated preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and supporting documents with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction and development with the area. B. That in July 2015, the City Council authorized the preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and related supporting documents. C. That to facilitate the intended vision and implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project, the preparation of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-00001 and Zone Change 2017-00001. D. That SP-13 would establish a new, integrated mixed use land designation for the area and would include residential uses in addition to commercial, retail and office uses. The mix of uses would facilitate development in the area and provide incentives to redevelop existing underutilized parcels. The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional non-residential square footage to the area. E. That California law requires that a specific plan be consistent with the general plan of the adopting locality. A General Plan Consistency Analysis has been prepared as part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that finds the project to be consistent, with adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendments. F. That SP-13 (Ordinance No. 1498) will be consistent with the Tustin General Plan, as amended by GPA 2017-00001 . That the proposed SP- 13 will further the goals and policies for the long-term growth, development and revitalization of the Red Hill commercial corridor; Ordinance No. 1498 Page 2 G. That between July 2015 and February 2018, a total of three (3) public workshops were held for the project. The purpose of the workshops was to receive comments on the Draft Specific Plan. The final workshop was also a joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council where the final draft Specific Plan was presented and additional comments were voiced and/or submitted in writing; H. That California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project. I. That the City of Tustin, as Lead Agency, has determined that collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) has been prepared and environmental impacts associated with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project have been analyzed as referenced in Resolution 18-XX. J. That as part of the approval process for the RHASP (SP-13)/ZoneChange and the General Plan Amendment and the associated actions thereto, the FPEIR must be adopted/certified by the City Council prior to or concurrently with approval of the project. That the City Council has considered the FPEIR prior to or concurrently with approval of the project. K. That a public hearing for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) was held on August 14, 2018 by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4369 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1498. L. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project September 4, 2018, by the Tustin City Council. M. That on September 4, 2018, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-XX adopting and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the RHASP project. N. That on September 4, 2018, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-XX (General Plan Amendment 2017-00001), ensuring that the RHASP project is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. SECTION 2. That the RHASP district regulations are attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court or competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that is would have adopted this ordinance and each section, Ordinance No. 1498 Page 3 subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. That the City Council adopts Ordinance No. 1498 approving ZC 2017- 00001 amending the City of Tustin Zoning Map attached hereto as Exhibit B and adopt the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this 4th day of September, 2018. ELWYN A. MURRAY MAYOR ATTEST: ERICA N. YASUDA, CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 1498 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1498 Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1.498 was duly and regularly introduced and read by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4ffi day of September, 2018, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2"d day of October, 2018, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk Published: Exhibits: A. Final Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan — dated July 2018 B. Revision of the Tustin Zoning Map Exhibit A of Ordinance No . 1498 For a copy of the Final Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ( RHASP), please refer to the City's website at following link: http://www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/planning update asp Exhibit B of Ordinance No . 1498 iU..W � G _ rK C _ W � q R. U CO nC� E vim. U U o - o LO o LLJ c �7 U 5 p F`rb d ae a � ecsFL ` U fL ¢ 75 nb � hri Qaro 5 c E d Z m o .I I aa�aa�I- cH = W0- oU) e - a v ca \ d N meq' ? 0- O EE dr Y � :12 _ E � m�' e � B � ia •• L .a 19 LL C C Cl C E b a NrO E za c c >•cc ro o ° P �► c c o E a C s p ua ra m a CL / 00.GP �' rr C Y�-rdr�vU�Ya,-NC7 �. r'r = F- Q 0.n'WLL� atYCLd AC]C}U Co° JCI ry C7 Cyd U) o =3 r� C) co LO � rn) f„ � Ucrs `n r 4� 1(JVNr r , M/ CL0 LO VCO � � O U m Q ueld pUpadS anuanV IIIH pay PIWO veld o}PadS woO lepuawwo0 umolumod leuogmnsul pue angn AI!unwwo0 Pawreld-IdOd II- lep,awwoo Ilsley-l0 11IM7 epuOPlsay Allwed'IBI'S-ly lse3,alua0 pploed leuo!Inl!Isul pue olNnd-IdI- leuo!ssa)ad-bdO -1-3lequap!say-93 1aa45 W9-A IeP,npuj Allun—j Pauueld'ONI Od IIIIIIII, Wed awoH el!9oyy-dHW --Irop6V Rluep!sey-Vy® uPsnl4se3® leplsnpul-W I- luawdolanaO Pauueld-Od_ Buluoz poo4,oQy6aN llOH= le!gsnpul POuueld-Wd®lepuep!say AlNnwwoO Pauueld'S3-d Od shored ..Id upsny= Ielwawwo0 Awnuauo0 Pauueld-WOO Od M leduaplsay ueq,nOnS-6u A-1 a 0 O-IM"d al ,aypoay leuo!lewul IWO-E)Iep,awwoO-00— le!waplsay Alp—j aldPlnptl-CH0 laplsl0—noaay Iwnlln0 1 , lap)sl0 uald ptpedS upsj SVOW� 1.1.—.31w1ua0-ZO® lelwepl-d xaldn0-Zy sow!l Alp upsnj SGIN L 9'0 5Z'0 0 N uilsnl jo Al!o auj jo dew BuiuoZ a I l l_ r � �44- Y i� 1 ti Jai.+F, K �jIJJ �+ a 3r}i+5.r J •E I y J ATTACHMENT 6 COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED FROM RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP DATED 3/16118 Wim'n1 � ;'Sr M.Katherine Jenson + Direct Dial:(714)641-3413 RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP E-mail:kjenson&utan.com RECEIVE=D March 16,2018 MAR 19 20% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY. VIA E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Mayor Al Murray and Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Members of the City Council Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: CityCouncil@tustinca.org E-mail: cityclerk@tustinea.org tustinea.org Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: edernkowicz@tustinca.arg Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Dear Mayor Murray, Chairman Smith, Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and Ms. Demkowicz: Rutan & Tucker, LLP represents WTM Tustin Investors, LP, and Lake Union Investors,. LP, with regard to their property interests located at 13852 Red Hill Avenue, in Tustin. Specifically, Rutan has been requested to submit these comments and questions regarding the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ("Specific Plan") and its potential effects on our clients' property interests. The owners of the adjacent properties located at 13742, 13802, 13822, 13872 Red Hill Avenue and 1571 El Camino Real, Mayflower Properties, L.P., and Howard L. Abel, Trustee of the Howard L. Abel Family Trust,have asked to join in the comments contained in this letter. Together,the property owners are referred to in this letter as the "Property Owners" or the "Owners." In a nutshell, while the Property Owners applaud the City's effort to enhance the Red Hill Avenue corridor's aesthetics and accessibility, the Owners are greatly concerned that the Specific Plan will (1) create uncertainty as to what will be expected, of whom, and when; and (2) overburden any private voluntary efforts to upgrade the commercial businesses on the west side of Red Hill Avenue between El Camino Real and San Juan Street. The Owners are concerned that the Specific Plan,as drafted,may actually impede the goal of improving the shopping, dining and commercial services options for Tustin residents. The Owners have a vested interest in advancing Rutan & Tucker. LLP { 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714-641-5100 1 Fax 714-546-9035 119!618838-0031 orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 120607483 A3116/18 RUTAN RUTAN c TUCKER,LL? Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16, 2018 Page 2 that goal and are concerned that approval of the Specific Plan, as drafted, will trigger burdensome and infeasible on-site and off-site improvements. The following are the Owners'primary concerns, questions,and comments at this juncture. 1. What Level of Improve nients[Upgrades to Existing Structures Will Trigger Application Of The Specific Plan Requirements? The Specific Plan attempts to describe what will trigger its application in several sections. The descriptions are unclear and inconsistent. On page 4-1, it states that the new standards "shall apply to all new development, including additions to buildings, and changes in use...." "New development" and "changes of use" are not defined in the document. On page 5-1, the Specific Plan states that the new Design Criteria will be utilized during the City's design review process, and that the Design Criteria apply to all parcels within the Specific Plan area. The following page (page 5-2) attempts to define projects that are subject to design review. It states that "at a minimum" this includes new construction, zoning applications that "affect"existing exterior elevations, "exterior remodels," "new signage," any "change in use and/or classification of use of an existing tenant space," or "any change in the intensification of use of an existing tenant space." Again,no definitions are provided. Additionally,this description of design review differs from the scope of design review described in Section 9272 of the City's Code, which applies to "the issuance of any building permit, including new structures or major exterior alterations or enlargement of existing structures." (Emph. add.) In the section on "Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Parcels" on page 4-29', the Specific Plan provides yet another different description of when the new standards would apply to existing structures. It lists the triggering requirements as"new construction,"a"zoning application that affects the exterior elevation,"a"change in use,"and an"expansion or new development." It then references Section 9273 of the City's Code for"specific standards and provisions." However, the description does not track the City Code, which allows for certain changes in use, provided the new use is in the same or a more restrictive classification. The City Code also provides certain exemptions when nonconformity is the result of right-of-way acquisitions. How will that affect properties that must provide additional road right-of-way under the terms of the Specific Plan? Chapter 6 has an additional description of what will trigger the application of the new Specific Plan standards. Page 6-1 says that existing uses"sliall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards" subject to compliance with City Code Section 9273. It goes on to say that, when "land uses intensify or change, existing structures are modified, additional ' This paragraph also contains a typographical error. The reference to 5.3.1 should be 5.1.3. i 19MI6,3s-oo31 i2*607 '&3 a03 10113 RUTAN AUTM LTUCNEp.4U' Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16, 2018 Page 3 square footage or new development is proposed, conformance with regulations and design criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required." It subsequently refers to findings that have to be made for"new development projects." (Pages 6-5 to 6-6.) The Owners request two things: (1) that there be a single, consistent description of what type of development project will trigger the application of the new requirements; and (2) that the City make it clear that tenant improvements and minor building modifications necessary for re- tenanting an existing building for a permitted use do not trigger application of the new standards. In such situations, the building is not being enlarged, and the uses are within the scope of the existing entitlements. Without this clarification, re-tenanting existing buildings will be cost prohibitive. This will lead to buildings remaining vacant, attracting vandalism and resulting in disrepair and blight. Vacant buildings produce nothing for the City, its residents or the Owners. If, when tenants vacate, buildings cannot be efficiently reoccupied with simple over-the-counter building permits for exterior and interior tenant improvements,the effect will be the direct opposite of what the City is trying to achieve with this Specific Plan. 2. Excessive Landscape Coverage Requirements Currently,the City's Zoning Code requires that 5%of the parking area be landscaped. This is typical. The Specific Plan requires that 10% of the gross lot size be landscaped. If new development were proposed on my clients' site, or even a simple facade remodel of the existing building, this requirement would translate into more than 10,008 sq. ft. of landscaping (10 % of the 100,088 gross lot sq. ft.). Applying the City's current requirements to that same property results in a requirement of only 3,158 sq. ft. of landscaping (5% of the 63,174 sq. ft. of parking area). As proposed, this is well over a 300% increase in landscape coverage requirements. Additionally, the Specific Plan calculation must also be based upon the gross lot size, and. landscape within the required 18 foot parkway is not to be counted towards meeting the 10% requirement. My clients have extensive experience with development and ownership of shopping centers within California, and have never been subject to landscape requirements as high as what is proposed here. Given the drought and ongoing maintenance costs, such a drastic increase in the landscaping coverage requirement is excessive. Moreover, given the numerous additional space- consuming requirements of the Specific Plan, the proposed increase is clearly unreasonable. The Property Owners request that the percentage requirement be dropped, and that the calculation be based upon the size of the parking area rather than the gross lot size. 3. Drive-Thru Restaurants The proposed treatment of drive-thru restaurants and drive-thni uses is incomplete and the policies are internally inconsistent. The policies do not reflect the desires of Tustin's residents, Table 4-1 on page 4-5 has no letter in column two, next to the Drive-Thru. category of land uses. 1191018838-0031 12060748.3 a03116118 RU_TAN NUTAX L TUCK",IL! Mayor Al Murray and Honor4ble City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16, 2018 Page 4 All other uses are either marked as P--Permitted or C—Conditionally Permitted. We request that a"P" be placed in column two, next to the Drive-Thru category. Page 5-24 states that "a proliferation of drive thru businesses is not encouraged in the Specific Plan area." What does this mean? Given the existing approved uses, what areas is this "discouragement"intended to cover? What is the rationale for attempting to limit them,provided that their operation does not impede traffic flow? In my clients'meeting with City Staff,the issue was explained as a need"to reduce curb cuts. That can certainly be accomplished without essentially banning drive-thru facilities, Such businesses are only proposed in areas where consumer demand is present. Drive-thru restaurants and business provide convenience and variety to customers, 4. Height Limitation on Light Poles Given that the overall "Mixed-Use" designation consists of both Commercial/Office and Mixed-Use components (per page 3-3), it is somewhat unclear whether certain of the standards identified for"Mixed Use"would apply to traditional Commercial shopping centers. For example, it is unclear whether the standards contained in 4.4.3 staring on page 4-15 are intended to cover both components of the Mixed-Use designation. This should be clarified. If the intention is to apply the standard to commercial shopping centers, the Property Owners must object to item 10.a.(i),which would limit the height of such poles to 16 feet. Currently, the poles throughout the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center are 30 feet in height. Three times as many poles would be required if the height were limited to 16 feet. This would be both expensive and unsightly. We are assuming that the lower heights were intended just for true Mixed Use projects, but would like that confirmed. 5. Undergrounding Overhead Utility Lines On page 3-35,there is a reference to the overhead utility lines along Red Hill Avenue being undergrounded "as part of future development." Unlike several of the other requirements, the Specific Plan does not state who would be responsible for this undergrounding or under what circumstances the undergrounding would be completed. In a meeting with City Staff, the Owners were told that there is $897,794 in the City's Rule20A funds earmarked for this undergrounding project. These Rule20A funds were assumed in the recant fee calculations Staff used to determine the deposit amount required to be paid by Del Taco, as part of its new building development, to cover its share of the undergrounding and future signal modifications. The Owners do not wish to unfairly bear the burden of this obligation. This needs to be clarified, and the Rule20A funds and the established prorata calculations should be included in the Specific Plan, 119/018838-0031 12060748,3 a03/16118 RUTAN aurnry c TUCXER,u Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Plainer March 16, 2018 Page 5 6. Parking The Specific Plan indicates that each parcel must be self-parked. For larger shopping centers with multiple parcels, such as those that exist on the east side of Red Hill Avenue, parking requirements are typically satisfied through the use of Reciprocal Easement Agreements ("REAs"). This makes sense since the goal is to encourage customers to visit as many businesses as possible during a single stop. We request that the text of the Specific Plan expressly acknowledge and permit the use of REAS to bridge parcels together for reciprocal parking. In addition, it must be remembered that space is finite, and imposing requirement upon requirement is a zero-sum game. Land used for landscaping and right-of-way cannot be used for parking. Given that the City would like to acquire an additional 10 feet along Red Hill Avenue at some point in the future,my clients would like assurances that,pursuant to Tustin Municipal Code Section 9273(f), if parking spaces are lost, the resulting parking condition will be considered exempt from the City's nonconforming use regulations. 7. Permitted Land Uses As noted above, because "Mixed Use" is used to describe all the private property within the specific plan, my clients would like assurance that freestanding retail will remain a peinlitted land use in this area, and the buildings within the shopping center on the east side of Red Hill Avenue will not become non-conforming uses.. We note that grocery stores are not expressly identified in Table 4-1. We request that you make them a permitted use. 8. Public Improvements and Dedications On page 3-7, there is a reference to "dedications" as "development projects are processed to obtain the frill 120-foot right-of-way." We would like clarification that simply re-tenanting an existing structure with standard tenant improvements will not trigger this obligation. In addition,we would like assurances that the referenced traffic signal will be the obligation of the new residential development. What is the "new private development" (page 3-20) that will have to install (or bond) for sidewalks and new landscape improvements between the property line and the curb? Again, this obligation should not be triggered by the reoccupation of an existing building. I I M 18838-0031 120607483 a03/16/18 RUTAN AIfTAM c lLtCKCp,LLP Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16, 2018 Page 6 A water line upgrade from 6" to 12" is shown along the portion of Red Hill Avenue in front of my clients' property on Exhibit 3-12 on page 3-36. Please confirm that the responsibility for this upgrade will rest with the residential developer. 9. Existing Shopping Center Agreements and Long Term Leases When the Owners of the Red Hill Plaza shopping center purchased their interests, they acquired the property subject to the existing shopping center CC&Rs,easements and leases, These documents are legal instruments which are recorded on the property and dictate how the property can be used, where development can occur and what types of tenant uses can take place, The recorded CC&Rs on this shopping center are perpetual in nature and all of the benefits,rights and restrictions called for in the documents have been conveyed to the neighboring Owners and the shopping center tenants though guarantees in their leases, all of which are staggered and long term in nature. The new Specific Plan requires all property within the plan to become Mixed Use; however, the recorded CC&Rs and long term leases on this property prohibit any kind of mixed use development from occurring. This puts the Owners in a bind. On one hand, they are not permitted to develop mixed use on site due to the long term recorded CC&R documents. On the other hand, the Specific Plan renders their existing buildings as legally non-conforming and. triggers exactions and cost burdens that make it infeasible for the Owners to simply remodel a storefront or re-tenant an empty unit. It does not appear that any of the recorded CC&R burdens upon the land or the long term nature of the tenant leases were taken into account in the drafting of this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan, rather than promoting investment in the community, is so restrictive with the existing uses that it will prevent the Owners from investing in their assest and actually, to the contrary,promote vacancies and additional blight. This is not just an issue for the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center. These underlying issues are pertinent to all of the shopping centers included within the Specific Plan area. 10. Concerns Regarding Residential Development on North Side of Red Hill Avenue The parking requirements for the proposed residential uses at this location appear low. There is a serious concern that the shopping center parking area will be used by residents, particularly if a mid-block traffic signal is installed. Parking at Red Hill Plaza is for the exclusive use of customers only, not for overnight parking, and is subject to tow. My clients have had this issue at other properties and it becomes a nuisance for the owners of the property, as well as for the City who ultimately receives the majority of the towed car complaints. What can be done to prevent this from happening? 1191018838-0031 12060748.3 a03i16/18 RUTAN HUTAN i 7UCKM LLP Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman.Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner March 16, 2018 Page 7 It. Miscellaneous Clarifications • Please confirm that the General Development Standards starting mid-way down on page 4-15 and through page 4-19 are for mixed use projects only. • The heading and land use type descriptions on Table 4-4 on page 4-21 arc unclear. Can you confirm whether the "Non-Residential" is intended to include Commercial development that is not part of a mixed-use project? We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Specific Plan and we thank staff for taking the time to meet to discuss this matter. If possible, we would like to schedule a further meeting to discuss the concerns expressed in this letter. Please notify both me and my clients of all upcoming hearings and actions regarding the Specific Plan. Very truly yours, RUTAN &TUCKER,LLP A Katherine Jenson MKJ:Ir cc: Tom O'Meara(via e-mail) Mick Meldrum(via e-mail) Howard Abel(via email) David E.Kendig, City Attorney(via e-mail: dkendig@wss-law.com) 11 9/0 1 8 8 3 8-00 31 12060748.3 a03116/18 ATTACHMENT 7 ERRATA LIST RHASP ERRATA LIST RHASP SENTENCE OR FIGURE CHANGE PAGE 4-29 Section 4.6 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Parcels When land uses intensify or change (including When land uses intensify re-tenanting of existing commercial spaces), and/or occupancies change, existing structures or sites are modified by more additional square footage or than 50% of their existing square footage, new development is proposed, additional square footage, or new development conformance with the is proposed, conformance with the regulations regulations and design criteria and design criteria outlined in this Specific Plan outlined in this Specific Plan will be required. will be required. i Attachment C I� RESOLUTION NO. 4367 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF 'FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2017041031) AND. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDDING CONSIDERATIONS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. B. That to facilitate the intended vision and implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017- 00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 are necessary. C. That collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 constitute a "project" that is subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et. seq.). D. That the City determined that a Program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 is required for the proposed project, circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on April 7, 2017 and held an EIR scoping meeting on April 20, 2017, to determine the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR). Comments received during the 30-day public review period, from April 7, 2017, to May 8, 2017, are included in the DPEIR as Appendix A of Volume II of the DPEIR. E. That the DPEIR for GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 analyzed impacts to fourteen (14) environmental topical areas listed below: 1. Aesthetics 2. Air Quality 3. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources 4. Geology & Soils 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resolution No.4367 GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 Page 2 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 7. Hydrology and Water Quality 8. Land Use and Planning 9. Noise 10.Population and Housing 11.Public Services 12.Recreation b 13.Transportation and Traffic 14.Utilities F. That the City issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Draft Program EIR (DPEIR) on February 1, 2018 with a 45-day public comment period (February 1, 2018 to March 19, 2018), and received comments from the public and other agencies during and after the comment period. The NOA for the DPEIR was sent to all affected agencies and interested parties and published in the Tustin News on February 1, 2018 and made available for public review at City Hall, the Tustin Library and on the City's website. G. That between July 2015 and February 2018, a total of three (3) public workshops were held for the project. The purpose of the workshops was to receive comments on the Draft Specific Plan. The final workshop was also a joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council where the final draft Specific Plan was presented and additional comments were voiced and/or submitted in writing. H. On July 31, 2018, the responses to comments were distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the DPEIR. The FPEIR provides the required written responses to each comment received on the DPEIR pursuant to CEQA. I. That the Final Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan along with its Appendices is incorporated herein by reference. J. In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, FPEIR consists of the following which are incorporated herein by reference: • The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) — Exhibit A; • Response to Comments & Native American Tribal Consultation on the DPEIR— Exhibit B • Comments Received on the DPEIR Resolution No.4367 GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 Page 3 • A list of persons, organization, and public agencies commenting on the DPEIR; • Statement of Overriding Considerations — Exhibit C • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) — Exhibit D • The Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations — Exhibit E K. That the public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. At buildout, the Specific Plan could generate additional residents and employees within the Specific Plan area. This population increase would result in an increased use of existing and planned City parks and recreational facilities. Because future residential development within the Specific Plan area may not be subject to the Quimby Act or the subdivision provisions of the Tustin City Code, future development projects could cumulatively contribute to the parkland deficiency identified in the City's General Plan. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 is required to ensure park and recreational facilities are provided to serve future residents within the Specific Plan area. L. That the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land at time of project approval which would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. M. That the Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 14, 2018, took public testimony and continued the hearing to September 25, 2018. N. That the Planning Commission has considered the FPEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001. O. That while GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 would result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts that were identified in the FPEIR and cannot be mitigated, these impacts are overridden for the reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached thereto as Exhibit E. Resolution No.4367 GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 Page 4 II. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby recommend that the City Council find and certify that the FPEIR for GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 attached hereto as Exhibits A through F has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State Guidelines. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 25h day of September, 2018. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4367 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September, 2018. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No.4367 GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 Page 5 Exhibits: A. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) for the RHASP 1. Volume I — RHASP Program EIR 2. Volume II - Appendices B. Response to Comments and Native American Tribal Consultation 1. Comments received on the DPEIR 2. A list of persons, organization, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR C. Statement of Overriding Considerations D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) E. Findings and Facts in Support of Findings of Statement of Overriding Considerations for Final Program Environmental Impact Report Exhibit A FOR A COPY OF THE DRAFT PROGRAM EIR AND TECHNICAL APPENDICES FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ( RHASP ) , PLEASE REFER TO THE FOLLOWING LINK: http : //www. tustinca . org/depts /cd/planningupdate . a sp Exhibit B it �I i i RESPONSES TO COMMENTS AND NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CONSULTATION RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC H NO . 2017041031 Prepared for City of Tustin 300 Centennial way Tustin, CA 92780 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92858 Date July 2018 City of Tustin Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... .....1-1 1.2 Format...............................................................—..................................................................1-1 1.3 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses ..................................................1-1 2 List of Respondents ............................................................................................. 2-1 3 Responses to Environmental Comments.............................................................. 3-1 4 Native American Trivial Consultation................................................................... 4-1 5 Clarifications and Revisions................................................................................. 5-1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan i Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation City of Tustin Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ii Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 1.0 City of Tustin Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The purpose of this document is to present public comments and responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2017041031) for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan located in the City of Tustin. The Draft Program EIR was released for public review and comment by the City of Tustin on February 1, 2018 for a 45-day review period ending on March 19, 2018. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15088,the City of Tustin, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Draft Program EIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. 1.2 Format The Final EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian Project consists of the Draft Program EIR and its technical appendices; the Responses to Comments included herein; other written documentation prepared during the EIR process; and those documents which may be modified by the City Council at the time of consideration of certification of the Final EIR. The City Council would also consider adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), a Statement of Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project. This Response to Comments document is organized as follows: Section 1 Provides a brief introduction to this document. Section 2 Identifies the Draft Program EIR commenters. Section 3 Provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft Program EIR. Responses are provided in the form of individual responses to comment letters received. Comment letters are followed immediately by the responses to each letter. Section 4 Presents clarifications to the Program EIR, identifying revisions to the text of the document. 1.3 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) directs persons and public agencies to focus their review of a Draft EIR "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. ...CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended Red Hill Avenue specific Plan 1-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 1.0 City of Tustin Introduction or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204(d)states, "Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e)states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 1-2 Responses to Cornments and Tribal Consultation Section 2-0 City of Newport Beach List of Respondents 2 LIST OF RESPONDENTS In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals and businesses that submitted comments on the Draft Program EIR received as of close of the public review period on March 19, 2018. Comments have been numbered and responses have been developed with corresponding numbers. Letter Date of Page Reference Commenter Correspondence No. C-1 Department of Transportation, District 12 March 19, 2018 3-3 C-2 South Coast Air Quality Management District March 14, 2018 3-1.1 C-3 Orange County Transportation Authority March 16, 2018 3-23 C-4 City of Irvine February 26, 2018 3-26 C-5 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County March 16,2018 3-33 C-6 Kevin Heydman February 4,2018 3-35 C-7 Kathy Hall February 16, 2018 3-38 C-8 Peter Kim February 16,2018 3-40 C-9 Howard L.Abel March 15,2018 3-42 C-10 Jerry Marcil February 5, 2018 3-46 C-11 Tim Mcc February 22,2018 3-48 C-12 Qantas Carman March 7,2018 3-50 C-13 Susan Eilenberg February 6,2018 3-52 C-14 WTM Tustin Investors, LP,and Lake Union Investors, LP March 16, 2018 3-54 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 2-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments 3 RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS This section includes responses to all substantive environmental issues raised in comments received on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Draft Program EIR (Program EIR). Comments submitted include questions about conclusions identified inthe Draft Program EIR,findings and methodologyfor preparation of technical analyses; position statements for/against the Project; and comments about community and regional issues. The Final EIR provides responses to comments on significant environmental points describing the disposition of issues, explanations of the EIR analysis,supporting EIR conclusions, and new information or clarifications, as appropriate. The Final EIR does not respond to the comments on the merits of the Project nor does it attempt to solve regional issues requiring full countywide input and consideration. When comments did not address the completeness or adequacy of the environmental documentation, or did not raise significant environmental issues,the receipt of the comment is noted; no further response is provided. This section is formatted so that the respective comment letters are followed immediately by the corresponding responses. Where sections of the Program EIR are excerpted in this document,the sections are shown indented. Changes to the EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and _` ` for deletions. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments This page intentionally left blank.. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of l Ustin Responses to Comments Letter C-1 Department of Transportation, District 12 Marlon Regisford March 19, 2018 Comment Letter C-1 OFC I. --CORNA STA9FTRAMEQ1ZIATIONAGE CY ...__ >:DN[CrHD..td_HRf1wT1 IL..SIo�'[ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH SM`hl.I'.SUM:100 SANTAANA,CA92705 Mabig Cnrrser Pion PHONE (657)328-6267 a Cal forma Wad=of Life. FAX (657)328-6510 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.aaY March 19,2018 Erica Demkowicz File:IGR/CEQA City of Tustin SCH:#2017041031 300 Centennial Way 12-ORA-2018-00809 Tustin.CA 92680 1-5;PM 29.102 Dear Ms.Demkowicz, Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan bordering the Interstate 5(I-5)Freeway.The mission.of Caltrans is to provide a safe,sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" The project proposes 325,000 additional square feet of nonresidential development and 500 additional residential dwelling units.The project is approximately 43.11-acres,inclusive of approximately 7.32 acres of roadway rights-of-way.The project area extends along Red Hill Avenue to Bryan Avenue to the northeast,and generally Walnut Avenue to the southwest_1-5 bisects the Specific Plan area creating the northern and southern portions of the Specific Plan area.Interstate 5 is overseen by Caltrans.Caltrans is a responsible agency and has the following comments: Air Qualit 1. Caltrans recommends that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use.The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multifaceted approach,such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles • The entire length of the Specific Plan is within a mile of Interstate 5.Residents of 1 the new 500 residential units living within the Specific Plan would be exposed to significant concentrations of air pollutants and may be develop health complications.Please consider the creation of vegetation walls to mitigate the effects of air pollutants on residents"Visit the Environmental Protection Agency's website for additional information:https:/lwww.opa.govlsciencernatterslliving- close-roadways-health-concerns-and-mitigation-stratepies.Consider this strategy "Provide asafe,suyainable"fniegrated and efflc4ml tranaporrallan system to enham.Y Caflforaw's ecanvmy wWd fr mNilry" Red Hill Avenue Specific.Flan 3-3 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 2 when implementing the planned streetscape and landscaped median improvements. conrd • Since a majority of the proposed land use along Red Hill Avenue will be t commercial,designate rideshare pick-up and drop off areas,as to not interfere with the general flow of traffic. Traffic Operations 2. The Traffic Impact Study(TIS)reviewed multiple intersections,including: 4.Red Hill Avenue at 1-5 NB Ramps 5.Red Hill Avenue at I-5 SB Ramps 2 + Please include queuing analysis for Caltrans on/off-ramps.This complements Objective 7-1:Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan area meets future demands. Transportation Planning 3. Caltrans currently has plans for I-5 improvements that includes Red Hill Avenue.The City and Caltrans,along with OCTA,can coordinate to determine what improvements are 3 adequate mitigation for the Specific Plan and fair-share contribution from the City.The City's contribution will be proportional to the extent of its impact on State facilities. 4. The TTS identified existing bus routes that run within the Specific Planning area.It includes Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)Routes 66,71,and 79. • Please include Tustin Metrolink Station into the City's analvsis.The station is located three miles away from the Specific Plan.Inform residents,workers,and visitors to the Specific Plan about the transit opportunities available to them.'Phis would complement Objective 2-1:Identify ways to improve and enhance linkages and connections between new development in the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods;of the General Plan. 4 • Caltrans'previous comment letter for the NOP expressed the importance of increasing multi-modal options and accessibility within the Specific Plan. Please consider the development of a multi-modal transportation fund to mitigate transportation impacts of development.This fund can provide capital for the development of the multi-modal alternatives and enhancement of existing transit facilities.This would complement Objective 4-4:Identify local,State,and Federal funding opportunities that can provide businesses assistance and offer the City the means to upgrade the area,along with Objective 5-3:Promote and develop a transportation system which includes provisions for public transportation,bikes, and pedestrians;of the Specific Plan. "Provide awfe.malamablc.integwted and of vmv IL ampormnam sysle n !o erdi my Cellfa m's economy and livability" Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-4 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 3 5. The Specific Plan is adjacent to multiple educational facilities of all levels,elementary to high school. • Consider the development of a Safe Routes to School Study.This would not only improve the safety of students,but also improve multi-modal travel options to school from the surrounding residential neighborhoods.Caltrans would like to inform the city of possible funding opportunities for the aforementioned Study. Please consider applying for Caltrans' Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant. Coordinate with local school districts,local authorities,surrounding local agencies,and Caltrans about applying for the Grant.Please visit: /lraltpnlprants.html for additional information. • The City's Bike Master Plan designates a Class II bicycle facility for the entire length of Red Hill Avenue.The implementation of this proposal not only 5 complements the suggested Safe Routes to School,but also improves multi-modal transportation options along the Specific Plan.The multi-modal transportation fund would help in the construction of the bicycle facility.Red Hill Avenue is a major corridor in the City of Tustin and will experience heavy traffic.Please ensure the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by including bicycle and pedestrian signs along Red Hill Avenue.Increase rider safety by improving the proposed Class II with a colored bicycle path.This complements Objective 1-1:Establish a streetscape program using landscaping,signage,street furniture,entry statements, and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. • The City should mitigate the Red Hill/SB I-5 intersection to a less than significant level,which shall not include the removal of bike lanes. System Planning Comments: 6. Explore the potential of establishing a city wide multimodal transportation fee to fund non-auto infrastructure improvement projects.A fee program as such would support the management of vehicular trip demand. • Developments along Red Hull Avenue in the project area can fund the construction of bike and pedestrian facilities.According to Policy 6.14 in the 6 City's General Plan Circulation Element(2008),new developments are required to dedicate land and fund the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.Dedicated funding(such as the funding mechanisms mentioned in the traffic study)can help ensure construction of the facilities. 7. Please explore a potential partnership with Caltrans to provide,or dedicate spaces in an existing lot,to create a park and ride facility within or adjacent to the project area.A park and ride lot would support Caltrans'initiative to create a network of managed lanes 7 facilities.Policy 5.1 of the City's Circulation Element(2008)supports the development of park-and-ride lots near the SR 55 and 1-5 freeways. "Provide a safe.sie-vaimabre•miegmW and effici a irawporJaaon system to enhmice Califomia's emmmyand irwhilify Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-5 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19;2018 Page 4 8. Future development plans that fall within the project area should be circulated to Caltrans 8 for review and concurrence. 9. The project should be conditioned to ensure connections to existing bike lanes and multiuse trails to facilitate walking and biking to nearby jobs,neighborhood services,and transit.Providing these connections with streets configured for alternative transportation modes will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)by promoting usage of nearby public transit lines.Mitigation to reduce VMT should include funding the proposed bike paths identified in the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan(2009).These paths include a Class 11 bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from)linger Avenue to Nisson load,Class Il bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from El Camino heal to First'street,Class 11 bike lane on Red Hill Avenue froth First Street to Melvin Way,and Class I1 bike lane on Iced Hill Avenue from Melvin Way to North of Irvine Boulevard.The projects provided above have been identified as Regional Priority Projects in the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan. • The Specific Plan proposes that Class II bike lanes be striped through the entirety of Red Hill Avenue in the project area,and development should adhere to this proposal.The proposal would increase connectivity in the bike network and is consistent with the City of Tustin's Bicycle Master Plan,as Red Hill Avenue is identified as a proposed Class II bike lane.Additionally,there are existing Class 11 lanes located from Nisson Avenue to El Camino Real.These lanes shall not be removed in order to ensure connectivity. 10.We also encourage you to develop Travel Demand Management(TDM)policies to encourage smart mobility and the use of nearby OCTA Bus Routes 71,79,and 79A.To reduce regional VMT and traffic impacts to the State Highway System please consider requiring future development to adopt the TDM options listed below: • Project design to encourage walking,bicycling,and convenient transit access; • Dedicate carpool parking spaces; • Allocate space for bicycle parking; 10 • Form of a Transportation Management Association(TMA)in partnership with other developments in the area; • Adopt an aggressive trip reduction target with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement; • Reduce headway times for adjacent transit routes;and • Provide and/or subsidize transit passes for employees and residents on a continuing basis. "Pmvide a safe,srextaomble.duegretedand a icwnt 7nmsporwjm system ro enhanceCaliforn4a s aeowmyamt kw abU0y" Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-6 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 5 Active Transportation Comments: I I.Several schools are located adjacent to the project area.Thus,multimodal challenges and potential safety measures(e.g.,yellow striping,signage,etc.)should be taken into consideration when implementing the Specific Plan.Nearby parks can attract pedestrians t and bicyclists,too,so these should also be considered when making improvements. • Development of Safe Routes to School programs can be utilized to help identify sensitive areas and decrease negative impacts around schools. 12.Ramps and other measures(i.e.,tnmcated domes,sidewalk widths,etc.)shall be constructed or updated at all intersections in the project area to adhere to the Americans 12 with Disabilities Act(ADA)standards.Policy 6.3 of the City's Circulation Element supports this notion. 13.Caltrans supports the development of plans and projects that incorporate Complete Streets features,which increase safety as multimodal accessibility for all potential users of the corridor.Caltrans has developed a guide for implementing Complete Streets features on roadways such as Red Hill Avenue,with the goal of ensuring that plans and projects support mutual transportation,development,livability and sustainability goals. The Main Streets Guide can be accessed here: t 3 http./Alot.ca.a(�\,i'hcl:l.�indArchfmainstrectlmain street 3rd edition-pdf • In the Circulation Element,Goal 6 is to,"Increase the use of non-motorized modes of transportation,"with subsequent Policies supporting this Goal. Therefore.Complete Streets measures should be implemented to ensure that safety,access,mobility,and sustainability are increased for all potential users, especially since traffic volumes are expected to increase over time. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities.If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at 657-328-6368 or Julie.lugaro@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, ,r if MARLON REGISFQ Branch Chief,Regional-IOR-Transit Planning District 12 "Providea s*,sustainable.N+egmredand e�icienr lrmuparmrrart aysrem la enhamv Califwaia's emnaMaud lhgtNiry" Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-7 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The recommendations of Caltrans related to electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, the use of vegetation walls, and ridesharing facilities are noted. The Program EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.2-1 requires project-specific development plans and specifications to designate vehicle parking spaces to be EV ready and that electrical panels are appropriately sized to accommodate future expanded EV use. MM 4.4-2 requires future commercial uses within the Specific Plan area include Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach,such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. With respect to vegetation walls associated with residential development proximate to 1-5, the Program EIR does not evaluate any project-specific developments. Should residential development be proposed in the future within 500 feet of 1-5, the City will require project review including preparing a Health Risk Assessment as set forth in MM 4.2-4. At such time, the City could consider additional development conditions of approval, such as recommended by Caltrans. Response 2 The following summarizes the projected vehicle queues for the morning and evening peak hours for the Red Hill Avenue and 1-5 northbound and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps: Projected Queue (feet) Queuing Distance Number AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Ramp Movement (feet) of Lanes Hour Flour Can-Ramp NB Meter 407 2 1163 166 Red Hill at 1-5 NB Ramps WBL 480*a 2 113/200 c 131/225` Off-Ramp 380+a 1 222/344` 383/544` On-Ramp 513 Meter 431 2 2723 168a Red Hill at 1-5 5B Ramps EBL 430*a 1 85/1541 293/4341 Off-Ramp EBR 430'a 1 184/295` 195/3091 a. Queue per lane at 80%of maximum service rate b. Plus 500+feet of single-lane off-ramp c. 5011/9511 Percentile Response 3 The comment is noted regarding future improvements to I-5. As it pertains to the proposed project,the Program EIR evaluates the potential traffic effects associated with buildout of the Specific Plan Project including impacts to Caltrans facilities within the traffic study area. Per CELLA requirements, an improvement has been identified to mitigate the Project impact. The City shall coordinate with Caltrans in its future implementation or in the identification of alternate improvements, if necessary. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-8 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 4 The following provides a description of the transit and rail services available to the area via the Tustin Metrolink Station: The Tustin Metrolink Station is located an Edinger Avenue, west of Jamboree Road, approximately two to three miles from the Specific Plan area. Metrolink trains on the Orange County Line (Oceanside to LA) stop at the Tustin station. Metrolink trains run in the northbound direction from 4:21 AM to 11:46 AM and 3:46 to 9:06 PM, and from 7:51 to 10:23 AM and 2:03 to 10:33 PM in the southbound direction, Monday through Friday. Headways (the time interval between train arrivals) vary between 12 minutes and 1YZ hours, with the shortest headways occurring during the morning and evening commute periods. Weekend Metrolink service is provided between 9:25 AM and 6:46 PM, with two-hour to three-hour headways. The OCTA bus route closest to the Specific Plan area that serves the Tustin Metrolink Station is Route 472, which travels on Red Hill Avenue to Edinger Avenue to reach the station. The closest bus stop for Route 472 is located at the corner of Red Hill Avenue at Edinger Avenue. Route 472 runs only during the morning and evening commute periods, with 10 to 40-minute headways. With respect to Caltrans' request for the City to consider the creation of a multi-modal transportation fund to traffic impacts and transit facilities, the recommendation is noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. No further response is required. Response 5 With respect to Caltrans' suggestion for the City to prepare a Safe Routes to School Study, the recommendation is noted but is beyond the scope of the Program EIR. With respect to the provision of bike signage, the Specific Plan includes a wayfinding signage program. With respect to a multi-modal transportation fund, please refer to the response to Comment 4. Caltrans' recommendations are noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. No further response is required. The Traffic Study identified the following mitigation measure to mitigate the Project's impact at the intersection of Red Hili Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramp: Re-stripe the eastbound approach (the off-ramp) to convert from one shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane to one dedicated left-turn lane and a shared left-through-right lane. This improvement would not require the removal of the bike lane on Red Hill Avenue. While this improvement has been identified per CECQA requirements, the City shall coordinate with Caltrans in its future implementation or in identification of alternate improvements, if necessary. Response 6 Please refer to the response to Comment 4 regarding a multi-modal transportation fund. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-9 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 7 A park-and-ride facility within the Specific Plan area is not currently proposed. However, Caltrans' recommendation and offer of participation is noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. Please also refer to the response to Comment 1 regarding ridesharing. Response 8 The comment is noted. Response 9 The comment is noted. No further response is required. Response 10 The recommendations of Caltrans to reduce vehicle miles traveled are noted. Many of these recommendations are identified in the proposed Specific Plan related to creating a Specific Plan area that encourages options to personal vehicle use including bike paths, bike parking,transit use, and ridesharing (see the response to Comment 1). The City also has a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. Additional options can be considered by the City as site-specific development projects are proposed and reviewed by the City. Response 11 Please refer to the response to Comment 5. Response 12 The comment is noted. The City of Tustin Public Works Department currently has a program to install ADA ramps and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at intersections. Response 13 The comment is noted. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-10 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter G2 South Coast Air quality Management District Ujin Sun,J.D., Program Supervisor March 14, 2018 Comment Letter C-2 .tcc�Ivl;l South Coast �hpa zals Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive,Diamond Bar,CA 91765-4178 COi•lt•UNITY DEVELOPMENT ■ (909) 396-2000• www.agmd.gov tar; SENT VIA E-MA11,AN1)MSPS; March 14,3018 ed a niko tie i c zrc'1>tust i ric a-ora Erica Demkowicz,AIM Senior Planner City of Tustin,Community Developinenl Department 300 Centennial wat Tustin,CA 92750 Draft Environmental Imts.tct Rcport(Draft F,IR)for the Proposed Red Ilill Avenue 5necilic Plan Ihe South Coast Air Quality Managernent District (SCAQMD) sowtl' appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-nientioiled tlocttlletlt. The I'allotvin comintnas are rlleailt as gffldance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final FIR_ SCAON1 D Staff s Summary of I'roiLo Description The Lead Agency proposes to develop a comprehensive set of goals and objectives, a land ust: plan. regulator} standards, design criteria, and administration and implenleiltatioil proLrallls to guide fiuure change,promate high-qunkiN, developinent. and implement the conlnitlnitv's vision for an approximate 43.1 I-acre Specific Plan area(Proposed Project). Projected build-out for residential and non-residential development would include a net increase of 325.000 square feet of non-residentasl uses and 500 additional dwelling unit""., The Prupu-ed Praj%•ct extends atong, Red Hill Aventic [trrd is gCoCrally bounded by Bf-van Avcnuc to the noilheasi and Walnul Avenue to the southvkest. hltcrstatc 5 0-5}bisecls the Red ]fill Avenue in the middle of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is expected to be developed over time willi an expected huildout year of'203W. SCAQN1D Staff's Atr Quality Analvsis Based on a review ol'the Air Quality Section. SCAQN,ID stall found that the .Air Quality Analysis tras based on the cxpactcd buildout scenario. The lead Agency did nol quantity construction emissions because it determined that''igivantifying,individual fiiture dcvclopnient's air emissions floor short-term, t temporary construction-related activities is not possible due to project-level variability and uncertainties concellling loci ions. detailed site plans, construction whedules,iduradon.equipment requirements, etc.. among other factors, which are presently unknown. Since these l3wameters can vary so widely [and individual project-related construction dclivities would occur over time dependent upon numerous factors). quantilying precise constriction-related emissions and impacts stould be speculative'." However, the Lcad Agcncn found that "construction-related air quality Impacts Would be considered significant and unavoidable due to the potential magnitude of construclion that could occur from lnlllenrenlatiorl of the Specific Plan,", F The lead :'Agency quantified the ProposL!d Proico's operational air quality emissions based on the expected buildout ,cenario and compared the emissions to SCAQMD's regional air qualit)• C,'EQA significance thresholds for operation- After incorporating lfitigation vle.istires(MM)4?-1 through 4.2- 4`, which require future projects to accommodate electric vehicle charging stations, inciudQ a yolunt.117 vanpooltshuttle ridcsharing program for commercial uses,cutrsidcr and mitigate the impacts on regional air quality and;ureenhouw gas(GI 1G) emssioiis throti�_'h I'M111utsenLie d mitigation measures for boom site plans, and conduct a health Risk Assessment NIRA) fir future residential development located Dial!lel it.Suctimn 2.sjvcilic Ptah Pro. i:A4nic•tt.P.lre i-I. Ilial-seclimu 3.8:PhasinL_. the.L Srcdmn.4.25lienirnnmcnnii Impacts.P:iea 4.2-11 It, rage 4_'.-1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-11 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 i I within 500 feet of 1-5.the I,cad Agency found that the Proposed Prniect's Mitigated operational emissions WOUld execed SCA[1hlt)'+ rr'ional C'k`'QA significant tlu ;ir•,I> f a .cti:, il)ns. resulliniz in a Si[;niliranl.rnd tn:.rruid:t1Il hnpact"- Although the Lead Agency did 1101•:olldilci rt 1 hired si nifcarict• (hresllOILL il.Si s)air;Il ar a I WA analysis 1leeauSe.as the 1-cad I xn<'. >1,ucd.the anal si;could only be CerttinCted a1 111C pIUiL!Ct-sl,:Cil-1C l vel'and �%Qle ri+l uprlicplrl: 1Q! rr--io 1,rl pctjetl_ sttdt a SpcJlic Plans. 11he l.sad Agtmc� cor•chtded that sensitive receplur; " uid i7e p-1:crr.ictll exposed ua substanlisl pollwarit Crnc nualiuns or die-scl Inarticulate mallei ra,tllr,n� i1 .t :osti lllals si niikant iml-act with inip lente-t:ationof NIN1 4.2.4. SCrIC)vl(5 1111 _._lir[�Yu_11it \lana cot nl!'I_}n On NlarLh 1, 3::11 . ;Lr SC:',t NTD's(1acernirte R,,arrl adopted the 2016 ,lir Qunlii Glart;t,,enlenl Pian (2016 ?%QL\Jl')'. e,l',i;t u;;> tater approved b) the California Air Resources 130,lyd un %I;It h 231, 2617. Built apum Ills pr,wtre••ir.iimp',:nlenling,Ills 2007;tied 2012 AQNTPn.the 2010,1f)111'prn id,! a rk...,iona7 petsperine oll.lir 11.1,1116 tr 1 t ch Ilan c:, mein,t1le South C+�a,t Air tia;ira. 7-he No=t signiticallt air yualin clt,tllCrn c in the ,3 ,nt 1>. t0 .t hr e an ad,litional -15 percent reduction in nrhntzen fxxide(NO?t) conYd emisiult,in Du?;and all additioiied 55 percent Ws reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment. l General C:'nnxncnts. SCAQ`il_) slali has rcvicntA the Air Quality Analysis in the nrsl't FIR and flan cunnnenls nn the methodologt. Please see tlt: attachment for 1rn,1e n.101-n;.tli011 a,l,iitinnails rt; .1—S I LJci in 11,E '016 AQ1\11'. lu achicse hO,, erli ,1011. rCelurtirn': 111 a 1:1.01. :111111:01 i•: eritcal a+.taini:r . 1i1e I•:a1iu1::11 At limit air Qu,11its Stand,ra [NA ,it ,.,..e 11C'IOTr' (h L' 't!'i ,1so1 -t ;I c10:uIime'.. M.'',tl%II) is Committed to attain the oroa111 ::',.It lti as eshrciai,+usly as ;Ira0(ical•1L. I hr imporultn zo:e it ermtributint t:' Nl')'� er:•isieans durin>, ki I6..:11 rc 54 AQNID sial( h:,� Corti I E 1e lti:cin u:-ii n"air gLla Iit% I Ii:-,.tt:nn 1IM61LIreS and rec,:•lnnlerrJ ,t,ki rio!I,11 tt ti;i,-�aI olI measll rt>: fierrlr:r rod1 icl, N()•. cn, ,:inns :1; lE,.•I1 I. Iii 1Ci PM 10 and 1'lt!.7 ciim, ti inti. l holly, the attach urn'. includes rerotmveralatiuns to il'lclutie;w tiiseussiun on SCAQ%l1)rules acrd RcUul lliotts. Closing Pt[rLtlartt lo California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and C'I-,O.l Cimidelines Section 140$51.6}, M'AQN;1D staff requests that the Ecad A<<ency provide SCAQ!vlf)stall ssith t'.rilwn rt'Slx-illm to all sumo rots colitidned herein prior to the Cul-Lillcation of flee Irinatl LIR. ht adclilicul.is>ua t;tised in the Cunlnrents Should he ltcldrrssccl in detail rayon~ %%11', speriliC CrintteenC; and sI-l1g0 tions are not srCCPled. There should be good I.rilh. reasunzd analpsts in response. C'onchi-rorc slalt2illents ullsUpported br factual intro-lnauoil still not stilllec [i"Lf lA [ittidelirxs `ccticxl 1 tiURS(c)). C oliclusory statctttcnt,du not facilitate[Ile purpu;e rind goal of,(T 1A oft public d1.clr?sur sins!arL 1101 lncanin fol OF usefiel to decision rnai ers and 11 lltc publiC who are ln[crested in the Propu,sed Project. FllIllicr,%shen the Lead Aency makes the finning that the recommended mitigation measures are not letssihle. the V.e,id Agenc) should de.LCribe the 'specific reasons for rejecting them in the Final lilt (CLQA C;t:idelincs Section 15%91'1. soudr C'oasn :I.r l,taaalrty District. March 3. 2017. 2016 Air Qaahly ,tlurrugemear Pfmr. Accessed at: tr :liw�vty.urlmA.qu��rllome.librar�rclean•uir-plansrair-quafitr•rnat-pian. 7 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-12 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Dernkowiaz March 14,2018 SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Ryan Baftelos,Air Quality Specialist,CEQA Section,at(909)396-3479 conrd if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments, t Sincerely, Li'ji n Sun,1.D. Program Supervisor,CEQA 1GR Planning,Rule Development&Area Sources Attachment LS;RB ORC ISR02•a2 Control Number I Ei If I i i I Y I i f 3 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-13 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments i' 1:rico Del nk,m iCi March 14,2018 A'CCACHMENT Air Quality Aniih-sis—Constrtletion Int pact Analysis I. When spec itie den cipment i,,;re:=snowily foikcseeahkc as a rccult of the pals,policies,and,urticIillcs in the Proposed Pr(1lccl, the I cri.: Agency slioiild idclxik till( potenriol adver^c air qualltw ilnpadi' and sottrcc:s A illy pollution'.Il,rl :U(I'd OCCul'LISiltg It:,be:,t C11-011S to filed out and a good-faith ctIon al full disclo,Lire in lire LAIR. "I l;:,nilly uir LIR [...j ncc'e silrii) ill%-Ohes ,Anne dte ree of forecasting. L%Hine Iorescring the ulliores:cnl-l.•is nm possible,an a my iglu t nsc its hest cflilrts to find om ina disclose all lllat it ieasonahlc cari-iCLQ:1 Guidelines Srrlmil 151.1;} 1 he(icgrcr of spccificiL� will crap--apond to the degree Cil vp ritici', ilIVOIcd in the KIM.111-k isg iiCtirity «hich is dcscrillod in the EIR [CEQA Ciuidelincs ticclinn V51-:r s. %'`'heti C4[Ealt`.•.:'-Ir: all quallly emiss'Wns, cntission5 Drum 2 both construction(induding demolition.ii any)anti:perations should be calculated. Wlsen the precise constrtictinn schedule or scenario is unknown.the Lead At, should identify and quantif a [Drat-case cA]l][rnCtlAll ill=.Il:tcl scenario that is reasonably liaresec.ah{c rlt tine time the IJrafl FIR is prepared. As dimmi in 'l i011e t-•l and Table 3-5 in the 13raii [-.IR- the Lead Agency inns identified the estitimled de%elopment potealial hl terms of a act increase of 3-5.000 lion-rilmdelinal square tact and 5011 addlIkII:. Lh%ellin.Lr llni[., f,1T Oar Proposed 1'1,11ect. 'I he retilrc.the Lead Agenc} call and •:tould iitie [:ij r ll;i)nl'alioli Llild il� I)CSl c1t(1rts w identll'. CAl15tf LIC[I,!El acth'im5 that LYAlild be rryuir_:E to irlll'iCir1C111 i:'7W hili\Ilrlltm hililil-oln scerliuin; amt quantih a.;sociated construction emk.<,nl•,,in:lutlin;: :Ili;.;in11< r r,n ani dclnolition acti(irics. Allern:i�i,�I,.the I "la A;elle shorlld use Ctt11411'netiOtl scenarios from orl-:.i cuulp,lr.:A,, pr.ti:n to deyelup ars al1pr1ll,rnitc CmSrl-tleliull sccnari,l for modeling the 1'ro[,il•:i.1 I'ir+:.,I , n,•.it.lclin:l impocls- Fol essmlale, the (_onunercial Cole SpcciliC I'Lln ill ll•,r• Cil. ui illtilil: i• lu h•dcrr•lopr(i"Nor limp tivnn ION 1111d f1iS nn(1 Ow in:niininn con--rm%rinn clnissi i� acre kjklJIlliIII Cd and (fiscln.;cd in the Dra.li 1.'IIZ iAr that pi 1 1'. I I.x:tore, alae I:':d A-;Orley shoilId Llsc the cursiiuciion so nario' Illal has alrcrtelc been d':%:'-l"!::-,i of illi' 011."Ellr!m I [ "•Pile;',;bad C ol'C specific I'larl to qualrtifl the ConstrtlCtiatl air gktalllt ilnlrErr, 10! 111,, there is no stlh:,tanti:at csicicncc as sullp011 [hc t d 1:.-.r( asl.l.ny_ 'hat construeli(11:impacts ranula be;igrsiflcant and unasoic,dhl:. Air Quality Anah'vis—lntcrint Milestone Ie,ar'a 2. the Draft I:IR inelnded only oin•air Ounlit!:Anal%'siY peau for lmldelllrz: .'.111'i ;cp:;r:ri.,n;ll year), llc "1}*5, tine I'rnprrsrd I'r'ojcCI 1 ,L�sunl','d to bc: fall[ hails hascd on fl • ,:r(Delwin, 11 L•11;'ll the Proposed E'r'tljcet ala} not he at peak caprcit� in carli-•r Cc:us. i' e, ous-irlk hst ,itn; to higher elnissinn %Ates Wvcllwlrs.tricks,and egiiipment in eatrlic: years, peak daily Cnlis i(+ns n::r, r,cur in 20IS and bexnnd. 1h rner:fll emission rates of vehicles.[nicks,and equipment arc generall. higher n earlier [cars is rtlore shin�en1 enik'iotl standards 'wd tcchnoingics h:nc not been fully 3 niplelllen[c(l, anrS Recta haa'c riot ilal€y lurncd ([vera l urthrnlnlre, ,u' rtrain:_ l the Lead Agency. t:unslrllclinn [pith liiture 'rasp.[' i1im,:menial phases o,,er time and >.w'auld he teased 1111 numerous laclors 1. ,r;ilnCamnlcnds thal the Levi ALtcnc% include interim loilestonr%aura(i.e. '04'11, % :,r .'.1 ';. 1,d y.ar 2030)ill the Air Quality Arialvsis to ensure the peak L1ailc enol;- l n:• ;1 d•;n:iiiai au,l r:ricgl:z.r.!: t+.iscl(as ci in rile Final F: Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments f:r C;I I)C'11,t,•, irf March 14,2018 Air QuAitir An;iltsis—0%erlai)pina C.'onstruetiun incl(Tn1;Itiurl:ll Irt1[MC•t$ 3. BaSVd un it ret i�'« n1'the:lir(,rualit ;',n,l+si.;. S(-AQMD:;tall fntnld that the Lead Agroi.c,% slid I:ul anal\7.12 :1 3CC!113 0 1,chel"C COnsinKtion a ](fifes overiJil will uperational EtC`. tri= Since inlplemettlrt(inn 01'the I'000::0+1 i'[iryeCI i s erpCcto;;to uccul-Iter;:muhi-)'z er thIl 1-1111'C ail !7 cc;trs lions }q 18 to '1],,i :Ili u+erlappirl;• ctal>truclinn and nporatit%ll sConrlrio is 7::a1+11;11 11 lilres:e;lhle. un]oSS the. E'r+iposed Project inCittdas r oquirelncnl:s t 11MI. tti r11 jr,Pi,ll,tt osuil:;l II ;c,:l; t tl,:fun and o;le ratisut,II acll+ltlL'.ti. [n pru]}eti+ altnl�2c a ,+oISt-:I :1:52tct SC CI I':I'lii tll.II i; reaSoITahl� I'(IrcSceablc at III,:time tic Diltti E:.113 is rrep;lrcd. S('AQ\I 7;tr:,l rcr,tlnlnrnd,taut;ac Lca l rlgeuct 4 identify the ❑ccrlaprirlj" Weill.. COITI1110C COIIStItICR03i Culiti i1+l-. :iII I!:,!iII, L.if,i•;:,,+ns h clruwliuoil) «itli opcl"atiolmll eL11kiions. and uollli7a1.0 tiC oonli?iuc,i c•Irtl-i ll, 'o SCAt)MIW) .til quality CEQA ,)p L,i-Wlrurul theeho!d, of sigrlificanc., ro d-,tc nuc,e the ,-.oi ,l ;i:,nilicance tin I I:: Final EIR. In Illi+e,cllt that IIIc I..eLid A;zenc) aiset Io%.,ia,' tl: All Qualm AI lk finds:Ir.;1 Proposed Projeri s air quttli1% inlpscts •.toilld i•r silnii r.uu. ITL itierrtintt III zasurzs ',rill 6c r yeti pursuant to (:f;Q;1 Guide inc.; SeCIL1011 I�I?6.•I. i or Itl{Re infnntla WII nn nliIipari,rn nteasures JS L1ui(Ianre to Iho I c:u1 At-T Lt . Illc:Ise se;: (:l Illtl;;;II ',a, u.d .i;il 5CA(YMD's('I 0A Air QLI;llAIN I Iandioo ttohsito`'. Air Qualit% Aaalvsis—Lncntizcd 5itinifirinee Thresholds(LSTs)Armksk 4. Whet;Sp"ilk do%C[Opnlelll iS leasonalt t 111 re 52 a171e;iS:t result,)i II1C'Ua [',.'I,:Ca. iltJ i 0111'I I in the Prolinscd PI-OiCCI. the Lead AU'erlr\ should i•ae711i11 to Iurtrutstl a :r,c .sir ['.taiit intpa t, :ut,[xuttrCL.i(+1 air pollWit111111;1t could nocvr vain_:.it;hc?nt L1101-1:t+ illid tnit a1'.d:I 1,:r,l C;1 h Iter full disc insl:rr Irl it ('1-0A dca•t:m0111 [n tic i7taCt 1-E[t. Ilio [_aid IgCrk,l sr.u�d tl:.it "'[ til, ;ar appic;sap lie to rojects at t I I I>rujecI-specific [rIrcl atui:Ire not a[,hlicahle to r l lonaI proiecI--1;c11 i1 SpC6NC Plans ISC;1OMD. _2003:1. AIi ;wh, LS I cc,ttli ho recailod for future de+•eh,pnlent lI Uut do n+rt apply to-he pro ianrnlatic Sreciiie 111xi art;dc:is"- St AOtIL),tafl'is concerneLi v. this ttroaed I.�L14�+•.. Localized significance Thresltolds Analysis To ana[y're and disclose a worst-case impact scenario Iliac is reasonah!} timaseeahle at the time tilt? 5 ❑rri7i FiR is preparod.5(AQNID stale rcconlmcnd�that I[1c Lead Agcnc) a=e its Lica 01titrt,, h:t:;r: oil alreadv it%J lahle Plojvcl Surfs as build-OM nonrasidontial iiles ill square fcc€ ;:nJ dwelling nail; to gtianiif} 'the f'ropo;ed Project': lilcali"Cd etnissinrrs and disclo<e til• Itrctli:Al TI qualitc imparts in the 1-inifl IAR SCAQ11[L3'211kl;lnce tix periurrtling a localized air yu:alit+, al;,;Is i- is avuilaLlc° on SC'AQ.%1[] ncl,siir". Al-orn:3tm2I%-, [Lo Lead A«euo diould considct to ie:llri.r a nein air ilualit) mit; 2lh0Il un..=.ore to I-CauiIc' ;+ prujcrt-lo. of LSI-S aca[}AN I,rinr TO is;u;tnc,' grattIII pellniI as to]10ws: Prirr+'1c,ioc f,arpr, 0, r 1,r:lirn r?r+-r+rrf 1121 rr:1, l:•Ir'unrrr_ru nv, ... '' �. ._ I li'ell fn`s,+!irY_n1+i',t1i+"c or Icr+';.--:+'. (,re r1x:aII. rr 11,IL t�hi+r:r vhd11 firu•,,1, P?(11 I:..lil+•S r+l!lu in.ulcrtl I•ur i.I.Sfe+rrs 11?4, ( 0 1'.11 16.Iunl P f 1_.it .rv.suc fur,,1 ss ifh__hr rr,r1 ir+rrrr+r acrflr•+ a1f)I e rrt•fins iIn fhL, r or r+< i ii:i C,h21+rfrrr21. i1 1,4 +vrn,l+,rar• rh•+ts, rr.+r a.rslrrr++ ur,+r1,_1_C.V4,LVJ M..0111):eair• g+.tiro l7i(1 lrr rri l+1 J0 l/rn•< pH•n,Uirti. Ilrr,++,7.C1H+rr11! ;rc rll;fr .+.+J rlf•r+ +f , •:cr i t errfrrr; a _ h rrI h,- h100' rr rlfr= ;I,ht r+r,rr .rxrrci ro, u+ tvirhu rr a .,rrlrrr ;- I11 erre+ sri;us rr N(':IU_l1U's ji)r dwye rrrxttiUns. =1150 Section 3.8.Page 3-35. "South Coast Air Quality Management District.Accessed at: x+w++'.agmd.covrhumelregulnlionslceunfair-quali�v-anJlvsis-handhnnk- +Ibid.Section 4.2.4.Page 4?-9. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District-Localized Significance I hresholds-Accessed at: r.,'+u�nv.agmd.govilurmelrcgulatiattsfce,�i nlav- alio-an�lysjy-h3nJt><xtk Ir,Gniiacd-.i¢niticancr-thresholds. 5 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-15 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,201$ This ulit[giltion nioasure L'11tiu1',s [11:91 Ilse I.,ad hit, dd,e[.I:lti[' :9[laltLed 1114 Proposed P IiU•cI5 lo,aIizc'd air gnaht\ insl`aC1:�to jusiif, da Perri ng the [.S'Is -mill}sis, [hilt a [,.,-(tied- or site- conl'd liccilic'1.4"1 s 1111al7;is trill sic Cu1n111etcd ill it later MM-'k:, 'illd 111,0 dll; nesrrht .;cl3tiititc rii,[ttorti are 5 not adversely atlMed M [lic Prol)o:;kd 1'mjeC1 s Colmmk:6 rel itcli'.itic= 11101 ar� necurrirr ill close proximity. Health Risk Assessment 411RA) Analysis and A_dditiional_Cuasideration for Existing tMitigution i'1'Icasurc[11111142- 5. :1k:t:oL G1l_,.lA3 the Lead Agency,resulenlial ullitS COUld be constructed as close as 1.00 feet from the I- �i . I n t:lcilitate the purpose and g,.ral 01 d'i (,).\ rn [u;„i, disclnsur,. SCAQMLI staff recommends 111::[ [l.: I ,,let a�,enC use aplliicAlll E'r ri r[ is1 l0rrlali�ill [teat is Aretady avai€ihle in the Drafl FIR io cull;elm a II:-1 ;u:,ll ;is and m cif clot,the hntc:rial I1C:ral1 risks irl tele Irinal kIK". hl addition.111 u•,I A ,1:C%. as I)JI't ul title -l.? i� .liltllIliIt,:1 a [itoicci-sl ecitic 1IRA ler future rc idLnlIial 1110[•W.cd tti[hiu 7011 Ire[i.r: l I ili.t1 ill s;l.ir n Izactutu'e ensure,[hat the 1..erld A`*en,) ruIll nd Let Jli Iv cun,iticr 1110 I'Iolinsc. Irra`:.. .. 110;11111 impacts and Ih:lI it pruju -level I IRA inj, k':i fife: I'� LoulplCte,l in is litter serf,,,11 I'aeil'tnt,•:hr disclosure A hcidth inlpac'ts to prospective Iesitien[.,. 1'1:1'[110 . the Lead 11�ciic: Is cominill"d to IlliliL^lli(ln�'IIML d a project-level HRA be found Ell exceed I.w'�t AI}MD's I-IRA rluc!sholdsl4. Additional Consideration for Exiting MM 4.2-4 a] The Lead Agency should also consider requiring the use of enhanced filtration systems with 6 nlo,imam etticicnev rating value('s ERV)lit 13 or better in residential units within 500 feet of I- 10 ensure Ilse lnasilnunt reduction of kcal li risks froth exposur(•5 io diesel particulate matter (I]l'41)emissions from sehickes atld truce;,t[atcliiia un the[;cess r}- Il) I;crlhiulCed filtration system is installed.it is important to consider the limitations. In a study that S(:1�11JD conducicd to im.e>tigatr Iiltciti a cost burden is expected to he teithin r11: raw-'e of ,$l2o io$240 per)ear to nr[51:1cc each filler. [n addition.hecau„the filter,tNoktld not hitse:tnv effectiveness unless th, I1GrAC s 'leaf i; rtlltning' thee, tela,- he inc;vased etretD cl [ E0 the residents. It is tg 11 iCal li a,sunled thiel the 1-111crs o17,[iatc 100 jltnccr31 01 thc•Little lellilc residenl: are indoors, and the em irnmrlclital analysis discs L70I generally accuunl liir the ti9n.4 when the rc idents havt (heir tti"IL10%ki ur doors ope[l nr 21C in ctnnnum si3acr :arils 01 the hrtrierl. Moreover. Lhosr GG,9's 11,4'0 Ilk] abiliic to liltcr .7llt i9m to.\ie <<a.c, tram vehicle r:cilaust. There4tr9'r, the [ilcsurlled eftecliveness and (Lmsi,hilii} of an% liliratiou units should he carefully cvaluatod in more detail and disclosed to prospective residences prior to assuming that they will st111icicn[lN alleviale exposures to DPM emissions. fwd S�cuozl I.I.�.Paste-L7.1 K. l[C;I II]itlsl.:1-,"r-;t ne;r[C Il,x) ;:,1 ,Hale ring Cancer Risk from Mob ilc Source Diesel Idling Emissions ror CE(1A Air )u.11in A3ca'sis, Acer'ed al. lrrT.i Lel1111 rLl.�pt,llPpi$[Y�'lltdl mrl.'.LCy3'�lr•U1tJlllw.1rta.l m-h43 rtd!x)t31[./7uiL_b11C15[�Ll r,_t'-(UCi C.'a •1i.i "5(Ar)Nn 1 hes doclupcd tete C'EQA ster:lflcalme tlu'}Awld ul 11)i:a 011C million for rank;[ilk- When Si.AOW)aeis as Ills l.raii Aecnn..SCAQMD'telt,coudv;n..1 III[A.�o lrlrmrs Ill,!111;kmi larrr k.111"r cis},nr 111c:tl:rcrl u!rl it Ili m role million..r delcllliine the lei rl of mplilicailce lir. health rest. mel?'Icl'• Tend identities nimplion kwo, ores it the ride is Ilium] to 11r Sil:.11ili—IN IN 1h:J';�chun 4.2.f tv ago't2-20- d°11111 study evaluated tillers rated&tVRV 13 ur better.Accessed at: hill):,ee'ww.outml.aus-/cfn +'dvfaull-suureeree13ar9dhnok aomd�ilotstadyfnotrepars.i�df. Also see also 2012 Feer Review Juumol article by SCAQMD Ill/d7.ia:ur.rola.rsircc'deGaulV�lrs n ltlf'olidur cl•a1-2012.rxif. G Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-16 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.4 City of Tustin Responses to Comrnents Erica Delnkowic. March la,2018 1 liccall,c of [lir limilali 'cin, S(':1QN11) illi rreunlntend: lira[ the I C:.I[l Al_,cncc [rale the tilllutcine di;c{1,r:nr ti to pronpec ,e un[[ irullrac IElc]n as rcquiroincnls in thi 1•inai • IJisclos u[,• on potential health ini,lcts to prosp;cC;jtc Iesi&iIu Iro'.. I ,in_ h. pro',i:ni:•. I, lic'tra .,and the reduce:! -lir fihrali, -­:leltl „prlr. • LJi eA:arc i•I' inireas l cncr; C.,...JI l l:rll!"n,shr 11 VAC cal!,1 • f�CC['lilli':,:I1-K�1 :',cJn#er.le.g., ul.:,�:i Jl Cron :•i:, 101. IkL' .:nit ulnr.i Irill'.Ilioll milli: l,1�_'..filr_:Cast sit.nin_:5U'ate,lvxieS,ila 11,for the enhttnr;Fi I1Ilril7 :11 Maas: b IJCnlil'x.11inn o3 11Ie rrspun;ii l,- implementing :wt'. Ca :uC.1:1n:1; .ec:rc) ,::Ch as the Lead Inc ensurin,111n1 Flnlh„illcce# filters are ilr•Ialled at resjl.!Lrnti3ly�snits nrt:,ic a permit of nr��..har:,:� is iscF,letl: • ,1::li!1 i�:i111111 Fli is ll .:�I'l'll•I�:'�i .';Ilei', '.I ;I'i llolnlallLitL.i, A4SUcr:ltIQl) or property nl.rl:.r crl:clrt hn'.li>tlrill:.1111c1>a.�1c;�Lr,'r,l,a.11i1:2,i?apl!ropriate;uld l•cusibie: cont'd ('I ir,I-i:, r a;.::>,i:. I,;OUI is:hl:;lline:u;l leil't t in tl1C''Flll:1riCed Ikln-atioll Units;and 6 • 1'ln:,. .•. IN rs,rlltnting the c•'fectiveness of the ellllalliCil Itltrati011 Lillib at the Proposed 1'1•., .x.. Ill,I iIjimaI(;ii Onnee for5itinM Sensitive Receptors for itte 1111-i.2-t JI ;(..1t 7d 111 ,1:1'1 r_•r n:;nileti 111:51 llle:'e Bre Iliant t.lct, ti..l.l .1(:'.'llr,•; I111.1St chnidcl Mhal h,::a I•I:1!n': 11.,-, ,md loll!!tl;r Jtci�inn,. Cn f:lcili at': r.l:,lt.:r w.'Iaocrliun bctnccn Lltd 1p.n 4r. :ln. _CAOMF) Io reduce colrr.nunin cr:.prrsnr.' I n;c-:)ccilic anii Cunul[U(LNc air i:nlnlcis, SCAQ,01)adol)(C"I the (hm,lancv 0,. uji..;:i .-fir Qualilr 1.oe , ,r (iG r1,:1:l 1°i,nl.t an l 1.rrrl 1'I,:r:r+ilrs in ::00 ' 1111. (i,l!J(1nC document plo ides recotnntevJtd policies dial local goCernmcn(. Calc 1_61• ill 1.?r:•er (:cn.rt; plans or thrnl-i`it IFletll plannitrl t[+plYVrirt Ul'I'e[It1Cr potcnlial air p,lliltiun ilr;l7acts arlJ n•lect plrnlie health. I hcrelilre, lCConlnlcuded 11s1 Ilse Lead :1;cnCC ter,e,c Ilst< (.iuicfaltCc f!r>cl:lnunt in Jdition to the C:rlii,,il:ia Air fica7uicew ltla..trd'.GuidanrC dncrinteni. A. I;r 11:l7l r.i l:n+rl f:r, (f:rir,llook:A twill'J11'e dlil l'c'1.,Ih'i`l i•:•r.Ill inr tll tspljrrss ing the f'ropa eJ l'roj1�C.l. Adllitil,tsaf Rvenuuuended]liti:ation Measures n ;[iia r<<itlircc that all fccl:ihle niidL,7atimi nlea•u.,•s that go 1�econd what is retluised by law be 1;10ject i3O rseuctiulr:lnki operalk I to n:inirnize[x 4limunitr these impact,. Sf'.1[ ':�9!] n;al; rCr,r:I;n1,r:1Js !hill IhC Lead r1*_:net' incurinna[C the lollumtle.[[lib ation ineasures ill nal 1.11. it, hill`.1cr reduce CIMMn11S, particultlrlc finnt RO(3. NO,, and p:nliculatc matter. Additional aY U.II:[ilb ill oil Votenlitd nlilivatirtn 81. :' lidaiice to the LeEld Agency is available on the SC'A(]MD C1 QA Air(htali;p I-[aadbuol: ,chshc a] Requite Al off-road diesel-powered con:-trl1,:on equipment meet or esc,,•d Tier 4 ofi'rr+.:,i 7 ciliksions standards. A con•. .,` the tk;l z IlQf cornpliancC: Clot lxll:rr.11i l� . and ( al(Ii nr ti[af]�1I}operaling permi+. :•Iral !rC nrrniJ ;l to the I.eld Agt:lIcr at [L� tion uiil;irtaiF,l C;tch tapf'llc:ll,Ir'roll[ of tuuipn '.rl. Ill Isle r•. 1;. :hat :111 .:oil;true11011,e(jteipitic:r L..:rrx•l ltlr:l lac I icr T cosine ccrtiiica ioll. il>� : Baa 1:r.nC nuts Jennur,'r.11c tfi;uus_h liln:rsr,tr.J. r:ilil o.riu:a Eilldingy supported L'. ;r!Ftitlnli;tl es lti.;.lc•: +;sure tlsia F. r !eclr 1v logics S11 iC at' m.rti.. tr:t1 .ie; ln:lt illcludc. 1-11 A01-lid nol h; limited to, n.lu,tiF e irl -1w number acrd -n h :h;• r r:uin_,o,i conslnlcli,+n c:rcijnncnt,limb jl1_[Ire number of daily con,,, intioil haul[1 ack lrips w and • Soot![Coast Air(luatlry Maaageas�: 1 h1a} 4 tl;LJ.tllCt t)ucumenl for AddressllIsurs in flenervi Plans mid Local Plamsing7 Accessed.,t htgsu}s.--;umd.uovidocs/deCuult:sulsrerlplanninnlairwualitM-coir[:Brace/lwnsal.•te-�uidancc-docurrnnt-s+ F 7 Red Hill Avenue Specific Flan 3-17 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments I f Frica Demkowicz March 14,2018 from the Proposed Project,and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously. Include this requirement as a bid or contract specification with contractors. Require periodic reporting and provision of written documents by contractors to prove and ensure compliance. b) Require the use of 2010 model year diesel haul trucks that conform to 2010 EPA truck standards or newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) during construction.and if the Lead Agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel haul trucks are not feasible, the Lead Agency shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements,ata minimum, Include this requirement as a bid or contract specification with contractors. Require periodic reporting and provision of written documents by contractors to prove and ensure compliance. c) Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels;installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility. cont'd 7 d) Limit parking supply and unbundle parking costs. e) Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. I) Use light colored paving and roofing materials. g) Install light colored"cool"roofs and cool pavements. h) Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with I[EPA filters. i) Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. j) Utilize only Energy Star heating,cooling,and lighting devices,and appliances. k) Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. To further reduce particulate matter from the Proposed Project, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include the following mitigation measures in the Final EIR. a) Suspend all soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as instantaneous gusts or when visible plumes emanate from the site and stabilize all,disturbed areas. b) Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning ou-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM 10 generation. c) Sweep all streets at(cast once a day using SCAQrvfl7 Rule 1196.1186.1 certified street sweepers or rnad«a} washing trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). d) Apply water three times daily or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' spec'itications to all unpaved parking or staging areas,unpaved road surfaces,or to areas where soil is disturbed. Reclaimed water should be used. 8 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-18 Responses to Comments and Trihal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Rrict Demkowicz March 14,2018 Other Comment 7. SCAQMD staff-found an incensisteltey amongst ilio:references included in the Draft EIR. In the Air Qualily ,Analysis,the Lead Agcn.y relers to"hfli 4.7 '' to mitis=::re threshold 4.24; however. (lie I.cadAger cy did not propo,ed or include the 4'Mf 4.2-5" in the Draft HR.=, This inconsistency 8 makes the Air Quality Analysis difficult to Th,erel'ore,the Lead Agency should correct the inconsistency in the Final.EIR. 1• ==I6fct.Seetion 4.2.5.Page 4.2-15. 9 Red kill Avenue Specific Plan 3-19 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The comment provides a summary of the project, the air quality analysis in the Draft Program EIR, the 2016 Air quality Management Plan, general information about the CEQA Guidelines, and introductory comments.The comment is general in nature. Specific responses to subsequent comments are provided below. Response 2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 notes that the degree of specificity required in an EIR should correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR. An EIR on the adoption or amendment of a plan, such as the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, "...need not be a detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that may follow." Therefore, the quantification of construction impacts associated with future potential development projects is not required. The Draft Specific Plan Program EIR provides a programmatic analysis of the future development potential allowed by the Specific Plan. It should be noted that specific development projects are not proposed and are therefore not analyzed within the Draft Program EIR. As discussed under Draft Program EIR Impact 4.2-2, quantifying individual future development's air emissions from short-term, temporary construction-related activities would be speculative due to project-level variability and uncertainties concerning locations,detailed site plans,construction schedules/duration, equipment requirements,etc., among other factors, which are presently unknown. For example, project-specific earthwork and the associated number of haul truck trips have a major influence on construction emissions,and these details can vary drastically depending on specific project requirements (i.e., a project with a subterranean garage would require much more excavation and off-site hauling than a project with anly surface parking). Since these parameters can vary so widely (and individual project-related construction activities are time dependent and based upon numerous factors including size, earthwork volumes, timing/duration, etc.), quantifying precise construction-related emissions and impacts would yield unreliable, speculative results. Using construction scenarios that have already been developed for the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan EIR to quantify construction air quality emissions for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan is not necessary or appropriate. They are two separate projects. It is noted that the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan EIR quantified construction emissions and determined that construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds and that impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The Draft Program EIR for the Red Hill Specific Plan reached the same conclusion. As noted above, specific development projects have not been identified as part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Therefore, a program level analysis has been provided in the Draft Specific Plan EIR and worst case potential impacts were disclosed and corresponding mitigation was identified. Project specific analysis and mitigation (if necessary)would be required for future projects. Response 3 The analysis conservatively modeled operations of full build out of the Specific Plan in 2019 as the worst- case scenario. It would not be practical to use 2018 as the operational year because it is the current year and future development projects could not possibly be developed and operational in 2018. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-20 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Environmental clearance and other approvals would also be required of future development projects within the Specific Plan area. The 2019 operational analysis year is considered conservative because emissions factors decrease in future years due to vehicle fleet turnover and implementation of regulatory improvements. As such,the analysis of future interim milestone years (e.g., 2020, 2025, and 2030, as suggested in the commenter) would result in lower emissions levels than what has been identified in the Draft Program EIR. The lower future emissions levels would only reflect the fleet turnover and regulatory improvements anticipated by CaIEEMod and EMFAC. Air quality related mitigation measures and policies included in the Draft Program EIR are already reflected in the emissions modeling for the Specific Plan. There are no additional quantifiable mitigation measures or policies that would be incorporated into future milestone years. Response 4 As described above and in the Draft Program EBR, the Draft Red Hill Specific Plan EIR is a programmatic analysis that addresses impacts as specifically and comprehensively as possible. The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect General Plan policies to guide future change, but does not propose any specific development project. While the analysis of detailed project level actions can eliminate the need for further environmental documentation,those details are currently not available for future potential development projects from an air quality perspective. As such, on a programmatic level, the analysis identifies significant and unavoidable impacts for construction and operations and identifies applicable mitigation. Part of the basis for the impact conclusions was the fact that specific development projects and construction schedules are currently unknown and have the potential to overlap. The Draft Program EIR identifies standard conditions that would ensure compliance with SCAQMD rules as well as mitigation measures that would require future development to mitigate regional air quality impacts during the development review process. Mitigation measures may include energy efficiency measures, water efficiency measures,encouragement of alternatively fueled vehicles,facilitation of ride- sharing programs, provide informational materials on low ROG/VOC consumer products, among others. Response 5 As described above in responses 2 through 4, specific development projects have not been identified and are not analyzed within the Draft Program EIR. The commenter requests the addition of a mitigation measure that requires LST analyses for future development projects. An analysis of localized impacts would be required for future development projects as part of a project specific environmental review as this is the recommended methodology and necessary for an adequate environmental document. Therefore,the addition of a new mitigation measure is not required.. Response 6 Although the Draft Program EIR states that residential development could potentially be constructed as close as 100 feet from 1-5,there are no development applications for any such development. The analysis of health risk impacts depends on numerous variables, and the location of receivers can greatly influence the results. Therefore, the Draft Program EIR includes mitigation requiring project-specific health risk assessments for projects located within the CARE recommended 500-foot freeway buffer zone. As described in MM 4.2-4,a health risk assessment would be required to first determine if any impacts would Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-21 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments occur based on the project's location and other parameters and also determine which specific measures would be the most effective at reducing that impact. The inclusion of the mitigation measures specified in the comment may not be necessary after the project-level analysis or may become obsolete. Draft Program EIR MM 4.2-4 allows for a project specific analysis and mitigation measures, if necessary, when future development is identified. The commenter also identifies the SCAQMD Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (2005) as additional guidance for siting sensitive receptors. Although not specifically referenced in the Draft Program EIR, the analysis complies with the recommendations in the guidance document. For example, the guidance document recommends the buffer distances to sources of air contaminants that were recommended by CARE in the Air Quality Land Use Handbook, which is what the analysis in Draft Program EIR Section 4.2-4 and mitigation measure 4.2-4 are based on. Furthermore, the Draft Program EIR is consistent with applicable recommended policies in the SCAQMD guidance document through the requirements of MM 4.2-4. MM 4.2-4 requires a health risk assessment for future development projects located within 500 feet of 1-5. The health risk assessment is required to identify mitigation for projects that are shown to exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds. For example, this mitigation measure would require future development projects to ensure that site plans incorporate the appropriate set-backs and other design features to reduce toxic air contaminant exposure (SCAQMD recommended policies AQ 1.1.3 and AQ 1.1.4). Response 7 The Draft Program EIR found impacts associated with construction to be potentially significant due to the unknown nature of construction activities associated with future development projects. As a result, the Draft Program EIR identified standard conditions that would minimize construction emissions. Standard Condition (SC) 4.2-1 requires adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) to reduce fugitive dust emissions generated at future construction sites by requiring dust abatement measures. State Vehicle Code Section 23114 requires all trucks hauling excavated or graded material to the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets. SC 4.2-2 requires future construction contractors to adhere to SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) to limit volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings. As addressed in the Program EIR, environmental review would be required for future development projects. Project-specific environmental review would rely on the SCAQMD's significance thresholds to determine the significance level of a future project impact. Projects that exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds would be required to implement all feasible project specific mitigation measures,such as those identified in the comment (e.g.,the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, 2010 model year diesel haul trucks, etc.). Additionally, the particulate matter measures identified by the commenter are part of the recommended measures in SCAQMD Rule 403. As noted above, the Standard Conditions identified in the Draft Program EIR require compliance with Rule 403. Additionally, MM 4.2-3 provides numerous options for reducing operational emissions,similar to the measures recommended by the commenter. It should be noted that the mitigation measure specifically states that these are potential measures and that mitigation measures for future development projects are not limited to those listed in MM 4.2-3. The actual mitigation measures required for future development projects would be determined as a part of project-specific environmental review by the City of Tustin. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3.22 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response S The comment identifies a typographical error in the numbering of the mitigation measure referenced on page 4.2-16 of the Draft Program FIR. Page 4.2-16 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR, as indicated below. Therefore, implementation of MM 4.2--54 is required to ensure a project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is conducted for future residential uses located within 500 feet of 1-5. Implementation of MM 4.2-154 would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to a less than significant level. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3.23 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-3 Orange County Transportation Authority Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-3 FA OCTA, BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 16,2018 I-rca A Edor,?ou C!'2rr Ms. Erica Demkowicz,AICP, Senior Planner uaec,,,:; X, City of Tustin laune DTvrrs Community Development Department cr2::fnr 300 Centennial Way u,,imn ae Bi=z Tustin, CA 92780 D;rutr Ancr:w Co Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report— ➢1o,:iar Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Lon par.;f::l k ate°' Dear Ms. Demkowicz: kftowf x.w5wer Ov'rof The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Notice of vove.,one Availability of a Draft EtR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project.The following &,' f°r comments are provided for your consideration: hWrkA.Vuph>. Active Transportation Comments AJ • As noted on Page 3-20 of the DEIR and the City of Tustin General Plan, DWV� V.. Fi[gire r-5(Master Bikeway Plan),a Class 11 bikeway is planned on Red Hill Af'I°�Y Avenue within the project study area. The bikeway exists at 1-5 within Cicricr Cattrans managed areas at the interchange ramps. OCTA is supportive of t 5n3,vn NPISeNt e:rc mr the Specific Plan proposed "revisions to the roadway cross section for Red Hill Avenue to include a Class it striped on-street bike lane the entire length CacClur of the Specific Plan area." 'fA-Id S�ifzer =fes OCTA is preparing OC Active,the first countywide bike and pedestrian master 001el;e 5f¢eI plan- The report and other studies under preparation by OCTA will include C�ecfor recommended treatments to improve infrastructure for pedestrian Tem T.,:r function. OCTA will continue to collaborate with the City of Tustin as a P °'-w°r resource for consideration of engineering treatments to enhance safety for e,,ery T V,,M�arv� people walking and biking within the community and the project area. Neva, Fiyanc+ra,nrer'a;n . New residential land use construction provides an opportunity to encourage Ex-0-1 7Xv Mvmber a variety of travel choices. We encourage the Specific Plan to also include short and long-term bicycle parking and bicycle facilities for residents and 3 CMEr:EHECUnVE QFFICE guests- Short-term parking in the ratio of one bicycle parking space for each Carr,;ndalvsa. four units might be considered, and inclusion of a secure ground floor indoor chelE.vcx uc Offr&f bicycle storage area may serve long-term bicycle parking needs. • New workplace construction provides an opportunity to encourage a variety of travel choices- OCTA encourages consideration of Transportation 4 Demand Management measures such as long-term bicycle parking, Oiayme C^way Trdns;7r,.riaScn AWsiorrly 550 Soulh Alain Sfreer r P.0,Sox 14183/Orange!Ca;rralnia 92863-15841(714)560-OCTA 16262.' Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-24 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments employee access to showers, and changing rooms to encourage multi-modal transportation choices. The availability of showers is often noted as the top cont'd item limiting bicycle commuting by employees. 4 Transit Planning Comment ■ OCTA currently provides transit service near the project site. Should the project have any impacts to nearby bus stops, please coordinate with OCTA to employ measures to reduce potential transit service disruptions. We also 5 recommend the City keep OCTA informed with any potential bus stop interruptions or street closures that may require detours. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this project. If you have any further questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me via phone at (714)560-5907 or by email at DPiupocta.net. Sincerely, /a, -Z/--- Dan Phu Environmental Programs Manager Orange County Transportation Authority{OCTA} Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-25 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 OCTA's support of a Class II bikeway on Red Hill Avenue is noted. Response 2 The comment is noted. No further response is required. Response 3 The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, Chapter 4, Land Use and Development Standards, requires an access plan be submitted and approved by the City as a part of Design Review prior to the approval of development projects. The access plan is required to identify the location of bike racks and lockers to accommodate estimated bike user needs which would be defined on a project-specific basis. Response 4 The comment is noted. The Specific Plan is programmatic in nature and encourages opportunities for non-vehicular movement. The suggested improvements (e.g., shower facilities) can be implemented on a project-specific basis. No further response is required. Response 5 The comment is noted. The City will continue to coordinate with OCTA. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-26 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-4 City of Irvine Melissa Chao, Senior Planner February 26, 20118 Comment Letter C-4 d OF J�11 A. it � �Ilt C;nrrtm«r�ty tJiarla��meMt r;ikyr:hivnir. . c:,�„�{':,rtrr Piaa� hvm�.C.a cy�� , g..g.72d•6iA;i3 February 26, 2018 Sent via USPS and email' edemkowicZ(@tristinca.org Ms. Erica Demkowicz City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: First Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(SCH No. 2017041031)for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13), General Plan Amendment(2017-01), and Zoning Map Amendment in Tustin Dear Ms. Demkowicz: City of Irvine staff has reviewed the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the subject project.The proposed project is a Specific Plan for mixed-use development on approximately 43.11-acres, including 7.32-acres of roadway rights-of-way, along Red Hill Avenue generally between Bryan and Walnut Avenue (includes Red Hill Shopping Village to the southwest) in Tustin as follows: ■The Specific Plan area includes approximately 296,446 square feet of existing non- residential uses(primarily commercial)and 21 existing dwelling units. ■The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that allow for vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments with retail/office and residential uses: streetscape landscaping improvements, gatewaylwayfinding signage enhancements, on-street bike lanes, reduced lane widths, landscaped medians, pedestrian-friendly design,and public art opportunities. ■ The Specific Plan will increase existing development intensity by 325,000 square feet of non-residential development intensity and 500 additional residential dwelling units. • Build-out of the Specific Plan is assumed by 2035. Based on the review of the Draft EIR, City of twine staff would like to provide the following comments' 1. As previously requested in our April 26, 2017 letter regarding the NOP, include the following intersections in the project's traffic impact analysis study area. t • All intersections along Redhill Ave. from Irvine Blvd south to MacArthur Blvd Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-27 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms, Erica Demkowicz February 26, 2018 Page 2 of 6 { • Intersections of Irvine Blvd at Newport Ave., Browning Ave. and Tustin Ranch Rd. • Intersections of Bryan Ave. at Newport Ave., Browning Ave, and Tustin Ranch i Rd. cont'd j The additional intensity of this proposed project warrants additional intersection 1 i evaluation beyond the limits of the proposed street improvements. These study locations are located within the City of Irvine's Irvine Business Complex(IBC)Vision Plan traffic study area and Irvine's North Irvine Transportation Mitigation (NITM) traffic study area. 2. The ICU worksheets in the Traffic Appendices indicate that in the build-out scenario the intersection of Red Hill at Walnut goes from LOS D in the No Project to LOS E (shown below) in the With Project scenario in the PM Peak hour;however,the DEIR shows this location asLOS D and no project impact. Revise accordingly. Generated wtn 10Z= yrfs✓w Red Hill corridor SP Vistm File:K:V.,l_Tuslin Red Hill PM.vislro Scenario 4 BO wP PM Report File-,Ka-,.W-BO WP PM_ADJ EX.pdf 1127x2018 Intersection Anatysis Summary 2 IA Intersection Name Control Type Method Ward MYMt vtC Delay(&Neh) LOS 1 Bryan Ave I Red Hill Ave Signalized ICU I WB Thru 0.853 2 San Juan St!Red Hill Ave Signalized ICU 1 NB Thru 0.481 A 3 Et Camino Real f Red Hit Ave Signalized ICU 1 NB Thru 0.804 D 4 1-15 NS Ramps I Red Hill Ave Signalized ICU I W8 Right 0.659 8 5 1.15 S8 Ramps I Red Hill Ave Signalized ICU 1 NB Right 0.872 E 8 Red Hill Ave F Nissan Rd Signalized ICU I NS Thru 0.847 ❑ 7 Red Hill Ave)Mitchell Ave Signalized ICU 1 N8 Thfu 0.747 C 8 Red Hill Ave)Walnut Ave Signalized ICU 1 N8 Thru 0.904 E 8 Red Hill Ave)Sycamore Ave Signalized ICU 1 N9 Thru 0.685 B i VIC,Delay,LOS:For two-way stop,these values are taken from the movement with the worst("hest)delay value.for all other canlml types,they are taken for the whole intersection, i I l L V Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-28 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms, Erica Demkowicz February 26, 2018. Page 3of6 r»neralai.riln�liliA111J Vers+cn IMeraecUaa Level OI Seryka Report fiiersecllen 8;Red Hill Ave I WaIriLK Ave Crn00I Typo: Slg wra*d Delay(W I vehk - A"[y353 MSIMCL ICU 1 L"Of SeMcr. E N•OlyNs Period: 15 4r 1ps YOMM 10 capadty tv.'cr 0.90e IAtafwc[icA Setup 'L3rrre Ara Hie Ave a•ec F41 Are WdkwlA" VyehAAm cont'd A r�adi HarlrbSurd S'a thb-u d Zr InuAd WMIKkv 3 2 ITh I__ . -_ ..- TumtrgFlu•2 left Tha A+ph: Ler Thv R�qM Leh Tlvu Fiiphl" L tt T­ Ryht Ga.M w..'In 1flJ 12.00 1200. 1200 12.CC 11.00 1200 r2.00 12.00 12A0 12.00 x2.00 17.00 rM•Mune+Ir.flm-kat 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 - Si'�'K', CaadC JS:I ..__.004 C00 O.Oc 4n! C sswsf Yes Y.$ Yca Yes 3. Several build-out traffic volumes appear to conflict with IBC Vision Plan P2035 turn volume assumptions, Please see the summary comparison table below of build-out with project vs. IBC Vision Plan. Provide the traffic counts in the appendices and confirm the build-out volumes utilized. Indicate why the volumes are significantly less in many cases.The traffic study states volumes have been modified when comparing iTAM vs counts. This should be further clarified. Excerpt from Kimley Horn TIA dated January 2018 BO AM WP lelereeaGwTLw.lp SaeJ[�a,vwr kd—Lban 31110- 6-*.A I Mf MN An Cti+ta Tyq: 3 W.Ra'd tltlh'1rr l M hW,an N.acC. r_U t E.4 CA Ute l �ijllr i.. 71fl- 'rr -- - v'. F—TL I Lr` ;r lr! C iff. PW W 'hPq i i hr Pyn IL} 19.j •rb Iv%Lvy+F PAIN 1 . ! • I ! ] e 07 G r f � na _n....a T .. r •.. �-,.. eaw Yww 1pr.;.+.`_ P.�4t ".1 ]c •S Ixn p e1 >•� IN W i all �{ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-29 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms.Erica Demkowicz February 26,2018 Page 4 of 6 BO PM WP L—101 Larry P-IfR-d HA A- "A I I Ir -1 2r kV. o! T;-]All" L*1 Tau IF I 2POP cr7 6A0 SAO RWMA In .1 u -wi,6 I i�x;l T- - 7-- taxe I XM r Excerpt from IBC Vision Plan 2015 Five Year Update P2035 Cumulative Baseline contd 3 .11. El C-11 27k4 12.4 P203s Lflui AM VK K(r4K Z PK KWR LAMJ CAPACM VOL vic VoL Vic! 3.00 3,;4 2, 424 :III is,I-Tj 5!00 67-1 :,1111 1:911 1 1700 213 I3 317 1700 04 .05 M 15, 50P 3 5100 1276 65I 0 59 6" 12IL 11100 8" 05 32 A2 GET -, . - 0 41, 2.- ERR 1.5 265 1.07p 177 NbL 3.5 142 1 t2l 357 1.211- YitlT 1.5 5100 243 MIA 0 49 ui"TanQ .051 As- TDIAT.CAPAMT VTM1UT1ofl .62 .15 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-30 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City f Tu5t[n Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Damkmvbz February 28. 2D18 Page 5cf0 Traffic Vu(umeCompmdn|on Summary AM Peak Project Build-Out IBC Vision Plan EBR 184 265 SBR 15 59 WFR 14 46 o PM Peak Project Build-Out IBC_'Vision Plan SBL 37 _i5 5 | 958 � `^^ 27 151 l 4. Section 63 of the Draft Specific Plan(dated January 2018) indicates that"The ' Tustin General Plan was amended byResolution concurrent with the adoption ofthe . Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan to provide consistency between the two documents. ^ � Additionally,Section 6A of the Draft Specific Plan indicates that'The RHASP was adopted by Ordinance and defines the zoning for the properties within its � boundaries. The adoption ofthe Specific Plan was accompanied byaconcurrent * � zoning map amendment to designate the area"Red Hill Specific Plan(SP-13).'It appears the aforementioned amendments(e.g., development intensity summary) are not contained in the Land Use Section(4.8) of the DEIR, but should be included. Please clarify the projooiowmponmnt/imp|omentation sequencing, motypically the DEIR would need to be certified prior to approving the proposed Specific Plan and oonoo1abmd General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, | Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3'31 Responses toComments andTri uo|Consu|tonon Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Denikowicz February 26, 2018 Page 6 of 6 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project. Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds. If you have any questions, 1 can be reached at 9148-724-6395, or by email at mchao cr.cityafirvine_crg. Sincerely, Melissa Chao Senior Planner cc. Kerwin [.au. Manager of Planning Services Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Sun-Sun Muril]o. Supervising Transportation Analyst Karen Urman, Senior Transportation Analyst Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-32 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 In response to the City of Irvine letter regarding the NOP, the traffic study area was expanded to include the intersections of Red Hill Avenue at Sycamore Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at Bryan Avenue. Project trips will continue to dissipate beyond these intersections, such that the project trips at the additional intersections mentioned in the letter would be nominal, and would not meet the City's criteria for inclusion in a traffic study. Response 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) values for City of Tustin analyses are rounded and reported to two decimals. The Vistro intersection worksheets are generated by the software, which was developed by a third-party vendor. The worksheets display the ICU values calculated to three decimals, and bases the Level of Service on the three-decimal value. This discrepancy between the City's standard and the Vistro software output was corrected by hand in the report. Response 3 The 2435 forecasts are based on the latest ITAM traffic model data available at the time of the analysis. The forecasts were adjusted, if needed, to ensure that all forecast volumes would be equal to or greater than the existing turning movement counts. The 2035 data provided did not Include forecasts for the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at San Juan Street. Forecasts were developed for this intersection by factoring existing traffic counts by the average growth for the two adjacent intersections. Response 4 The language in the proposed Specific Plan is applicable subsequent to the City's consideration of certification of the Final EIR, followed by approval of the discretionary actions identified in the Program EIR including an amendment of the General Plan,adoption of the Specific Plan, and an amendment to the Zoning Map. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-33 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-5 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-5 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANCE COUNTY ._.....-- FOR ORANGE COUNTY �` 3160 Air'�'ay Ave[ILV •Cos.: He,,i,"'diloy nia 92626.949.252.5170 Fax'949.252.6012 .ectuc March 16,2018 Erica Demokowicz,Senior Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way 'I ustin,CA 92 780 Subject: Notice of Availability of it DEER Tied Hill Avenue Specific Plain Dear Ms.Dernokov-icr: Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental impact Report(DEIR)for the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project. The proposed project is not located within the Notification Area(Airport Planning,Area)for John Wayne Airport(JWA). l lowcvcr,portions of the proposed project fall within the Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR)Part 77 approach and transitional surfaces for JWA. Although the proposed development is located outside of the Airport Planning Area,please be aware that development proposals which include the construction or alteration of a structure n ORI than 200 fact above ground level,require filing with the Federal Aviation Administratiot;(FAA). t Structures meeting this threshold must comply with procedures provided by Federal and State law,with the referral requirements of ALUC,and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA and ALUC including tiling a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration(FAA Form 7460-1). The proposed project does not include the development of Heliports or helistops. For your information,should the development of heliports occur within your jurisdiction,proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the AL[JC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661 5 i'Topo.wd Ilciiport prcjcct.�111LHt cnmplN fill])' with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approva]imposed or recommended by FAA,by the ALUC forOrartge•County and by Caltraris!Dk i5:nrr of Aeronautics. Thank you again for 11,,c opportunity to comment on this DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949)252-51'_'3 or vitt email at lehoutW(Tocair_c_ntn should you Dasa arw qucstions related to the Airport Land Use Comm issioii for Grange Counh. Sincerely, Kari A.Rigoni Executive Officer Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3.34 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response I The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan does not propose nor would it permit any structures more than 200 feet above ground level. The proposed maximum building height is five stories which would be substantially less than 200 feet. Additionally, no heliports or helistops are proposed. Red Will Avenue Specific Plan 3-35 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter G6 Kevin Heydman February 4, 2018 Comment Letter C-6 Demkowicx,Erica From: Kevin Heydman tkheydman@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday,February 04,2018$;50 PM To: demkowia,Erica Subject: Hello Mrs.Demkowics t have some questions about the Red Hill Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Mrs, Demkowics, My name is Kevin Ileydman, I currently live in the area for the Red Hill Ave.Plan. How will this affect people who live in the area?From what t have read it is to build new shops and residential units,but what about 1 the condominiums currently here? Parking on San Juan is already difficult. Are there plans to add parking solutions?Specifically the residents of the neighborhood? Thank you for your time, Kevin Heydman t Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-36 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the addition of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses to the Specific Plan area which extends from Bryan Avenue to the northeast to Walnut Avenue at the southwest. The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect the City of Tustin General Plan policies with project-level development within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides long- and short-term goals and objectives,a land use plan, regulatory standards, Design Criteria,and administration and implementation programs. No site-specific projects are proposed as a part of the Specific Plan or are evaluated in the Program EIR. It is anticipated that further projects would occur over many years. The Specific Plan identifies parking requirements and alternative parking standards. As it relates to parking, Chapter 4, Land use and Development Standards,of the proposed Specific Plan includes off-street parking standards for residential uses and non-residential uses; see Table 4-4. The City's email response to Mr. Heydman's comment letter elaborates on this response and immediately follows this response. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-37 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Demkewicz, Erica From-. ❑emkowicz.Erica Sent: Friday,February 04,2018 103 PM To: 'Kevin HeydrTran' Subject: RE Hello Mrs.Oemkowics I have some questions about the Red Hill Specific Plan Hello Kevin, The goals and objectives of the Red Hill Specific Plan include continuing the commercial corridor that Red Hill already is and allowing for mixed use development and improving the pedestrian experience within the area. !Nixed use means a combination of either commercial retail andlor office on the ground floor with residential or office uses above(i.e. vertical)Or commercial/office uses and residential uses next to each other(i.e.horizontal),on the same site or property. The 5pecifie Plan would also establish a program of streetscape improvements within the public rights-of-way along Red Hill that includes landscaped medians,street trees,plants and a flexible amenity setback area in front of[he commercial or retail buildings that would allow for outside dining,landscaping,plazas for gathering and other such things to enhance pedestrian activities. Existing residential uses within or surrounding the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area would remain"as is"and once the Red Hill area starts to develop(which is anticipated to take many years)there could be taller buildings in and around the area with additional people and cars. The Draft Ernvironrnental Impact Report(E1R),which analyzes the potential impacts of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan on the area is posted on the City's website at the fink below. The ElR document looks at many different areas and contains a discussion of each of the areas with a summary about the potential impacts. If you have an opportunity to look at this information on-line,you will be able to better understand more about the potential impacts. The development standards for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would establish the requirement that any new projects within the area provide all parking on-site. This means if a new project requires a certain number of spaces to meet the parking code,then the parking must be provided on the sante property where the project is to be developed. There would also be an alternative option to provide the required parking on a different parcel near the project site,but that option would only be exercised if it is within a certain distance from the project site to be developed. htto,//www.tustinca.oreldepts/cd/plannineuodate.aso If you have had an opportunity to look on-line at the Red Hill information and still have some questions,please feel free to give me a call. Regards, Erica H.Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714)573.3127 ed e ml-kc? iczC�tu st i n ca.o rE 1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-38 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-7 Kathy Hall February 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-7 Demkowicz, Erica From: Kathy Hall <khal1@star1rnail.com> Sent: Friday,February 16,201810:34 AM To: pemkowicz,Erica Subject: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Erica, The online material about the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan is very well done and informative. Please let me add a point about the area which I did not see covered-shopping cart blight. Everyone working on this project should be aware that the current shopping cart ordinance is not working. It is very ditlicult for residents to arrange for removal of single stray cart.It takes time making calls,persistence and determination to have a cart identified for pickup.Then it takes days for the cart to actually be removed. Multiply that by new carts being released into the Red Hill area t neighborhoods every day,and cart eradication by residents is futile. The worst offender appears to be the Stater Brothers Market at the comer of Red Hill and Mitchell. A polite conversation with the manager there was unproductive.He gave the impression that once a cart leaves the property of his store,it becomes the responsibility of residents to deal with it.There arc also stray carts from the 99 Cent store on Red Hill,but nowhere near as many as from Stater I Brothers. Stray shopping carts have long been regarded as an indicator of urban blight.Unless there can be very strict enforcement of shopping cart containment in the Red Hill corridor,the area will under perforin in terms of desirability. Thank you for considering my comments. Best, Kathy i Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-39 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.❑ City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter raises concerns that the City's shopping cart ordinance is not effective. While the commenter's concern is noted,the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-40 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-8 Peter Kim February 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-8 Demkowicz, Erica From: Demko,ajicz,Erica Sent: Wednesday,February 21,2018 1083 AM To: 'peter888' Subject: RE:red hill draft plan comments Hello Peter, The City is in receipt of your comments and they will be added to the public record. Information about the potential locations of the medians can be found in Chapter 3 of the Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Below is a link to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Plan for your reference. httpalwww.tustinca.ore/dents/cdlplanninauodate.asp Regards, Erica H.Demkowicz,ACCP Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714)573-3127 ed em kowi cz6Dtu st I n ca.n r From:peter888 fmailto:neterucw_insite.corrr] Sent:Friday, February 16,2018 5:44 PM To: Demkowicz,Erica Subject:red hill draft plan comments Hello Erica I would like to add my comments to the red hill draft plan. We are the tenants for the business at 13871 Red Hill Ave, We would like to request a review of the proposed median and impact of traffic patterns. We would like to request unhindered access to our property from the north bound lanes that currently t exist. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Regards, Peter Kim 350 N Glendale Ave Ste B231 Glendale, CA.91206 310.500-0316 (C) t 't cminA! Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-41 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter requests the City's consideration of removing the median at the business located at 13871 Red Hill Avenue and the impact of "traffic patterns." The Specific Plan and the Program EIR identify a potential median location on Red Hili Avenue at this location. The location of the potential medians is shown on Exhibit 3-9 of the Program EIR. The Program EIR does evaluate traffic including the forecasted distribution of traffic within and through the Specific Plan area. Please refer to Section 4.13 of the draft Program EIR. The City, in its response to Mr. Kim's comments, noted that the locations of the proposed medians are identified in Chapter 3 of the proposed Specific Plan, and that the Specific Plan and Program EIR are available on the City's website at http://www.tustinca.org/departs/cd/planningupdate.asp. The commenter's request to remove a potential median from consideration is noted and will be forwarded to City decision-makers for consideration. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-42 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-9 Howard L. Abel March 15, 2018 Comment Letter C-9 RECEIVED March 15, 2018 Via Email, US Mail First Class Mail and Hand Delivery MAR 1_� 20i$ To: Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner, City of Tustin COMMUNrrrDEVELOPMENT 300 Centennial Way ev, Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: edemkowicz@tustinca.org Fr: Howard L. Abel, Trustee Howard L. Abel Family Trust and Howard L. Abel as President of Mayflower Motors, Inc. Being the General Partner of Mayflower Properties, LP 7 Island Vista Newport Coast, CA 92557 E-mail: luckvhwrd@aol.com Cell: 949 922-7749 Re: Property Owner's Comments on the Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Dear Ms. Demkowicz, We thank you and the other Staff Members for the time spent with us recently going over the current draft of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. As our two firms represent the ownership of the entire city block between San Juan and EI Camino Real on the East side of Red Hill apart only from the two parcels now held by our neighbors, WTM Tustin Investors, LP, and Lake Union Investors, LP, who own the property within the block that is tenanted by Big Lots, we have a significant stake in the outcome of this Specific Plan. We are in agreement with the letter also sent you by M. Katherine Jenson of the firm Rutan and Tucker, LLP that expresses the joint concerns of our full block ownership. We do not wish to just repeat the issues and matters contained in that letter but wish to add a few additional comments as follows: #1 This full block has been burdened since our consolidation of all but the Big Lots parcels by the unwillingness of the long term underlying fee ownership of those parcels to engage in any form of dialog or action to enhance and re-develop the site. With the recent (just as of this past January) acquisition of those two parcels by a consortium of firms that like ourselves, have extensive experience in site development, we are just now able to begin a collaborative effort to address the obvious issues of the properties. In short, the Red Hill Specific Plan is not allowing us adequate opportunity to address for the first time in over 40 years a significant combined response as co-operating developers. #2 Given the uncertainty of the future ability to act as a consolidated and mutually co-operative developmental team, the underlying fee owners have Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-43 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments been forced over the years, including in the recent past, to enter into leases with a wide variety of tenants who now have significant sway over when and how development can proceed. As these leases expire, there will be freedoms that as Owners we do not have available. Unfortunately, we no longer have the former tools such as Redevelopment Agencies with all their powers to aid in moving Specific Plan goals forward on an immediate basis. #3 We have economic realities in that not one of our in place tenants can afford to pay the additional rent needed to fund the contemplated costs that appear to fall to our properties. Also, many of the Specific Plan design goals coned would be of no economic value to any tenant that we have either in these t properties or in our other commercial projects we own and operate here in the West. Of special concern are the excessive amounts of landscape contemplated (not just as to cost to install but also to maintain) that will o also reduce our parking counts and other design criteria that are not typical for these kind of properties as in very low light poles and extensive use of street furniture. #4 Practically speaking, we have to be able to back fill and re-tenant our coming vacancies or we will not be able to pay for any pass through costs of a Specific Plan. If we cannot economically keep our spaces full, the net result will be additional blight to the area as maintenance and upgrades require cash flow. #5 We applaud the use of public set aside funds for the capital improvements in the currently dedicated public right of way. We understand that at times we will have to also participate In part for some of these improvements based on our increasing our density of use or impact on public in fracture. Where there are no budgeted amounts we would suggest delaying costly improvements. ##6 while we fully understand the demands and requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan, we have concerns about the massive residential project proposed for the East side of Red Hill adjacent to our properties. The impact on the community of these housing types is not always known until 2 after they are in operation. We would welcome more business for our tenants but would not want to become a free parking lot for that project nor do we believe we should pay for infrastructure costs that their impacts bring about in short order. #7 Mixed use is not viable for our properties without some very significant density allowances as we simply do not have the land area net of the j established corner uses to design a residential element that is large enough 3 in unit size and count including parking to attract a developer with the necessary expertise to do a credible job of delivering an economic produce that has existing resident support. 1 I 2 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-44 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments So what do we suggest at this point in time? Obviously the use of existing funds to complete a reasonable level of public right of way enhancement is always well advised. We would co-operate in the reduction of curb cuts and other matters. As Owners, we need to complete the development of the Red Hill Frontage by way of back fill of the current Del Taco site and the creation of two l additional pads between that site and the Exxon/Mobil/Qrcle K to the South. f The revenue streams from these developments will enhance our ability to take on other site work behind the pads and in the right of way. The Big Lots parcels will need to be back Filled and re-positioned without undue limitations on new use(s) or unfair share of onsite and offsite costs. This will help establish a stronger retail presence as a strong anchor will attract more desirable inline tenants in the shops buildings. The coming onsite and offsite costs to be born by our private ownerships need to be within affordable reason, have economic value to our tenant mix, 4 and by charged over time as we re-develop. It may well be that only a very limited Specific Plan will bear fruit at this point in time. While we cannot speak for the entire Project Area, especially for those parcels that are at considerable distance from our location and have little or not relationship to our site, we do believe that the private sector can meet most if not all of the typical public goals and objectives if we are given the time to work together on a phased plan to re-develop the sites under our control. We appreciate this opportunity to share with you some of our thoughts, concerns, and suggestions. We would appreciate that our input be made available to those who are going to be in the decision making process on the Specific Plan. Public hearing time is precious and we certainly do not want to continually address the same issues in the public forum. I One thing that we would highly recommend is that somehow the other property owners within the Specific Plan boundaries be drawn into the dialog and that the other stakeholders such as small local business owners and area residents express their input. We are a neighborhood center, our life blood is the trade and support of the local residents and business owners. Thank you again for all your considerable time and effort on behalf of this significant planning project. I Howard L. Abel 3 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-45 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response Z The commenter is addressing the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. However, the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Response 2 The concerns of the commenter are noted. The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the addition of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses to the Specific Plan area which extends from Bryan Avenue to the northeast to Walnut Avenue at the southwest. As addressed in the Program EIR, the EIR does not evaluate in site-specific development proposals, including potential residential development of the vacant parcel on the west side of Red Hill Avenue north of 1-5. The Specific Plan identifies parking requirements. As it relates to parking, Chapter 4, Land use and Development Standards, of the proposed Specific flan includes off-street parking standards for residential uses and non-residential uses; see Table 4-4. Response 3 The commenter is addressing the development standards set forth in the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. However, the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Response 4 The comments and concerns of the commenter regarding the proposed Specific Plan are noted and will be provided to City decision-makers. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-46 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-10 Jerry Marcil February 5, 2018 Comment Letter C-10 Demkowicx,Erica i From: Gerald Marcil <jerrnarcil@aol.corn> Sent.- Monday,February 05,2018 1:51 PM To: Demkowicx,Erica Cc: tarahelang@Yahoo.com;David Delgado Subject: CEQA Red Hili Avenue i To: Tustin Planning Dept. From:Jerry Marcil Re:CEQA Red Hill Avenue Dear City Planner, own the property at 14445 Red Hill Ave(Waterstone Garden Apts)and 14251-351 Browning Ave (Rancho Sierra Vista) a total of 117 apt. units. I am stunned you want to put another 500 units into this neighborhood.This is already a densely populated corridor with plenty of traffic. Five hundred more units next door means 1,800 more people(500x 3.6 people per unit assuming 2 BDM units). There is no way that adding that many people to this neighborhood is going to increase the quality of life of the people already living there. It just means more cars,more noise, more pollution, more people in the schools and parks. I am speaking on behalf of myself and my 400 tenants. Best,Jerry Marcil 310-791-2000 cc: Tarah Lang, David Delgado i i I I I i 1 i I Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-47 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 As addressed in Section 4.10, Population and Housing, of the Program EIR, the City has an average household size of 3.04 persons(Department of Finance,2017). Assuming 3.04 persons per dwelling unit, the Specific Plan has the potential to generate 1,520 residents at buildout. The estimated population increase of 1,520 new residents is within the forecasted population increase by the Southern California Association of Governments for the City of Tustin of 5,700 residents between 2012 and 2040(see Program EIR Table 4.10-1) and would represent approximately 26.6 percent of the expected growth. It is anticipated that the implementation of the Specific Plan would occur over a multi-year timeframe based upon market conditions. For analysis purposes,the Program EIR assumes a buildout year of 2035.. The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the introduction of additional residential and non-residential development to the Specific Plan area, including the issues noted by the commenter:traffic, air quality,schools, and parks. With respect to these issues, mitigation is provided to mitigate impacts to the degree feasible. The Program EIR finds that traffic and air quality impacts would have significant unavoidable impacts. Impacts to schools and parks would be less than significant. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-48 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-11 Tim MCC February 23, 2018 Comment Letter C-11 From:Tim Mcc fmailto:timarteffect@tima I comZ Sent:Thursday,February 22,2018 7:24 PM To:Demkowicz,Erica Cc:Reekstin, Scott Subject:Re:RE; Public Comment-Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Yes,I will. The pamphlets t had gotten in the past were just what you all had the workshop for,understandable.But I wrote that comment beforehand,and the must recent invitation to the center did not have the diagram attached,i was not aware that the:areas aside from the street were discussed Tuesday,the verbage led me to believe it was the very much larger zone off oFbarranca Warner leading towards edinger. The other thing I picked up was,that your presentation had much to do% ith the housiu-and rchuilding of the 3 t acre lot by the church lot and going back, vas agalcl� discussed.I hope for the best! Bottom line is that my poi'of the ait base vias that 112 was consc:ry ed,E ith the residential outweighing the major commercial lots.Perfeci placing. I didn't stand up to say it.but was~till interested to just listen. Nly reference as to why my..ratio"WLLi 4t good one,is the M,:LV my llonic town by the beach overdid residential in a sinali arca ttiy ti points and gingen,vest in Huntington Beach.Also in foo ntain galley the Citi,must ha�o laid in on commcting that land for the nt� 40 foot hi,-Th industrial %work,which is a bi+wager to succeed,next to newhopc- My final inquiry would have hee11 to l]tiliz,:less space for commercial in Clic air ticld_and get technical and labor ma,-e with small lots of shops in a rov.,«'illing small business owners can lmndlc it,rcpc:ir shops. furniture,landscaping, taw ottices,ctc.(11c;cause.41 on your slideshWA Ncas options and shopping ease)essential t rt�t c ei Its lttxw•y to 100"6 OF Middle rl::= r4m::rica and still, l say ol'tlic"new"middle class.Pay it ca sed iiOrwurd". E'hr rcasoniiw is what is important to this p.cneralion is what they learned and will pass on,to survive 1 and live what they n crc Promised by hard a ork alone.. I have to support small businesses above all,the way our economy is moving t0rwai-d. Thanks again. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-49 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The opinions of the commenter are noted. However,the comments do not raise any environmental issues and thus do not constitute a comment under CEClA to which a response must be provided. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-50 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-12 Qantas Corman March 7, 2018 Comment Letter C-12 From:Qantas Carman[mailto:gantascorman@hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, March 07,2018 10:40 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject:Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Ms.Demkowicx, I was at the Red Hill Specific Plan workshop a couple weeks ago,I don't know if you are still taking comments but,if so, mine is as follows: I live close to Red Hill,not in the plan area but I drive through there a few times a day and shop at a variety of stores within the plan area.I'm excited to see effort being made to improve the area,it has great potential for Tustin.I'm in 1 real-estate development and I've seen the benefit of allowing greater density on a site.The increased density gives a property owner a financial incentive to improve their site through some form of redevelopment.Adding residential as an option for mixed-use is excellent at complimenting the retail.If the vacant site at 13841 Red Hill and the large,older shopping center across the street are developed then that will be a catalyst for additional improvements within the area.Keep up the great work! Qantas Corman 4340 Von Karman,Suite 110 Newport Beach CA 92660 949-325-3025 1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-51 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter's support for the Project is noted. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-52 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-13 Susan ElCenberg February 6, 2018. Comment Letter C-13 From:Susan Eilenberg[mailto:susan_ei@pacbell,net] Sent:Tuesday,February 06,2018 6:54 PM To:Demkowicz,Erica Subject:RE:RE; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Update Hi Erica, It was a pleasure talking with you today at the City Hall when I popped in! Thank you so much for taking the time to share the very good intentions of Tustin to plan and help make our ugly Red Hill corridor more attractive. You clearly know your subject and make me feel better that the intentionality of this plan is to encourage investment and Improve the area. 1 if the city is able to show some of the developers proposed designs,I'd sure like to see some at the Feb 20"' workshop. A picture is worth a 1040 words. Regards, Susan Eilenberg 14102 Woodlawn Ave Tustin,CA 92780 From:Demkowicz,Erica(mailto:EDemkowicz@tustinca.orel Sent:Thursday,February 1,2018 3:55 PM To:Demkowicz,Erica cEDemkowicz@)tustlnca.ore> Cc:Binsack,Elizabeth aEBinsackCDtustinca.orp;Willkom,Justina<1WiIIkom o@tustinca.or2n;Reekstin,Scott <SReekstin@tustinca.ore> Subject:RE;Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Update Please find the attached Notice of Availability(NDA)for the Red Hill Avenue Final Draft Environmental Impact Report and information regarding Community Workshop#3 that will be held on February 20,201.8. Regards, Erica.H.Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin•Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714)573.3127 ed emko w lc z_@tu stI nca.org t Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-53 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter notes that it is the intent of the Specific Plan to improve the attractiveness of the Specific Plan area to encourage investment and improve the area. The opinions of the commenter are noted. No further response is required. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-54 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-14 WTM Tustin Investors and Lake Union Investors M. Katherine Jenson, Rutan &Tucker March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-14 R U TA N At.Kadwrinc.lcnzan r Direct Dial:(714)641-3313 RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP E-mail:t:il'nson1furutan.com March 10,2018 VIA F,-NIAIL AND FEDERAL.FIXPRESS Nlayw Al'Murray and Chairman Ryder Smith and HDnnl':lhlc. cmbL:rs of the City Council Honorable Mernbers of the Planning Commission City oi'Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Tustin,CA 92780 E-mail: CltyCouncll(i;:tustinca.org E-mail: cityclerk(utustinca.org Erica Demkowicz.Senior Planner City of 1Tw'tin 301)Centcnitiai Way Tustin,CA 92780 E-mail:edemkowicaaltustinca.org Re: Red Hill Avenue Snecific Plan Dear Mayor Murray,Chairman Smith,Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and Ms.Demkowicz: Rutan&Tucker, LLP represents WTM Tustin Investors, LP,and Lake Union Investors, LP, with regard to their property interests located at 13852 Red Hill Avenue, in Tustin. Specifically, Rutan has been requested to submit these comments and questions regarding the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan("Specific Plan")and its potential effects on our clients' property interests. The owners of the adjacent properties located at 13742, 13801 13822, 13872 Red Hill Avenue and 1571 EI Camino Real, Mayflower Properties, L.P., and Howard L. Abel, Trustee of the Howard L.Abel Family Trust,have asked to join in the comments contained in this letter. Together,the property owners are referred to in this letter as the"Property Owners"or the "Owners," In a nutshell,while the Properly Owners applaud the City's effort to enhance the Red Hill Avenue corridor's aesthetics and acccssihi I it,,. the Owners are greatly concerned that the Specific Plan will (1) create uncertainty as to what will be expected, of whom, and when; and (2) overburden any private voluntary effor;to upgrade the commercial businesses on the�, est side of Red Hill Avenue between EI Camino Kcal and San,Tuan Street. The 01�-neia arc concerned that the Specific Plan,as drafted,may actually impede the goal n[iiupro�i11'tier shopping-dining and commercial services options for Tustin iesideats. T)w()wneis ha%e a l csted inteicst in advancing Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714-641-5100 1 Fax 714.546-9035 119,018N3&UD}1 Orange County I Pala Alto I www rutan cam 12flW7.IR 110316,IN Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-55 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation. Section 3.6 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner March 1 b,2018 Page 2 that goal and are concerned that approval of the Specific Plan,as drafted,will trigger burdensome and infeasible on-site and off-site improvements. The following are the Owners'primary concerns,questions,and comments at this juncture. 1. What Level of improvementsfUpgrades to Existing Structures Will Trigger Application Of The Specific Plan Requirements." The Specific Plan attempts to describe vv hat will trigger its application in several sections. The descriptions are unclear and incon,istent- Oil pa�_,c 4-1,it states that the new standards"shall apply to all rle • development, including additions to buildings, and changes in use....'" "New development"and"changes of use"are not defined in the document. On page 5-I,the Specific Plan states that the new design Criteria will be utilized during the City's design review process, and that the Design Criteria apply to all parcels within the Specific Plan area. The following page(page 5-2)attempts to define projects that are subject to design review. It states that"at a minimum"this includes new construction, 7.oninlg applications that"affect"existing exterior elevations,"exterior remodels,""new signage,"any"change in use and/or classification of use of an existing tenant space,"or"any change 1n the intensification of use of an existing tenant space." Again,no definitions are provided. Adcliti)Bally,thi,ile,cription of design review differs from the scope of design review described in Section 9272 of the City's Code,which applies to"the issuance of any building permit, includim, ne« structures or major e-rmerivr alterations or enlargement of existing structures." (Emph.add.) In the section on "donee?ntorlilrn,­ l;,es. Structures, and Parcels on page 4-291, the Specific Plan prnvides vet another different description ot'v hen the ne« sran&lyds n ould apply to existing structures- It 1i,ts the triggering requirements a�,,"nc��r construcii(m.'a"coning application that atIect5 the exterior elevation,"a"Cliallge in use.' and 2111"Cxpansloll or nevi dc�elopnlent." it then retercnces Section 0273 of the('it 's('ode for",peciSic,tandards and prop;i,u lis," However, the description Moes not track the City('ode,,, uch allnn,for certain changes in use,provided the new use is in the same lir a more resuictive classification. The City Code also provides certain exemptions when nonconformity is the result of right-of-way acquisitions. How will that affect properties that must provide additional road right-of-way under the terms of the Specific Plan? Cliapter 6 has an additional description of what will trigger the application of the new Specific flan standards. Pa.-e 6-1 says that existing uses"~hall be permitted to continue and need not cornpl} with the new standards"suhicct to cowpliance lith City Code Section 9273. It goes oil lir ,civ that, when "land uses intensi!'} or chamn_,Q, c.ri,ling structures are modified, additional 1 Thi,paragraph also contains a typographical error. The reference to 5.3.1 should be 5.1.3. 1 f 92118X3 K.W-;t 1-'t1rd1TJM 19111:16!'I% Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-56 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor A]Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners, Erica Dcmkowicz. SeltiO[-Planner March 16,2018 Page 3 square footage or new development is proposed,confortnance with regulations and design criteria outlined in this Specific Plan will be required." It subsequently refers to findings that h:t�r to he made for"new development projects." (Pages 6-5 to 6-6.) The Owners request 1tyo thing. (1) that there he a single, consistent description of what Nile of Cie,clopment projccl v,i11 tritggcr the application of the new requirements;and(2)that the City make it Clear tial tenant intprayerntnts curd minor building modifications necessary for re- tenanting an exiting building for a permitted use do not trigger application ofthe new standards. In such situation~, tilt building is not heing enl:ugcei- unci the nsrs ;tee 'within the ~cope of the existing W1[hout this Clariiication, re-tenanting existing buildings will be cast prohibitive. This n ill ICad to buildings remaining vacant, attracting, �,andah.,,m and resulting in disrepair and blight- Vacant buildings produce nothing for the('ity• its residents or the Owners. If, when tenants vac:ue, buildings cannot be efficiently rcoccupicd«[th simple m er-the-counter building perrtiits forcxtenor and interior tenant improv Crnent,,the effect �yill he tite direet opposite of what the City is trying to achieve with this Specific Plan. 2. Excessive Landscape Coverage Requirements Currently,the City's Zoning Code requires that 5%of the parking area be landscaped. This is typical. The Specific Plan requires that 10% of the gross lot size be landscaped. If new develop[ttent were proposed oft my clients'site,or even a simple fagade remodel of the e.risting bui Id i iig,this requirement would translate into more than 10,008 sq. ft.of landscaping(10 3;,of the 100,OSS gross lot sq- ft-). Applying the City's current requirements to that Same property results in a requirement of nrlly 3,158 sq. ft.of landscaping 0"/',of the 63,174 sq. ft. of parking area?. As proposed, this is well over a 300% increase in landscape coverage requirements. Additionally, the Specific Pian calculation must also be based upon the gross lot size, and landscape within the required 1,K toot park«ay is not to be counted towards meeting the 10% requirement, tty clients Itavt extensive experience tvitlt derzl rpntettt and ownership of shopping. centers a ithirt f'alitixnia,and have never been subject to land-scape rtfquire[nents as high as what is pt'c�puhed here. fiiven the droualit and onnoin g maintenance costs,such a Jra a3c increase in the landscaping coverage requirement i,excessk e. Moreover,given rile numerous additional space- consumina requirements of the Specific Plan,the propoNcd increase is cic:irlG unreasonable. The Property Owners request that the percentage requirement be dropped, and that the calculation be based upon the size of the parking area rather than the gross lot size. 3. Drive-Thru Restaurants The proposed u catrnent of drive-thru restaurants and drive-thru uses is incomplete and the policies are internally inconsistent. The policies do not rcticct the desires of Tustin's residents. Table 4-1 on pa_=c 4-5 has no letter in column two, next to the Drive-Thru category of land uses. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-57 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Plattner March 16,2018 Page 4 All other uses are either marked as P-Permitted or C-Conditionally Permitted. We request that a"P"be placed in column two,next to the Drive-Thru category. Page 5-24 states that "a proliferation of drive thru businesses is not encouraged in the Specific Plan area." What does this mean? Given the existing approved uses, what areas is this "discouragement"intended to covet'? What is the rationale f'or attempting to limit them,provided that their operation does not impede traffic flow'? In my clients'meeting with City Staff,the issue was explained as a need to reduce curb cuts. That can certainly be accomplished without essentially banning drive-thru facilities. Such businesses are only proposed in areas where consumer demand is present. Drive-thru restaurants and business provide convenience and variety to cutitoincrs. 4. Height Limitation oil l,igftt Poles Given that the overall "Mixed-[;se'dcsi-nation conskts of both Commercial/ptT'tce and Mixed-Usc comlmncrtt, (per p.t4e 3-31, it is ,,ornewhat unclear whether certain of the standards identiticd for"i�iixcd[:.tie" to tradilionA Commercial shopping centers. Forexample, it k unclear v,hether the standards contained in 1.4.3 staring on page 4-15 are intended to cover both components of the Mfixed-Utie designation. This should be clarified. If the intention is to apply the standard to commercial shopping centers, the Property Owners must object to item I O.a ji),which would 1 imit The height of such poles to 16 feet. Currently,the poles throughout the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center are 30 feet in height. Three time:as many poles would be required if the height�krere limited to 16 feet. This would be both expensive and unsightly. We are assuming that the lower heights were intended just for true Mixed Use projects, but would like that confirmed. S. Undergrounding Overhead Utility Lines On page 3-35,there is a reference to the overhead utility lines along Red Hill Avenue being undergrounded "as part of future development." Unlike several of the other requirements, the Specific Plan docs not state who would be responsible for this undergrounding or under what circumstances the undcrgrounding would be completed. In a meeting with City Staff,the Owners were told that there is 5497,791 in the City's Rule20A funds earmarked for this undergrounding project. These Ru1cNA funds were assumed in the recent fee calculations Staff used to determine the deposit amount required to be paid by Del Taco, as part of its new building development.to cover its share of the undergrounding and future signal modifications. The Owncrs du not\�ish to unfairly bear the burden of this obligation. This needs to be clarified,and the Rule-20A funds and the established pro rata calculations should be inchtded in the Spccitic Plan. HIM)1 1.00140,11 I_0 r--ts 1 a03:I W to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-58 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3,0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members, Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning C'ontmissioners Erica Dcmko�rvicz.Senior Planner March 16,20 1 R Page S 6. Parking The Specific Plan indicates that each parcel must be self-parked. For larger shopping centers with multiple parcels,such as those that exist on the east side of Red H ill Avenue,parking requirements arc typically satisfied through dee use cif' Reciprocal Easement Agreements f"RI-As"). This stakes sense since the goal is to encourag-c customers to visit as malty bu,incsscs as possible during a single stop. We request that the text of the Specific plan expressly :tcknea�vled e and permit the otic of REAS to bridge parcel,together for reciprocal parking,. In addition, it must be rementhcred that space is finite, and imposing requirement upon requirement is a zero-,um tiaine- Land used for landscaping and right-of-way cannot be used for parking. Gi Ctl than the City�%ould like to acquire an additional 14 feet along Red Hill Avenue at some point in the titan;,my like assurances that,pursuant to Tustin Municipal Code Section 9273(1). if'p:nkin_ ,paces are lost, the resulting parking condition will he considered exempt from the City's nonconforming use regulations. 7. Permitted Land Uses As noted above,because 'Nli:xed Use- is used to describe all the private property within the specific plan,my clients would like assurance that freestanding retail will remain a permitted land use in this area, and the buildin,,), within the shopping center on the east side of Red Hill Avenue will not become non-conforming uses, We nate that grocery stores are not expressly identified in Table 4-1. We request that you Make them a perimited use. 8. Public Improvements and Dedications On page 3-7,there is a reference to"dedications"as"development projects are processed to obtain the full 120-foot right-of-way." We would like clarification that simply re-tenanting an existing structure with standard tenant improvements will not trigger this obligation. In addition,we would like assurances that the referenced traffic signal will be the obligation of the new residential development. What is the"new private development'(page 3-20)that will have to install(or bond)for sidewalks and ne%% landscape improvements between the property line and the curb? Again,this obligation tihuuld not he triggered by the reoccupation of an existing building. i l• .�•�Y;Kass�i; Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-59 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor AI Munay and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and I lonotahle Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowic7,Senior Planner March 16,201 R Paue 6 A water line upgrade from 6"to 12" i, ,hm%n along the portion of Red H i I I Avenue in front of my clients'property on Exhibit 3-1 ' on page 3-36. Please confirm that the responsibility for this upgrade will rest with the residential developer. 9. Existing Shopping Center Agreements and Tong Term Leases When the Ow hers of the Red Hill Plaza shopping center purchased their interests, they acgt.lirCd the 111'013cl-ty Nllbjec[to the Cxititiiii,,hopping center CC&Rs,easenientsand leases. These doeumenl,,ire legal in,lrunlcnl,��hich arc recorded on the property and dictate how the property can he used, whCrc dCClnpmCm can occur and what types of tenant uses can take place- Tile recorded('('&Rs on this,hopping center are perpetual in nature and all of the henetit,, rights and restrictions tailed for in the documents have been conveyed to the neighboring thvners and the shopping center tenants though guarantees in their leases,all of which are staggered and lolirg,term in nature. The new Specific Plan requires all property within the plan to become Mixed however,the recorded CC&Rs and long term leases on this; property prohibit any kind of mixed use development from occurring. This puts the Owners in a bind- On one hand, tilcy are not permitted to develop mixed use on site due to the: loo,term raetm-ded C:C&R document~. On the other hand, the Specific Plan renders their existing buildings as legally non-conforming and triggers exactions and cost burdens that make it infeasible for the M ner, w simply remodel a storefront or re-tenant an empty unit. It does not appear that any of the ioQordecl C C&R burdens upon the land or the long tern nature of the tenant leases were taken into ae:count in the draftng of this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan,rather than pronlotin g im es[nlent ill rhe Community,is so restrictive with the existing uses that it will prn cur rbc C}«hers ti-e7m ins esling in their assest and actually„to the contrary,promote v acancies and additional hli Ilit. This i,ilot}ust an issue for the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center- These underlying issues are pertinent to all of'tile shopping centers included within the Specific Plan area. 10.Concerns Regarding Residential Development on north Side of Ree! Hill Avenue The parking requirements for the proposed residential uses at this location appear low. There is a serious concern that the shopping center parking area will hG used by residents, particularly if„mid-block traffic,i;+nal is iiistalled- Parking at Red Hill Plaza i, l'or]he exclusive UAC Of customers olll\,- MA t0l o, �rilight parking,and is subject to tow. My clients lm c had this s,uc at +tlrer hn,per;ic., anei a 11CC0111e a nuis:utcC fol'flu;otti'ners of the prnlierty, us well as for the C itV 1+111) ultln,at�l\ I.'C,,k e, the majority of the towed car complaint,. What can be done to present this floral flappenln;z., Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-60 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.6 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable:City Coutic iI Ni embers Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 7 11. Miscellaneous Clarifications • Please confirm that the General Development Standards starting mid-way down on page 4-15 and through page 4-19 are for mixed use projects only. • The heading and land use type descriptinns art Tahlc 4-4 on page 4-21 are unclear. Can you confirm whether the 'Noii-Residential" iti tntendecl to incluikc Co1Tin3crcial development that is not part of a mixed-usc proj"C"' We appreciate [he opportunity to comment on the Specific Plan and we thank staff for taking (lie time to meet ro di"cuss this matter. If possible. we would like to schedule a further meet inv to discuss the concerns eNpresscd in this letter. Please not iti both me and my clients of all tupconima lticarings and actions regarding the Specific Plan. Very truly yours, RUTAN&TUCKER.LLP M.Katherine Jenson MKJ:Ir cc: Tom O'Meara(via a-mail) Mick Mcldrum(vial e-mail) Hovvwd Abel(via c-mail) David L. Kcndig,City Attorney(via c-mai1: dkendig@wss-law.com) L 1•.'kF I SS3 N�1@3 t i`ItoT.m 11915 If IN Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-61 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response The commenter asks for clarification and consideration of modifications of proposed development standards set forth in the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. These comments and questions are forwarded to the City's decision-makers for their consideration. However,the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-62 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 4.0 City of Tustin Native American Tribal Consultation 4 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CONSULTATION On February 6, 2018, Andrew Salas, Chairman, of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation, requested consultation with the City of Tustin on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project, in accordance with both Senate Bill (SB) 18 (CGIifornio Government Code§ 65352.3) and Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014). The City of Tustin entered into consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation and participated in a conference call on March 7, 2018. The following individuals participated in the call: Andrew Salas, Chairman, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation Dana Ogden, City of Tustin Erica Demkowicz, City of Tustin Scott Reekstin, City of Tustin Dana C. Privitt, AICP, Consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates No tribal cultural places or tribal cultural resources were identified by Mr. Salas during the consultation. However, Mr. Salas noted the importance of Red Hill, a village or gathering place, located in the hillsides northeast of the Specific Plan area. Following the conference call, Mr. Salas provided the City with additional documentation including a map showing the location of the Specific Plan area in relationship to tribal cultural resources: traditional trading routes, the Kizh Gabrieleno village of Katuktu, and the red hills known by the Spanish as Cerrito de las Ranas. It is noted that these tribal cultural resources are outside of the Specific Plan area. The nearest resource, a segment of a trading route is south of Edinger Avenue and generally traverses from east-to-west. Mr. Salas requested that Native American monitoring be required. In response to this request, the City has proposed a modification to MM 4.3-1. MM 4.3-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §1.5126.4[b]13]) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3)capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or(4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. PF;aF to issuance of aRY ff2djRg 9� bWjIdiHg PeFR*5 and/9F action that wguld permit project site 4J=Au*4� (whichever uEcurs first)fe�any development projects within the Red Hill AveRbie Spee;fic at 46 CPR Part 61, Appendix A stating that tl�e applieapt has Fetained this 44vidual and are GIOKOVered. The archealogi5t shall be present at the pre grading ee4epeRee to area, all activity withiR 50 feet of the area of disEavery shall cease and the City shall be Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 4-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 4.0 City of Tustin Native American Tribal.Consultation deteFrnine if the a�chaeolegicai deposits meet the CEQA definition of histeFir=al (State 9,8 d e fY�c- a[r-rR C j-j 210999.2(b)T n x salvage,the arrhapeiegist shall pi-sproWeels shall he developed in accordance with applicable previsian5 of PRC—k-e4e,-� 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines geet;ens 15964.5 and 15126.4. if unique aFehaeoiggO4 resources shall be pFepared to the point of identification and permanent preseFVatign h those parts of the unique aFEhaeologkal resource that would be damaged or d&q44We4-4y Proor to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in depth below the Q[ existing grade, the applicantfdevelocer shall ogvide written evidence to the applicant/L.-yeloper to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipate archaeological discoveries and any archaeological requirements (e.g..—conditions of approval) that are applocable IQ the l2r!2iect. The applicantldeveloper is encouraged to conduct a field meet'ng pr4or to the start of construction actmylty wlth all constructiQn archaeological materials are encountered during ground-disturbing activities.work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed determined. If dScoyered geological resources a re found to be significant.the ar haeologist sbal etermine. in consultation with the City and any local Native American groups expressing aaam rp iate mjtjgatmoo Per CFQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3). preservation in place all be the preferred_means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical resources. Consistent with CEGA Guidelines Section 1S126.4(b)(3jLQjf it is demonstrated lbal cQnfirmed resources cannQt be avoided. the Qualified aLdjaepjQgLq shall develpla addifignal treatment mp-asurcs, such as-data recoyc4,.rgburiaI/relocatiQo.. deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources or other appropriate measures. in consultation with the imolementin 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 f r a unique archapQjogical resource a5 defoned On Section 21083.2 then the site shall be_jEeated_jn accordance with-the_t2royisions of Section 21083.2, Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 4-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions 5 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined. Section 4.2,Air Quality A typographical error in the numbering of the mitigation referenced on page 4.2-16 of the Draft Program EIR. Page 4.2-16 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Therefore, implementation of MM 4.2-S4 is required to ensure a project-specific Health Risk Assessment {HRA} is conducted for future residential uses located within 500 feet of I-5. Implementation of MM 4.2-54 would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to a less than significant level. Section 4.3, Cultural Resources MM 4.3-1 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.3-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b](3)) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the state CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3)capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. jFj9, to issuance ^{ (whichever occuFs fiF4)fop any development projects within the Red H r" AveR61e SpeG 1 f r rz Plam alrea, the applicant shall PF9Vide a letter. te the CityefT6stiR Community DeveleppRent Department, 9F elesigF4ee, 49F*; a qualified pF9fe6sienal archeologist at 36 CFR Pa rt 6 1, AppeRdix A stati ng that th e applicant has retained this j;644 ia; and Fr 0 mmediately Rqtifieel. The aFEheelegist 51hall he contacted to flag the area in the field and Code food § 21083.2(g)- salvage,place or recoveFy,5alvage,and treatment of the deposits. Recovery,salvage apdtFeatment 21083.2 and State GEQA&IideliRes Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4. if URique apekaQa4)gj� Feseurces cannot be pFe5erved On place or left in an undisturbed state, reEOVeFy, Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5.1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Section S.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions -R.n.d- tr.eatm...ent �equired at the applicant's expense. All recovered @P4-&a4,� resources hall be prepared to the . p;pI+ f ' J +'{n +'. .! + � + h vn�s-a�crc�r` T cv�z rrcmcr�iz -- -..- p-z---- --.an by he a rehaeOlOgi5t shall have a repositery agreement On hand piciaF Prlsto issuance of a grading permit for grading of 2 feet or more in death below the natUral h - 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 anas-ceeded basis to address unanticipated aguroyaj) at am aD !-cable to the project. The appIkant/developer is en conduct a field meet9ng prior to the start Qf Construction activity with aLmnstruction supervisors to train staff to mdentify potential arCbaeQIogjcal resources. In JhLgmLntjhat arcbaeoIQg cal materials are encountered during ground-disturbing activities work in th immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed determined. If.discovered arrhAtnlogical resources are found to be significant. the archaeQIQgj5j_shall determine; in consultation with the Citu and anv local Native American grpups expressing 0 interest following notification by the CitV, apj2roj2r'ate avoAdance measures or other al2ortame mIt!.gatim. Per CEClA Guidelines Section 15126.4fb1(3), preservation in place shall be tbp- erred means to ayoid impacts to arclia -ological resources a Qalif)in` ,:j historical resources. Consistent with CE A_Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)f3)(C). if it is demonstrated that conformed rQsources cannot be avoided, the Qualified additional treatment measures, such as data recovery. reburial)relocation. el2osit_at_alocal museum that accepts such resources or other appropriate measure-,. i consultat 6 on with the agency and any IQcal Native Amer[can site does not aualifv as- an historical resource but meets the criteria for„a unic�u� geological_resource as defined in Section 21083.2then the site shall be treated i accordance with therp ovisiops„Qf,Section 21083.2. Section 4.8, Land Use and Planning Table 4.8-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, has been updated and incorporated into the Final El to correct policy references for COSR Policy 1.7 and to correct the reference to SC 4.4-1 as MM 4.4-1. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation mfD _ n rt n n �s n -I N a n 0 a C -n 'O _ v O -D C1 W p om] Q -CLA3 O N cn v 70 r' m N fD 'm^ C "%+ N a OC O +n vroi C N o a 3r) 0 ani n `" N `n ' Ln n 00 00 b Ln (Dd co O co D n Y7 rD fd ro n MLNM n N y C rD n v fD m v v " D '+ ° Ln rD w Q- �., furu N _Q O D1 01 fD r-r 'A') CD 6 d n p0 CD CL CD O D n ar D Co V, fD .pr T3 X n CL (b 0t0 M v _ o va N ro N 3 p m a v Z5 n a v+ 0 in 0 n N@ � D Q m d „O* � tA rDCt LA. > rD 0 p O fD p 0- c CL A rn N fR N (D y Flq ro Gi n C cr rt 4} ro CL N 4J CL 7- M 00O D CL rD N �+ rp N su rD ca 3 m -� 71 rD 61 C fD CZ. Q G fD ` in CD ` N D- a 0 '7 Q fQ [1 3 p Ln t7 n �• y cz cr crq E Ln D rDn Ln D Q " ,rD ro ry Obi + H •,fir �• Q ^� v+ (D C = rD Q rn O U] N G roC N �" -•n f11 A Ln [n r3-r Q .07 0 %� � 0 � D ro � ry n ro rD �D f0 D • fD o M m MN a H c a n CD r v rD O- p O !fib n m N "0 D. ID n LD E- 0 CD D D w n -. D aq O O O r" V n 3 rD 3 rD fD O NnrD ID Q Dffa fD n (A -0 Qyn �3ro[Z 40 11C�D C N - d � 70 m rr N - in [? n Z3 rt) o =C a 3 D ni v + m 3 n N m N p" T O ct c 6r 0o 3 h O rD•r f�D 4 v £] (D f�7 rD N Q. N �• C7 'r Q ro' Q. CC K m CL o D v L^ rD a O p ~" -- m v !i O rD 7 U- G X '•r N CL '-r 7 r0-r .p rD -0m- Q rD .p M O- 7 A u n ] ai °1 Q W n rD rIQ U H N '* ro t N 3 D � ❑ 7r 5; R rD m a °' 4 0 m rD v m D -0 rD .C1 7 pro? 'C S1q. mo p C n H Fu rD nl r. M a, ro D v * Y 7 N rD CD CL O to p rn Z) '�' tD rD D v CD O — p n � rD Q n y a I 'O -- m n ° w n a a o� ° o- o < m rD ro C CD rr 'O Oq F :E • .O O m O cu vA C r+ crD c rD w ron fU H C (,D rD rmr fu n c m n (Dro v o p V c < rD va 0-rD ° ro n - rD v rDw L6 n fD _ O 0 0 py, O r'D v X r 0. cn N ro p fD rD rD D �- 6^ D 3 In N C7 Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions Section 4.12, Recreation MM 4.12-1 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: MM 4.12-1 For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Code(Article 9,Chapter 3, R44-3-,—Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building hermits. applicants shall of budding permits—dedicate parkland or nay a nark fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The value e amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication,-.according to the following standards andjDLmuta. Standards and FQMula for Land Dedl-calLam- The public interest, convenience, health,welfare,and safety requires that three (3� ca_res of usable park land per one thousand (1.00Q) potential population be devoted to focal nark and recreatjQnal UL noses. The minimum amount sof lannd that would be otherwise be reouired QLd-edication shall per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling_.Unii_ner Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 91 3.39 .0102 7.1-15 JOD-K ILL 2.24 JO= 25.1 Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve three Mobile Home Parks 2.2A ,0067 "hese density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedicatipn rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1.000) persons. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-4 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation Exhibit C EXHIBIT C Statement of Overriding Considerations Economic A. Provides New Employment The proposed Specific Plan would provide new employment and housing opportunities within an existing, older commercial area of Tustin. During construction of private development projects within the Plan area, which is anticipated to take place over a period of years,temporary employment opportunities would be generated as construction projects will continue until expected build out in 2035. Coupled with on-going private development,the City will be making streetscape improvements, installing bike lanes and adding entry monumentation signage that supports the vision of a creating a more vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, walkable, & bike-friendly commercial-retail district. Permanent jobs would be created after private development projects are completed that includes, but is not limited to the areas of, retail-commercial, service, office and hospitality. The Specific Plan area has approximately 296,446 square feet of existing non-residential uses which include commercial, office, an institutional use and motels, as well as 21 dwelling units. The Specific Plan would add an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses and an additional 500 dwelling units,which could result in approximately 722 new employment opportunities. The Plan provides an economic engine to invigorate business within the Red Hill area by locating residential nearby. B. Stimulates the Economy The proposed Specific Plan would stimulate the local economy of the City of Tustin within the Red Hill Avenue area by bringing in revenue through sales tax associated for goods and services offered and purchased by existing and future residents within the area. The Plan would also allow and encourage a mixture of uses, including residential. The new housing in the Specific Plan area would result in a beneficial impact related to the balance of jobs and housing. An increase in non-residential uses and a[Iowa nce for mixed-use buildings would bring in revenue for the commercial-retail area within the Specific Plan area as well as in the surrounding vicinity. C. Provides New Housing With the inclusion of residential units to the area through the establishment of a new mixed land use program,additional housing units will be provided for those that will reside along and within the Red Hill Avenue corridor. The Specific Plan would add an additional 500 dwelling units,which could result in approximately 1,520 new residents. The housing would offer additional opportunities to own and/or rent in Tustin, a City which is centrally located within Orange County and easy access to the 1-5 freeway. Social A. Encourages Public Gathering& Open Spaces The Specific Plan would establish a mixed-use land use plan, development regulations, design criteria and administrative& implementation measures that further the vision,goals and objectives to redevelop the area into a pedestrian-oriented commercial-retail area. The Plan would encourage more of an urban lifestyle by placing residents near services,jobs and public transportation. The Plan would also create additional integrated public gathering and open spaces adjacent to Red Hill Avenue that would serve existing and future residents and visitors. These spaces would be immediately adjacent to the commercial-retail frontage in a flexible amenity setback that can be utilized for a variety of purposes such as wider sidewalks, outdoor seating&dining, landscaping, etc.to encourage social interaction and pedestrian activity. As properties develop redevelop over time, pedestrian-friendly linkages to surrounding parks and neighborhoods will also be provided. The inclusion of a flexible amenity setback area will create a sense of place. The revitalization effort would create a social benefit for the City and residents within the community. B. Enhances Gateway to City Red Hill Avenue,the main vehicular corridor within the Project area, does not enhance aesthetics as a person enters this portion of the City either entering or exiting the 1-5 Freeway or from other adjacent intersections in the immediate vicinity. Red Hill Avenue, dominated by automobiles, older commercial development and public transit is immediately adjacent to the 1-5 freeway and as such, lacks a sense of identity, cohesive theme or character. Gateway monumentation signage at the corners of EI Camino Real & Red Hill Avenue, at San Juan Avenue & Red Hill Avenue and within the landscaped median north of EI Camino Real are all sign entry gateways for the area. Public art beneath the 1-5 overpass, connecting the north and south portions of Red Hill Avenue is another creative opportunity that will further enhance the area. The inclusion of a new and consistent streetscape theme along the entire length of Red Hill Avenue and for new landscaped medians where they are feasible,will also add to the overall "sense of place" or identity that will further the long-term goals for commercial-retail development and revitalization within the area. The inclusion of a flexible amenity setback, as referenced above, would create a sense of arrival for motorists exiting the adjacent freeway and will reinforce the unique character of this district. Transportation&Circulation A. Provides New On-Street Bike Lanes and Buffered Sidewalks The Specific Plan would set forth a mixed use land use pian whereby residents would be in close proximity to services,jobs and public transportation. Such proximity would reduce local and regional miles traveled and therefore have a beneficial traffic impact on local arterials, collector streets and the State Highway System. On-street bike lanes and buffered sidewalks would also be added to both sides of Red Hill Avenue that will provide a designated area for cyclists and non-motorists to travel safely along the corridor and improve connectivity through the Specific Plan area and to the existing parks and schools within the vicinity. Conclusion For the reasons described above,the benefits of the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and consequently, the adverse environmental effects are considered "acceptable" in accordance with Section 15093 {c} of the State CEQA Guidelines. Exhibit D MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT S C H NO . 2017041031 Prepared for City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Prepared by Kimsey-Horn and Associates, Inc. 765 The City Drive, Suite 200 Orange, California 92868 Date July 2018 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Red Hili Avenue Specific Plan area extends along Red Hill Avenue to Bryan Avenue to the northeast, and Walnut Avenue to the southwest. Interstate 5(1-5) bisects the Specific Plan area creating the northern and southern portions of the Specific Plan. The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect General Plan policies with future project-level development within the Specific Plan area. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide future change,promote high-quality development,and implementthe community's vision for the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides goals and objectives, a land use plan, regulatory standards, Design Criteria, and administration and implementation programs to encourage high-quality development. The Specific Plan would allow for an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential development and 500 additional dwelling units. The total development in the Specific Plan area anticipated with the buildout potential of the Specific Plan is 521 dwelling units and 621,446 square feet of non-residential development, inclusive of existing and proposed uses. Red Hill Avenue would be restriped within the paved width of the street to include on-street bike lanes, reduced lane widths, turn pockets, and landscaped medians where feasible. 1.2 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor Standard Conditions (SCs) and mitigation measures (MMs) outlined in the Red Hill Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR), State Clearinghouse No. SCH NO. 2.017041031. The Red Hill Specific Plan MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Tustin Monitoring Requirements. Specifically, Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. 1 Red Hill Avenue specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Z) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. CEQA Guidelines Section 15497 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The City of Tustin is the Lead Agency for the Red Hill Specific Plan Project and is therefore responsible for ensuring the implementation of the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.5 as a fully enforceable monitoring program. The MMRP is comprised of the Mitigation Program and includes measures to implement and monitor the Mitigation Program.The MMRP defines the following foreach SC and MM identified in Table 1,Mitigation Monitoring Requirements: ■ Definition of Mitigation (SC, MM). The mitigation measure contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation. • Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated,an applicant would be the responsible party for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Tustin or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measures. To guarantee that the mitigation will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Representative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required. ■ Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation or the review of evidence that mitigation has taken place.The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact-related components of project implementation do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. The numbering system in Table 1 corresponds with the numbering system used in the EIR.The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the mitigation measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City of Tustin. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Tustin Community Development Department, Planning&Zoning Division. 2 ■ • r r r D O u' N ;El n o a rir) 55 N ❑ D ❑ C ❑ -. ] p I A cr m ro v n7 n n c c rD rD m a � iv A C rD a o Q- rD o- 0 °• oa ? ra D D a rDN N fl m '6 n C7 Q_ O rr -C 'T- c 0CL 0 rD O W w :3r-r m p ❑ o S d r+ ro tz' -m,, w f❑1 �c Cl. rD q3 2. Q r!,. '0 N S .3-r p a' " H D Cu N �' d C +� N' rt [-Ds C 1 O m O rl a N ❑_ S 3 N .-r ❑ C C• g d4 k C 7 0 CL rn-r rD 0- N N m -0 C. S rD 3 r=r "� p �. N Q. lQ ',-" W �, S •j ,rt Q 0 O 7 Q �,rD C rD O N @ m rt �. '-� .�-t n ❑ UJ O c ❑ T n r.. C'1 m 0) D rD N nN .y. n 3 co fD m v+ r* -0 Lw. p' n ti, @ Ln � A r vCL p `+ ❑ Ort �' w3 o S `�' _. C n ❑ - 0 to -a C rq 7 r-r v .+ �- N r+ ❑ N CQ 71 3 - -D (D n O, S h 4Si 73 S •C rv'r w "� * c v n D rN-r yr CQ r-r N @ ❑ ❑ '* .nv v n D C. CL CD C fl] ri 7 li, x V, ,.+ .❑-t rD ro ,C :5m m .0 va• rD v c N a m v CL C Q c o 7. ra ro o' u m v SrD ❑ a n W o u, ❑" o — 'S m r+ o m m = f° r. n c rD a = n re a S O W rD v Q -0 n ❑ w a S T ❑ v, 0 ", 3 c m n pj C fD rp r-r •p �-+ rr �. !b d n O D rnr rD L n + Da a pX (Da ❑ Q n ri)+ [i m + n r* rD :3 rD Q m N m [n N S @ d O !D -0 ,.y ❑1 a ❑ ❑ t77 ¢7 C? rD Q D v o m ro n m M rD rig c r. CCD n -O 73 c N --� rno m Km n n N w o' a v �' ro ° v a m a- ro su a r� m o — m a m V, ^ o m 0 0 -a ro 7 ❑ M r n V w n 3 a � •tet a � o (D Gl v 7 D rD � � D' j D hn pr❑q ❑ V n c a C CO 3 o ou c n Qa mi -' m a Q DO p p n �rov rD a N cn' -0 3 T3 S 4 D 73 3 r=i CD a co < 0 m Q 3 m 0 3 �. ro w � v+ a Q n � aj � a c n C 0 rD 0 N 7 D 0 DQ rD ro 0 n v Ln w rY 3 w n -° v n •r o �Q --1 N• `o ::5 C S f'7 ■ ■ ■ ■ o C- o !D C C ■ w rD @ o- �J, N '-r 0 o- -3 07 'C @ R �'. -C A r~D S N L2 h. @ f@] M N .0 rD �:,� v� 2 3 2 C" W co !D O N -sl Q p z7 -y ti, �" 1+ n rD n N ¢7 O] p @ rD V] D] v c N Cu C w 0 67 4] .ti' rrDD �'' C > N °' < c o @ C Q 0 C Q 0- n n ro to � a m @ N o @ @ 6 'f ❑ @ rD C N Q-C 7 w ❑ rF Dai r(Do vrt n� m ro v 3 N n N OC �' n O a@i rD O v 0- rp n m CD in �- n N ro .n-w O rt .-r 0] rD @ rr v N v tm A a @ rr S gS C rt @ S ro O fD- p v rD N O C � �r o @ 3 3 @ O_ ni Q Q O ' rU @ rr aEa n U @ ro K �_ @ v CT 73v v n C@ W m n n 3 o ro w ° �. p Dii `_e C c p @ p x n N r � o o ° m c R 3 Q a ci C_ Co �n o -a -0 rD N 0 fD C + - t r� : O '+ n rD rr -,. ❑ — rD CL > O �- C vi N 7 C W @ �- . � au w N oq n O n v o Co 0 rD n O Q • rD C7• =n �^ rt _O 0-�4- f'D C fDD �L fn Utz 'tl Cn p C MI @ C w m C_ C_ rD O' n ra to H -C RGA @ 7 w - 0- , O 0@ n 0 - N Lt -❑ rD mO n < O o- n S m -0 no M 'C O 0 vo r-r °' 3' rD � @ t s c rD o w rDT N �. j O rro n a p n c c e ❑ nt rte➢ m a nw r) ro N D _ m N a g o m r0 — n C 0 c =- O nr F' a W Q o Q °� M -o @ O -0 rD cn CD O !D oa ❑f C � w -O 0 @ �• vNi @ .� N O O 3 �• @ a n a0 ro ID O n c ❑ a c C d 7 @ 3 Zji CD a U- °J °' o Q@ @ ro o'v m -� "L3 131 Cu p :3 a 7 M =i a m om' rl a = o@ CL n n h 77 mm; _ O wrD0 O nn e m o a ° 0 3 3• n , N ero C 4] rn+ o ❑ rD o ❑ ❑ 0 m N 3 0 3 v O 3 O G 3 7rD — rD 7 C vi 3 g c C 67 C o m C {p C @ Q O C 0 p UQ fab OQ m O 6 00 rD o A 3 a 0'4 = 7 > C7 °" c arD m 3 °� as o � io cn D M v o - M v til n rr z 3 � -Q ro r D N a n 2 Q_ a) -• a g a s ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ D N 0 M � OO O" 1 � R 7 7 Q_ 7 Q. 'a 7 W Q 7CL @ ^' O n• rn Al V4 N u+ (o n N n (D n � n n v, v, -' c rD � fu N y :• _ 3 N rr C o ° —• r+ r+ 0 Q_ cn �• W r' 7 N 7 o, E m = C r. — a ' cn o a av o ao � N C rQo [ O N rO Q {� �` _ = O- 3 v, ro °° C as 7 O — .0 `° �s ro n ra c, vn -a m n a' 04 C "Q d -a ° a O m I rD � � n K ro Q_ a ro m o � n K 3 yr 3 ro v w rt N r�-r O n 0 : ° -C CU n• -0 da _� O _�; •C Z3 oai aG' ro Q D Ln rC� K O p fp �_• u � C y n n N oQ ro 3 N °:3 c' -0 m w v v ro v v ro w ao Ca ro rp ro o7 � D' m n � " wn m o = :3 a o n o ro ro tAw :Ed? 5 ro m ° ro 0 a CL 3• .7e n 7 3 0 ,N„ � p O cm !n0 � O 0 ❑ K �' a ro w Q- 3 (�11 — p O :3LU ( O n @ D n w �- C 04 Y O ry. 3 rD C .'"' v n m rD 65.-r ro N d4 CL L^ r+ N N ,� 7 �• N r0 7..� m v+ dq ° S -r Z- E p �, � ro as Q a a� n = ro 0) ro w as 0 0 0 a, s7 w 'a o_ — w o � sx ro 3 n ou c CD o ro Q Q to D 'r ro 0 ro 0- r+�• ro ,� v Cc N 7 C3" O O O f] �} rt vw ^L 7 C 0- y w O ❑q CM Q '� �' 4R ro H fp ro N C O O h C N o ry W rr H 7 r[1 Q re (,D+ 4 o a7 61 N 7' �• N of 0 d o� 4 (D @ ,� 0 " �• - O. rn0 0 @ 7 rte+ r-r 3 Un �_ CD m d p 7 ° uroi v@i d =aj • v 7 r7 w Ot C7 .�+ C f4 ro' G m CL Ln 7 7 II. al 7 7 ai7 w C 7 n a CL + rt 61 n (D m m Q_ Q_ n ^ ro Q_ CD N RJ Cr �' h r« q 7 a c ° a W -e n, 3 0 CL as � W• CD nt CL Q_ 7 aj (D ro ro N O 0 n 0 Uq Q_ 7 N N �' rP C a0j C Q_ w C 3 Qq O a 7 — m 6 cn Wi n ° ;b O ao ro v rr Cr 0_ c c � ,n v G� a n 0 FD [n 7 � 3 us K 47 O ^n 7 O W [] n CL p G O m 0 p a ZF -! (D M ro N ro n N C7 CD ro 0 0 N O 0 a m O ID 3FA• -0 3 s 3 m 3 0 0 3 ' 3 Nro — m • r7-r � R � � _� O Q 3 C W C ET M [p 7O C+ O 3 ElQ 7 04 rp to 0 go 7 ° +. rr r•r � 0 � v � N 3 a y 3 m rD 3 v c C 3 � Qro R 2 o d x n � ■ r =7 =5- O p � � r ■ r ■ ■ ■ a.. ro cna T r. NR n ^ a aa @C nDC C- gy d Q r+ p .0n m D 6 n N111 F' u S Q -0 Sm 3 > N N o 'ii o — r➢ 0. -0 Q. r") 'O cu Q" -h rt C v+ rt p q Gqq w r.y q U Q } �• � w 41 V1 In y '+ m 7 O_ � ar d m m VI m 0i OC- rnp Q rn y [ND cp Q 7 3 O L7 rt 3 O ro ro w O M x 0 �' ro p 0 w m O { m ru c N a a w _` a q '; p 3 a v rt a- � CL Q D c u o � rtl Qo o p m m c m 0- D rr 0 W c ° °-' 3 � N � uQ m N CS m r CL o r M v X �aj o 3' z r✓ 3 b � W arta. ruo Ln w p aq ID fD n W 97 O m p �' C 07 Ln > = N 3 N fl.. n O N a .II C m n = v O rt w W ff n w n' ._+ a�q O - r~ p fnQ N M O. _ o v ro �' 0 N Q m ro 0 ro m 3 g c 0- n O ?{. m to nr 0 r0 c o 2� rt n �, � � m m m � m a o .-, 3 Q n a C p 7 n v p o it f+. a c n m 3 vo m — n � p � -,, x• c o m x m c w m .+ rt ro '* D o ° - m Q CA ro ro o a _r r n ro v O E d rt O m 3 n �' 3 3 ❑ ' ro � S n p LA C w m 6 47 R f�-r in' m = 7 r0 �c y n ,�' C O R d �. .rt ^C m n n - �. x 4) Q as !p rp f"l p- G, n G n p Q -' n n n� 61 rp crtn r0 -C7 Q- 7 O d O N z CL CL D N R R rt 3 L11 E [� N m D = Q C m (DCL f9 �• ro v m ro ro �+ p u, c m m mo w g 3 oq ro r m x n m rrto m ro � c m m Q rb 4iC p 3' a c7 R Q K T r1 O c O rD rr R Q ami o Q x c c 4 r�o v rtr C c N `- m 3 ro O r3o rrD D � N r� v a p p �a a D m � 3 m v m o m `a' � o 'b In S Sv m Ln. U) 7 "O M m n � 3 m vQ D O ro O �D 2. - 3 v jfl] 3 3 v 3 S c' < a p p 4 p c 0 Zi. ro sz °p z _ w _ N a D d V ro v = n ° o 3 ❑ Q nn m p � � _ � 7 o w rr s g U- - N v -0 cu W Z z w n Q'D o 0- Cl n g LO o rr ti Cf, n S rr � �_ CO' m n CD w ❑ m p -� v, c ,,,; ro n rD Lrl0 n G 0 � nr y�j U, ,� a tD 7. "❑ m nj n C rt [ cn D S •• A Q m .+ ro fo r e 41 m m G' ro Q Ln ro 7 7 ❑ A W -0 ro -0 ❑ a S ❑ d ❑ ❑ W n (D rD N ri o rt� 7 D 1 N a7 b rD °• vvc fl c ro N via °a a o `:' 3 > ro r'e n 0 CL Cu rD o ° m o, n r- � a n �+ CL m N m nci jrD �_ [0 �• D _r cn e 4 a) m ❑ a m Q ;tea a rD --3 rr w n C n rD O 3 @ m ajj h• 7 aj rl n - — ? D f%j lJ`I �• R O f% p 4l'1 rt M CD [A CL C a- a O �, m C m CD S D ro D G �' ± fD n fir.. a m Wr m ro x O 0 .0 -❑ cwr, rn � � 7` ro Ln C W rD c- � vrD w m, rD � vros N Sn n rD n• to r1 rvr_-r, d d n rt �"U 6 r�D ��n aj V D ou w ,Y � .* D ;: fr '^ O ❑ ro •D D CL W J CD :° , n S 73 � ro �• N rt w• ° fD'7 ami d r=o d CL @ Q '• vv ❑ o c 6 - i s m m ° o v 3 m a �" (Dd CA a N o Op fl7 7 fiIrQ '� C m w j (D N r+ K n n b w O Gia (p n rD•r :3 m m 3• 4v rD a- ❑ = F/V _ ,-r � m 7 (M c (D ra n, D_ D n n :-r rt m Z, r�-r m N' p ❑ O v m Q .01+, CT rD CL (D ,m,* m x (' -a ❑ a rD m an �, n �, w m n N a D- �, G c o aj M - to "� ,n o n m a D C C7 ro o a ro n a m w - '+ fD c 0' � ro 3 a ro m rr rtj n C m c �. rt a m �. ¢s m H v m n m n Cr 7 m .� ,-►• D_ r V, u a — �_^ ro n in re pmq m Zj r {mp v ❑ s CL p m C @ a °—' n v in o `r s 0 a D_ � � � ru v u, rD A p m � rD a C O d C � D �. y F' CLLnCD m S m w my m m C 0 tD n °; a m w rr m Lrs ro s �• n Q tZ -, n in o ro v C 77 Q =r n o ❑ m m m o F ❑ C ro m ro �* a m , s CG -❑ C Ut w m N W In n rD � p In Vl r-r 3 ro �• O 00 v ro ro C •„ N n' f+ m Cn m ❑ w n ro a , N y, O Q N t9 ❑ c ro ro m m �n nn ❑ m � c ❑ rt 3 s w 3 Ln G m 0 m nj m Y C ro , m D_ '+ 3 Vy S1j m m ai 0 � e O _ N Q r* ro N N S' @ [r m m W ro G) m 01 �, — � �0- W _ �t � fy 99 D CZ N � � ❑ � N O � '� W .Dw =c, fCp (D. � n � d rmr N 3O f0 n0 (D 7 fy ❑- 3 N ❑ S D O in p� w v rj• p ^ N d "D = !: N D '� [j fo m m w Cl. C w to �, p M in d fl fl m ❑ m w crt rte* D D v rD t3 n D.. m rD G rD j D C r+ Q w O w n O nr 7 n. D_ L2'❑ t pn C _� cin =' =i m 7 � Q ❑C n j' CID D- w D_ cn•rD m d D_ n D ,rt D `^ 73 zi- m O N v m ro ro rD p (D Dro a m CD OL D_ m v ❑ m � 3 z a p n ro z o z z v p CD rt y n y N v 5 m 3 w (p rr rD w n' crop Z 3 v CD m a s �, n L3 Q m ro w w M a CDCL m 3 v d M v cr G7 m D. _ o CCD . 7 3 (� � 9) iq 6t7 v h .'t7 a L1. 7r N Zn CD A O rl 0 G wrD m m D_ 3 n ro Q c 3 v w 3 w 0 ej ro v o N n ,mm+ Cm f0 7 V fD D_ �- O p p0 CL fl Q av wQ g m -' CL. m w '+ a a v Z _ 3• n C �. O M N ao © va o Qn �j 3 nj 3 �• 3 �a uv 3 0 3 uv 3 0 0 3 3 3 a 3 v, m (D (D Y D ro o I fl as 73C pp C C O sv Dj m C [➢ pj ro v O E ❑ _ ❑ -. 3 3 a 3 3' 3 ? 0 M m m fD O j Qa D 7 SZa n 3. M. m D CL au aj = In C a p (0 m 3 a c CD O p as rD `�• Pp O � w 3 zi G) 4] > a) 7 •O Q v m Ln @ n � �* � vmi n n @ � fo ❑ � � n O.. C C � G C 3 d S @ 4 O S o co Q -o rj s N N m "a ro ET M rD Qjwal CCL @ 'C vii 3 c3 m @ n v❑i ro. �. cD p fu @ �. C F+ _ rr w O '^ 7 7 H 6 -i v@i ❑ CO �-r = Q rD rt N `^ rar O .y W n 'Ja n nni O p rD m r7 O r. rO C p [' O .+ O fu o aj O.. rD •'' 75' m ai S us d ❑ •c�S n m m0 m Q4 m ai n r a rn m 0 cn n o @ m y O p y TS p G 1-e m rD @ p QQ M d @ rD �+,. N �n Dp n La v cn 0- ❑ O 'r r+ Ch �n N �• O i o 3 rt cu o = 'a 3 = ° � W :3 o 0 3 v n w oa m @ 3 gyro N n ,C `7 3 q- Q rn ry rs p@ H "°7' O- aj r-r O Q O j' m @ R C2. �` W rD ^� 0 Ln en cw fD. m ❑ O a m O• c`i� On 3 m H N �y a� .•.Y to N 7 ❑ m N rr ❑ 3 �. O Mm O_ C d v m 0 Off,} 0 a O rD n n. N@ `��'. .Ne• H `" v :3 c c r+ p n p@ v c Ct 3 L--: n d C D v n M (D ❑ 4 @ m cmn 'Y fop 61 N rD n m S Q C n1 F-+ S ,. q 3 � C in n r' C @ rt ^w U1 m p Q O� O ��r -+, CCD �E � O: C @ (D m 3 N OO � rD CD n i r„ 3 t n -0 v m + n o w O 00 @ 21 C C 3 m O @ mO =!. d S ❑ CL fD @ ZY 7 Cl 55- p © '0, ° 3 � n: 3 r a CD m ri o .+co rD rD rD rj m M rD G 19 m NC 7' m m ,� N w C 0 N o 0 a m n v G rD a r'� W 0 x w w Q@ -' m ❑ 3 R C 0i Q n' !� n N @ O N v 3 n o ( R n c, r+ m CD 3 °' aQ rrDD oa 3 m n -0 ro o a, 3 3 N nT 0 3 � Q � 7 ❑ 7C 7 d �C U, G .� r rD@ � a � 3 c7• n ro � Q 3 rn an n N N a 4 N � 0'q pl o 6 3 7 O 3 ry �r O 3 Da � d Q. r7 rD N T3 e ° ro rD cn m C ro -0 CO oo G) 4n Z] cL 3 -0 w z-, J v 0--c rS O W � d ry .a a h m M C CD n r-r - ,v • cll rD d -d C rD rD w 3' C-) _2 .Fa v n C m w S - D n ru -a n m O es o W a ? p 3 c c o ° m c ro m ro g o {' D C) a fa � v .. G1 3 Q d uw p ro rt z � d cu or a o x rna' C w ° ro M CL c w s ° o o .a a 0 3 0 cs a '�° ° uu o ro a W- a ro ° 3 v d a �' - < w 0 o 3 L w w O 3 7 p v m a a r _ d o' n v n rD , N a r0 a - ❑ f0 0 N w rD-0 Cr rdu c 't � � d_ �' :3 0 cn H m a d n p fn1 n _d O" 6 rD N Cb �" �^ `D 7 O G Wa rD N 'D 0 'C O 3 rrDD C N Cid m d 3 d a ro O "D � rrDD W w rEF ? cm D N fz a O ,�' '-+ Q "• O Q 47 j N n rD K. 3 - O p C. N 437 `C !CD w j f1U = 7 ^' 3 !D O w '""' w d 6 4r O C fD a7 7 C Q_ Q QrD n w ro -i (DD � r^ G4 n m w a v n rt fD cL o n A io cR n _ cdi� d m S 0 a � O O p p �Ln M n ''* p �. 3 a� Op (D ro in C C 7 "'[ J fD Z�. CL � en-k 'C Ona OQ 7 Q o : w -c o p rD ❑ :±-D a r o 0- o w D a CD M o �, v a c n rD e �, ra S w CL ro n m p ro Z7 .s O = - On rryo !p 2 O Q -a p 0'q O O w tD W O ryn H n !0 ,w.' rD cmn n, 7 +n rw-r 7 t0 O .•i N 3 �` f 1 O d a rb a rD •C v a W C N ❑ - -0 vii YJrt a rD— C `C nl mr+ rD R N �' N y �' 7 Q d S ,C � '-r d R '-. O w w CD 7C @ n rD m 7 N N 'd 4�i 'a 77 c] �. -a v 'a 3 m N M �• ID n rD 41 l=-r tV w 3 = 16 M. n H C1 d p > rr aq a � K a � o c v fp �. i N a w M v w n C v + Q 7 Q CL Q fD rD 4- -a d r' N @ n w O w a 0 a V, .� rrb O n -i rrDD h O� D p d Q 7 =+ M fD h Q fD m L'1 �• a+ m cm N to 4di wwr 3 d_.. 3 3 w Gl -0 N 0 :3 "a d w � a d rD m fD 61 i�-F D CL p d ur 7 'r y ^ Q D a D O � O m C• rs 3 w w w O O �. 3 flq � 3 3 3 7m CD 0 3 6 C F' C7 W C d p C Q w G rD p7 fD Q• Q O d O ❑ d 3 j' Oq rD = M ❑ � Q w i9 ❑ - a n zi 20 d fD w 0 v n -0 n 0 -o CD 0 d v v � v €v n3i n -- v m❑ ❑ c�oa O f7 s CL m m ai n m w ° Ta D '7 3 3 rD v n 'A n) 0 c o -a !' yam, -y o v m 3 v m m = m n m °7 as N n0 --r 7 D 6] CL r�r of Z 3 �^ rD ❑ r=F C n Q W ¢J M rr a? N _ rD oj :3 _ 0W �-, fD a+ cn, ❑- D v �, [�' m N CL ro m rD N v r+ H V n CL r+ •�* -G fro r-r ", a ' r-r CL n• C mu a m (m Ort r+ � N m C m Ai ^� O7 rr fD C • m m ❑ v m G.. 7 Q [CD a' '"1 v CL Nc ;a rnr —N N O vi — n rmr C �y Cl c � a O T] m m 7 r" cr as + 0 D D W �. rro C a °' 3 n r r , n n rD CL �, n n 3 s 0 ex rD �•A a N O =r M- r❑+ O ❑ � 7 °—' n D p� fyD [nG � = 7 W a 0 CLu ro v W n ro « _ v n' o ❑ @ n ¢ [� n m N N ro n a' m o CL Z3 r*. n � 3 c+ rD _ ns c a o D ro o _ d N ❑ C 3 C o �' 3 m �. 3 3 ° a + N n a D p i m a n CZ CL O m Q- N ❑ Dt7 ri 3 v ❑ _ c C y 3 mo �+ m 7` [D r° o rt 3 u r7 n �a m a -D a n, E m w 3 c � c CD 3 m 3 p r* v v v Q c ¢ a m = o`v r3o r+ -4 FD" v rp — �+ C ❑ rtr CL rr -r m c n W D 7� CL � d v ❑ @ rw C cu a C CL N ry ro N fD * D �. ? N =:E fD m 7 ❑ - D rR mCL �' ❑ 3 ro �+ ro o v rCL 3 s o m a n mS � O 7 O 7 v� n rp O 3 N > ❑ N. N m v °— ro a �' Z) m c 3 � n -0 a o na v �. C n N. < n7 rY 0 Q N r� 3` In p_ 67 Q cert Q rt � .� _ N y' n 7 N N ❑ �- R y y N :E mo ❑ m ID p m D D -, c o' + c oo g m ro a n Ill K o � an 3 c m m a v 3 cr m D ;Tm v o m w v $ 0 ❑ Q n y r+ ro m = 3 °; m n cL ro ro a m CL cu rD a� rDm f"7 a C rD 3 , v v °� ~' D- Cr d N m m �' CL ci 3 Wro rD d a pm o w m CL N n tro ❑ S ❑ D 7 v m1> rn G7 �o > m G1 T > c a ❑ m m a a ro m -a a o ores -o ❑ CT -a_ 3 N r+ uroi O �j n• CD m ry+ n fo n• @ 0 8 N ro w ro n fD w rD n m Sl! O D CL ,❑ j PD r❑-r -� 7 rD rD 3 O - CD1 4 m 'z o i] m M. eu m 3 moo' moo' � rtal n 3 CL w73 o N M o c v'a n o Qj ❑_ Cz 0 ❑ CL m 3 wm ❑ z, c _c m m a - c a a a o y+ C 7 Ua 04 m M il. p (DD © rD 0 Q m O m 3 ❑ c 3 D �' j 3 a y. Ol N 61 N, N �. N C} 3 y D 3 ° mro v rD mw ro cr -0 = u = �. o+ `� m CL rc+ � v CL �. < m ¢ 3 m ¢ 3 m < a C sm C m C S C rD p• 3 '0 1 rte+ f'1 r3r n rCr ro o D7 �. m Q as s w Q a n r m C v � rD 3 •�_ C O ;, PCD m ro M In v m a Oq n O � y 3 a p a -try C C Ln ro �' = 7 7 n 0 7 3 n Q in 0 "0 Vr 0 = Cr-a ry 0 0- Q A d ° a rD OICIIL n a m 0• A D a c ? c c77- 3 rD Q n ° V rp °- ° c@ .I u 3 o ro v EA n n V 0 m (p d rp % r'o 6 r+ N 7- rD O 0' w L7 C N � in Y ❑ F-* v � � � o � D � n ; `�° 0 + � r=D = � c � r- 0) r m 0 mo ma ff N f0 Lxn D O mnl rip p' 5ror. .-r O �,%, €]. ro m a• N m o a m' a o a [ Z za a Ln a 'n a o N ° c m n n v rfo v + ° ° a o Z d 0 n m rt v .+ 0 rr rD — cn' -a rD C a y rr n rr C rD' ,..�. -roil 7' r-r -C 0 C D C n rL j p ;4: 0 n CL 3 ❑ a m n a N a� p rtx Cu ° ro ro o _ N °, a m CL C, D a C rNr v, rr "C fu co O C7. n a rD ID 1+ N 0_ C N n 7 'fir. S C rrm Q Q co N � r+ n r�-T �' C' h R 41 fl7 (� rY N ry h. _ 7 '�' 7 ' @ ro 0 7 �• ro fD 7 �'-C 'o O — �„ — ° 0 :t 0 ,•+ N Y n A rr r~ 3 fS"a 7 Cfs In C tl ro rR ilq 1Z R = 7 3 ''� S rt CrD OIQz rD ro aCD ro ¢ n, a m .* rD rt ro o d a) m en v4 r3D � n , 3 n' '� ai tea+ cm ro Us r� o" o .-« v m 3 RT CL 3 y. rD ro r-3.i Cu v d rD 3 -- rD t� M1t-0 3QC7 m r3o d �+ n CK R. n a `L m a 3' 3 ° may— a ro rt -i 3 oC 3 rD n 3 rr � ; ty o rD :: a rr 0 K u m E• c zs rD '* rD a 3 a S rD S C m ro �, v N rD ro o� n C -0 r oro ro CL a L N C C o o r0-' rC+ W Cl � �jT� 3 o v 7 �• nD rD — -0 C 6 CD w O C" 4�.Y rN+ 7 R S N .�.,, 3 In El hCD Q [n n r0 H C r�-t R r7 0-' .! a^ v -C r o r6r 0 7 "O 0 0 CL. Cr1 C ro 0_ rD rD © 7 NID o m r Elm s _+ m 3 d * o ? mo o., ro 0_ 0 rC+ 0 6 '{� p R 7 �• n N ,' �. 3 rn 7 3 L O Dr j C ro O v p C4 ° � rt 7 a r0i v' ro Q rD 0' 7 C C S 6 h rD �' rt '* rt to "s rnr M n � 3 ro c� tD a fD '+ a 0 3 rD v� R v fD J 7 ro n �_ O V' N CD N :3 - r w a 707 m — — — v n n n ro e7 rt R R CB 3 n ❑ 71 v :3 w o w a w :3 3 p h 3 oa ;:� 3 ° a` ° C LA aq � ten" d DJ0' a) 1 C� isi = c 1 Lnc CL C- D, a �• (D �• ro Q a n 0 o0 oa a n ° 3 c ID ° a " 3 " 3 N a 3 H rV rV rD ry a a a v © v n m ca- rD Q rD R rD -0 0 l7 3 3 C rD ro rD Q rC•h zi 9 ri � o ro CL � z 0 D o ro p+ 6 m a o rD — p a o4 rD (D ru ro n ocn n c w c fw7 p� Or l' v n Z 3 0 m ro a a m w s � 3 m p c � Ho. 3 Oro D A V C C - [Z O C Cl �' {y H �" N V ro M LA r7 3 C w r➢ �• o tb O0 C) rD rD W in D G7 X N I'Dea Q r" c F'.� -C r-r rt) 0 'C3 V O D "D V 7 N C N (D [� Cl �' o o '-'. v+ p '+ 3 N uroi P�4 '+ 3 h+ aCA = a Q ro ro a' ro ❑ rD 0 s N 3 d ° � n � � W v � � � rs r+ c D M * ro rr . ro 3 v -r 3 .cn+ v — M rz ro °—' c ro A rD -v ro c $ rD n a o' a — a o -^� 3 (A of b D C 3 n w N fl- D ❑ D ?'O C a] �'* _ _C1 ❑. -D 3 N C rr 7 C rD 7 O d ,C ..t o ,* d N d 7 rn-F �. C D 7 ro C_ N D _ D �^ a fo D 'r C_ lD ro D C. rn-r S n n m N. 'nr `C f0 -C O 7 jJ n �. n ,ny. v+ X N R7 .n-r N of D O (A n 0 ❑, ZT 0 d C + ON.1 04 n LU D 3 �. 3 0• N C M — I w I_- (-P- • [D O �, 3 p v� ro -a 3 n ro ,_,. _ ro 7 j m m N a j m a cn d v.. 3 N , Z C uCi N '� C_ o F' 3 "D in cn 7 rr C_ 3 C_ 7 O ^C rt °° G r_r m N �• F•7 can t7 r'i n �• r-r .� D ro rno D- j C_ rb rno CL FD.ro ro a n `� H � (A Q n n -LA ow 'r C [r a' c + D 0 R 7 w n_ r. 3 G} C_ H "G c m rD r6 r* l0 'Cf ro 7' �' .0 .0 d �- �❑ S C O C -p ["1 'n''. 7 N v C C7 ro D S vl 7 C3G 7 O r� �" rip N O C- 3 '-r fF7 7rt" 6 'r rl1 Q " v = �...' 7 'e d C_ a] as su 3 _ �. 4 Z5- w n N OQ -o ro ❑.vG lu ro N 3• S7 M p• d r' !➢ Q it rD n O v 7 ro. cx rD 2 D '+ 2 3 C _ d M c D- E4.. rJ w ro D x —_ C- 'p O _ Q d w aN mrQn o , � o v > wn rDn (D m � � mpo o Q N o Q a °un - rD K n OJ 63 ] ChC a : .* p' cr 3 In fC1 n O f1l n -1 7' .6 .+ r➢ O D ro C CI7 ro 3 V7 - 7 rr "' ,Y C 0 rp ni ❑ o ..• D Q - 'a f7" h rp. C_ M N r7 " r0 to f0 m w O r0 F+ O trG �. 3 v '; d d n C p 3 ro a :3 r Z ro N 0 3 q1 C aj OC a n t3 r� r0 O 3 - � 3 rD �' rt y 3 4u n Q ZY 3 NC fl7 X c N N C ro 3 m o m rD D d 3 n rD cn + 'C W m CL �• ••+ Q D S 3 in. a7 N CD ,Y H rn-r ro T�^ N y 3 rp rr 3 ❑ C- N 3 r3r N rT `n 3 S Vt ..i Ln pq CL rr rt D ro j n rD ro '"''` o ,-��,- ro m C N n fU 3 S N Ca. cv O 3 S m C C) n 3 -D ro � 7 r* N ro rQ CD `C Un D rt, ro v rL D 7 6 •C rt X "7"' h ,Np C O K 70 r+, rD ro mro O 7 d 3 3 Q D ro as rt ^r c -o a -D o -C ni N o 3 7 ci M rr � O w. n dC CD Gl m G1 M v - ro ri "�7 ZJ D Co (D -,%lD 7 7 D rp 7 rn vii 0. 3 "t N o a 3 C_ 7 � ny D � v D r 3 3 n W u 3 ¢- c 07C C 7 D ;:v7 a O Q C rr 'r0 p 0 3 al N M N CL 3 C, NN N 1 O C_ w C 7 C C C 3 d. 7 C 3 C 3 ZJ '� 3.i ry O qQ M - CL CL03 W c rn W n a7 d -. @ rD 3 ap -t oy -• ro ro vii < d CI- D 2 CW roQ 0 Q 'D O C7 rD 0 c c N D- v 3 NN 3 fin. 3 6 CS' .p 3 3 0. 3 0 �, 3 n rra 33 3 3 3 3 3 � ❑ m 2. m ro o o vii vx+ j C W C W C rD Q D N N rD C CD C m 0 7 p a d p v 3 d C= • 'D C 7 3 an 3 as 3 3 3 v 04 rD CD rD ro N Q 3 3 e-+ rr rr '* 7• O C_ as 7. ru 7 CL um cu = 3 C 6 m ro .a 7 � Svc an CD lu v n D ra O 3 cr in n n 7 n �r ru p CJr°, Q n ? '� ^ m ? p 3 H .+ cn R 0 fD a� O W 0 C O � � n (Q c R d 7 N 7 r%r rn � Q � [c f0 � a rw 7 -ti. ,:, 7 ° N N `O ro a- ry0 a7 7" E!1 ` D t9 ._. N O. n ro u, v L .v« C D R 3 . 3 c D n rD ° 3 2. Oro a — a s c 3 m �' a a a °In° fo Q '* rD v ro ro c �• © 4b °••� ,�.+ @ to S """ fwLt R. r��r' -xf3 O 1 In N Q ro rD G p C D LD - O � Qy � n ^C ° � n 3 � D Q' n N ° rD S7 °- 3 - Oc �^ �'+' �^ .[a j '* r* !�D N i+ rD CL OR7 N w CD w D N c v D 0 n Q 0 � g f1 D vw � ❑. al 7 vo `i y In L. Ln fD D M c ro N m CT 3 ro y C 3 fp a mrp D S 0 n � R •'y" � � n — — 6lCL C c N R d v C In 7 .+ p C• .c-e S. 3 K Q n rD v rD rt 3 D 4 T c u ro t3 f+ 7 cS d O 3 :* .� �... r0 �;,� N' C N ro r•F m n rD rD R a 'r G4 rD ° Lv (D In rD CL 111 x 4 ^F R m R1 0 fD R e'** D rD !D � ro ..r,� M °� 3 c ro c ro 0 N 'd �. CD ro E � x 6 R (n f] c . �• ro 9 n N R1 f'I rt W O Q -- H - 1+ •Ri R D h 3 °r ° o p ° O 0 ro D ; p ro rp ai c o w ° O D 9 ° o v d "• D O W o 4m Ln Ci ro n n v e rp "C ro -C -� R !D r,•j n n � Q W n rD @ S GCS Q mN 4 rr CL ro �• 3 C' p D � _ CD n D 7 n D OQ p r 7 2 !D C (D' �p ' N S cc CL a n -D a- rDD •Erol Q W ^: ro `" N C ° `" "n. 0 of G] tin c ° ° ° p ro n m p ° v � ro m 0 c .+ rn 3 c x s � m + a ro m p m rb w p D rD O G IV -� C'1• (D C '�. N Q. n. d (DLn Q 3 r R m m b fa W @ N 3 S M � M a' 0 � o w v ° n - Q O 7 Ln c 1 c c: � n d c Qq cz. X m W a tA w a° au a d 3 O � 7 ra on a, _ Z Q D o ro c o M rp rn C7 [7 M ro o n n 0 3 � m G� cr ^O -Oi ❑ v rD rD 3 N ^ n "❑ O- ❑ Q C -0 Od j' O (DD �n CD .. ❑- O Q OJ rD ❑ ❑ cu rr "❑ C rD ro• n -C Cj Q 0 ,.�. -Ots' C d X ^ A.. j' rf y R tl7 3 r'"D Orh r"D C nQ- jN ❑ ❑ — ,n . rr ❑ DD i CL 0) V 7 C LZ, rb h U,n ° D L C ❑ rn a N nCL C O Q O r D ON D_ 7. ❑ mN - W Q -❑ rO_ ^ O o aO p r+ -• ❑ CD a fD rD 7 Q - ❑ O-. v Q y 3 Q 3 O Q y � ry-r ^ d Q o m] w ro nr g n O CL ' a H rt C 7 ^ rD 3 L ❑ rD CD N ❑ n T 7 ❑ rD Q fD Q C CL-0 ^C 0'q �^,• 7 --❑ rD y � K C n °° rD rr 7 m ° C � 3 r^r. ❑ rD .[ fD 0 p� y y n R4 fD r7 lD rD Ln a Q 3 ❑ D CT r+ ` rD Q y °' 7 ^. cr N C O Da ❑ ro ❑• `" y r❑r p rD C 3 rQ 0 N n _ cu � '+ Gu rD D- CL D Q- m y C n' D• S "D 7 a ❑ a v v ' CD rt m '^ m rD CL W kA IN (D 0c rD rr c IA Q [b C '�'' ❑- ❑ ��*, N dl `f €Q17 .Z.7 = O- 01 ryr Ort C. ❑ C rD n n CL ❑ C p Q � rD rD 3 rD = p4 S m rCL M Qr a M •w+ ❑ -0 n O ^ ❑ C- n _2 �^ y p n rD _ - � rr W sv t=i 6 rP D 7 C -❑ n n '- y �' 8 S Ot7 ❑ @ G 0'q rr N fr O N q7 O @ ' O a m ro 1+ = ro rn n C rn C n Q 'a Q Q N a .--r 7" pa rD '-s rD Q O m '*. y '❑ n C uCi in p r� ro n A _ ^ n' IV r� O F+ ro n Q FDN ❑ aS 3 m ri rr .� 3 O -0G) -0 N fD 0 3 0- or an a v a CL w" ❑ ❑ ❑ FA- Z3 n Q ❑ Q w d O WQ CCA @ Qq 7 N N O_ ❑ CL OQ❑ a 04 m v D D m c=rLA Zi 3 a IV 7 C N C. a 0 3 ': a n' OQ m p 0 rr E N � � n 3 ( m v m °1 ti. (D Q n 6 b -� ni rD n C n Ln M Ln M n p fn En tv - $ 0 -0 �^ r. Ln n a .rD zs O c rD n m O 7 c ❑ c rD n, n "- (D W rD n c m n R c a 3 r+ Q A 3 o rD O rr 0 s+ o �- a m N 3 =+W 3 r_! N• = N O C rt N !Z O H ❑ cS Zy N n �. N U'T 7 �, r❑". ,C Q• N �_ n• Q Q Ort 5 N b 3 !'' rn Q rD c Q ❑ n m C] rD :3 rD f0 f0 �' ro rt o S n a p n a c a �# m m �' c �^ 3 a* n m ❑ cj c f° rD K Cy �^ °' [z n 3 v c c �- , r. m c m oa ❑ n ;r ❑ a s as g a m S c a rD ° ❑ c" c 3 °; d4 � 0 H rD - U rr rnD v O ro ro Y ro n Q a c n O C I '��. rD N � �i l O ''*. p O ❑ @ C, rs ry N .�-r d n 7 ❑ ❑ n_ n• W ro 3 `O ? O N "' In -a CD v+' �^ C] rD -rs ry -0 rSj O fb a_ rF1 rt n S rD 7C N rD Q �,., N '6 0. ❑ p G co rD ❑ rD N B rD N 7 N n ,-! - ❑ `0 a� rD n rt' N S D] <RL N O C T ❑ S n c @ S c 0• 3 cu CD CD r+ @ Q ru 'd Q C dG rd O -�C �.=-r ro CSO o rp p O � v rD C Cn O 7 Q Wr) W0 co S If Vii j h rt 3 rD fb 3. V'I c rD :3� [f In N `J pr ro 3 ¢ ❑ o o+ 2 a o N T' ❑ m y < CL o H rD rD W — Q S n -a — rD Ei, �Q 3 r-t N iv r-r nrD p1 [D p CL 7 LU rb :::3N C 0'Q `p N_ �c�77 W ro :Ecn Q 0 ^` W C '0 w N U n -0 ff N ID N n 'O fSD r�r fhD 7 N rrbb �. .0 n �. _0 ❑ cn c S ~' w _Q .n-' in N -C _0 D W n �{ N N C c''D O �c (D, C Q b 'a a❑n rD rD rsb ro B CD M Iib S CL b7 h rD rt Q 0 6 rr -3 S - `� r4 rDn• -C ❑ — ❑ n v, N ro .0 n c - ro p = ni = rr Zr - rb :+ C N y -] a CD tD O• p ❑ 2; CD cn rn. " 'ry-F rD rD a- C O Q. Q 'c's -0 d , n r+ ❑ c 3 n — , n as �, bu 0 rD O c rr G7 CLS C c a_ rD 0 7 S ZY -n rD a_ rt =r CL rr c @ Q w -C v 3 O O Z rD O = ro ❑ c. bl rD C S rD 0'Q' n n n -❑ -0 -0 73 ;v m n n n n ro D v ni sv ni � rr .0 I a o m y �_ a m y m y G] 3 131ro' a rD Q n= o Cl- o 0 o rD ro �• ❑ � O ur'i p=p p ❑ ro o Q + s v s m t a. 47 rD O rD rD c Co Di CL O O y '❑ `r Q fr = C. n �• a K Q p rD vn rjpn nron Qon z a ❑ Q 0 rD Q ❑ 4 Q C ❑ Q to 3 m 3 �, 3 a rra 3 rm as 3 0 3 °a C = -2 C = C C o . a rD v N pl G C ro G. Q Q. a a o a o w 3` 3 �' 3 a' 3 3 0 rD M ro ryi rD o m Ro vo 7 0. to _ C Q- n e o ° m rp a to Q � "a m O � ❑• n 0 � v � w 3 3 p d -1 as rL Ci -0 -1 Ln d p -a �+ �,; n --I (D 'a m CL m '0 rD m n C n C m -0 0- �D p a 3 m f� a _ m va m n 'a °' m r w ci , ❑ CD m C s � �. W O 7• r! w 6- �• M aj rnA D F' w@ rD N F' V o Ci 1 - C D O v n' �^ 0'q D ZJ. ❑ T v n F, u a �' ro ❑ cn' r+ -yS r-r n w p C 1 rD n � 3 90 N Ul 7y C M Q. w 47 Q "•' rD �' T rSp l0 O rt K y e° x• S m O rD Q ro O ni SZ n w p @ v rn a ^C S m ❑ O rt a p m flS.+ ro C .r � n c ,, in � - � Si v' � O -a vn n ro m n@ p m m n c a N -a a s a 73 v ro ro n -o o < o w ° ❑ m cn 'a S D �'' C E _N 7 b m n. N (D T E 3 s n ro ❑ ❑ r c m !^ Ln -0 A :+ (DD R, r9 < K Q C- C1 v j 7 7 rL .nor p O O s � fan © o � � � p ' I Q- a0 1 o m m -o g r1a _, �' v C1 Q flr _ - 0 n in M r� (D D N ❑ N 'y 7 �" N N i l = 3 N C T' O m (D � ❑' N , Ld Cr1 - COw o S ro D w a a m C N A@ 0. A � � UG !� S a r r O 4J - II w 3 -a a Co m ao � a+ m — m �, r+ a c D) n IL rD K -o CL O Oq M •-r m a �. S ro S d u fL r" a m ❑ v m °; CL m fm'f W :5 Q M !D !: 3, rt C C a M 67 CD f+ F, rrb w m a v (° a m ^ a ❑ a s7 0 3 rt ca m oro 0 CD rt, r* @ m �, N c. s� a [ ? C -6 77 '� C n 7 S CD N C a0 CL CL cn @ CL v n O ro d Q m m n CD 7 cm CL CD C O 'D �' 6 O OCl 3 orpy 0 p rD CL �. O Q. ro rr n' oa v n n Cx �* - �• sa c fl �c n a a m m �, v' rD m � QJ a cSi v o ° ❑- a m C .T + D CL D Q, v S rt X67 r" a r C S m ro m ra D � � �• a v m o 0 O W D CL 0 a Z -a m m N [fV � D] Y'f rD a o ❑ n rro o m 3 a 3 0 3 = N Q M 3 cr � O -ti D C g. a 3 OQ ❑ O Ro :3 A. - r' O A z ro CL m = _ w - l!1 Q (l 04 �o O rD io O z ro 7 a p o ao ro n� y n n O � 3 7 w w [L h CJ N m n m to c A C su rr C• O �' @ n , ° v h n iro rt C ru fD n l , s v , m m w' o i.+ ro ? C, D N nj 0' umi v n m ti n m c�i � m rD° m ° v a ro v N rt a m "0 vii °n._ Q@ N �, [� c M � 0 s C7 0 ro b N 0 rD� Q -� ;: 4a 0 �, m Z' m Cu m Q � m T Q 0 '� c] n Q m °+ c CL m W ar a � ° o r�o o W 0 a, ? ani w p m m nCL tA °17 u, in N r�o ro q -0 m rD n o ca. �, D rn-. N �. 0' 3 pi aj _N 0 '+ G vrt D r+ t�t'I m C iv r7 rt-0M G d 0 n ° C v ry C gy m@ rt 3 O rD �„ ro ,..' Gn m rr r- V1 [1 7 -o r0•r qti �3r 0 m ( Dm0 rD -0 -Q 0 ° -C m 3 -•�•. ro m N re '� a �. D n [!7 0 ,.�. m 0 N �_ Q In "° D O 7 [mJtus rD fD 7 m _a:. m (D CL'D 0 3 ay Qva _ o ,' �< ro m ao ate' rD cn v : m o m m r°i ? o In m a ai n 3 C p ° rt -0 v — 0 .r. 7• .=r 7 c 0 'a _ � rhp Q m � '*. � C C_ C ill � H a QDi * m [T s n m �nD b a ° m a c v n* ro oa m m CD s n ° r' ro N ° fD a 3 m m `° Q w : g m m rD ° m e e m .+ D ri D m N ri ti rT (D m LV ° � y 4] n CL o. r•r -C r� m n 7. N n rD n n Q �- n N m m Q su w ° . V d _ x n a Q g ° m v0+ 0 C r`o t 3° m U- m r: M ° rt rD Q C 3 �' ° -C 0 ° N c Os7 'O 3 n '9 n '0 -0 m PG m 0 Q N ai a° m w !D -C cu 0 ° a CL m < =r u nn m an ani m q v r0-r war ,O.F r0-r � w IU 6 -� :i D m m Qj 0_ O CL ° CL Q f° m m a ° 3 00 D 3 (-A' p7 3 .=r ra N wLn OJ _. m a ° ° 3 ' a D m cm � 0 0 O O 0 C] m On C3 fl 0 d 3 vi3 04 _g: a O Q p' 3 - n 0 a d C [7J C m m y c m c m c m Q ° Q O Q Q fl m na ou p 0 ro r+ r+ rr 0 *. m Z vt 3 a > e1i ru 0 c w a ° ro m uti � ❑ 4 � rn Qo n 3 co 0 co a 0 =. ro 7 Q UQ _ ai 3 a y c ro a a a r- 3 04 ro 'JC iu Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT E FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 201.7041031 1. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations., Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. 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. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements,or other measures. 1 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where 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. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR) and the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (Final Program EIR) for the Red Hill Specific Plan Project,State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2017041031 (collectively,the Final EIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) are hereby adopted by the City of Tustin (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the Project. These actions include the approval of the following: ■ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report ■ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ■ General Plan Amendment(GPA) 2017-001 • Zoning Map Amendment(Zone Change jZCj 2017-001 These actions are collectively referred to herein as the Project. 2 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings of Fact (2) Section 2 provides a summary of the Specific Plan Project and overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project's goals and objectives. (3) Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the Specific Pian that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the Project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project. (4) Section 4 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period either not to be relevant to the Project or which were determined to clearly not manifest at levels which were deemed to be significant for consideration at the project-specific level. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of standard conditions and/or mitigation measures. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)for the Project and adopted as conditions of the Project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to standard conditions, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. Section 5 also includes findings regarding those significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which will or which may result from the Project and which the City has determined cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Specific Plan. (7) Section 7 consists of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which sets forth the City's reasons for finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the Specific Plan Project outweigh the Project's potential unavoidable environmental effects. B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Specific Plan are located at the City of Tustin Community Development Department, which serves as the custodian of the Administrative Record for the Project. Copies of these documents are available upon request. 3 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations To obtain information regarding the Administrative Record, please contact the following: Ms. Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 ebinsack@tustinca.org (714) 573-3031 C. Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings,the Record of Proceedings for the Specific Plan Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: ■ City of Tustin General Plan, as amended, and all environmental documents relating thereto; ■ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan; • Notice of Preparation (NOP) and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project; • Scoping Meeting held during the 30-day NOP period; ■ Final Program EIR including the Draft Program EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments document, and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Program EIR. The reports and technical memoranda included or referenced in the Response to Comments of the Final EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 45-day public review comment period on the Draft Program EIR and included in the Responses to Comments document; • Planning Commission public hearing on August 14, 2018; • Staff report responses to public comments submitted either in writing or orally at the August 14, 2018 Planning Commission hearing; • City Council public hearing on September 4, 2018; • All final City Staff Reports, and exhibits and attachments thereto and documents referenced therein, relating to the Final EIR, and the Project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps or other planning documents relating to the Project, the Final EIR prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or any responsible agencies; • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City for the Project; • Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents incorporated by reference therein; 4 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • These Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted by the City for the Project, and any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and ■ Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings are based are located at the City of Tustin Community development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Tustin. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 2. SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT SUMMARY A. Specific Plan Location The approximately 43.11-acre Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area, inclusive of approximately 7.32 acres of roadway rights-of-way, extends along Red Hill Avenue to Bryan Avenue to the northeast, and generally Walnut Avenue to the southwest. Interstate 5 (1-5) bisects the Specific Plan area creating the northern and southern portions of the Specific Plan area. Existing uses include commercial, retail shopping centers, professional office, residential, motels, and an institutional use, and vacant land. B. Specific Pian Description The Specific Plan is a policy and regulatory document to promote revitalization of the commercial district by providing a mixed-use land use plan accompanied by goals and objectives, regulatory standards, design criteria, a streetscape program and various implementation strategies to improve jobs/housing balance, improve aesthetics, and promote mobility. The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan provides planning regulations and criteria that connect the City of Tustin General Plan policies with future project-level development within the Specific Plan area. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide future change, promote high- quality development, and implement the community's vision for the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan proposes 325,000 additional square feet of non-residential development and 500 additional dwelling units. The total development potential in the Specific Plan including existing development is 521 dwelling units and 621,446 square feet of non-residential development. The Specific Plan seeks to facilitate compatible land uses in an integrated mixed-use environment with appropriate connections to existing parks, by limiting intensity near single- family homes, retaining the primarily commercial character in the Specific Plan area, and using thematic elements to create a cohesive environment in the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan would encourage high-quality architecture with traditional but contemporary architecture and a high level of architectural detail. It would facilitate high-quality land uses by providing development incentives for the revitalization of vacant or underperforming properties. The Specific Plan would establish a program of streetscape landscaping improvements within the public rights-of-way along Red Hill Avenue, as well as gateway signage enhancements. The 5 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations intent of these streetscape improvement concepts and gateway enhancements is to provide a "sense of place" or identity within the Specific Plan area, providing a consistent streetscape concept with expanded amenity areas adjacent to new development. The Specific Plan would balance vehicular needs with landscaped parkways, street trees, landscaped medians, and cohesive street furniture; pedestrian-scaled streets where pedestrians feel secure; the extension of bicycle paths from the existing community; cohesive entry and wayfinding signage throughout the Specific Plan area; safe, improved pedestrian crossings; and opportunities for public art. The improvements to Red Hill Avenue would include the addition of on-street bike lanes, reduced lane widths, and construction of landscaped medians where feasible. This requires restriping within the paved width of the street to include the reduced lane widths, turn pockets, and bike lanes. Parking on or adjacent to Red Hill Avenue on private property or within the Flexible Amenity Setback area would be considered by the City on a case-by-case basis as part of a development application. Construction of new, raised medians can be accommodated where they do not conflict with required turning movements. The Specific Plan would be implemented over a multi-year timeframe based upon market conditions; a buildout year of 2035 is assumed. The City may implement the public improvements, including public streetscapes, landscaped medians, and gateway/wayfinding signage in advance of, or concurrent with, private development. C. Discretionary Actions Implementation of the Project within the City of Tustin will require several actions by the City, including: ■ Certification of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report; ■ Adoption of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian by Ordinance; ■ Amendment of the General Plan to provide consistency between the Specific Plan and the General Plan. GPA 2017-0001 would include an update to the General Plan Land Use Map to show the boundaries of the Specific Pian and an update to the General Plan Land Use Element, and other related conforming amendments to the General Plan, as warranted; and ■ Amendment to the Tustin Zoning Map (ZC 201.7-0001) to change the Specific Plan area to a designation of"Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan" {SP-13}. D. Statement of Specific Plan Goals and Objectives The statement of goals and objectives sought by the Specific Plan Project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows: Goal 1: Enhance streetscape, landscape, and public amenities throughout the Specific Plan area. ■ Objective 1-1: Establish a streetscape program using landscaping, signage, street furniture, entry statements, and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. 6 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Objective 1-2: Develop coordinated gateway design treatments that establish entry statements and a sense of place at key locations within the Specific Plan area. ■ Objective 1-3: Encourage a "sense of place" within the Specific Plan area through quality site design, architectural design, and public improvements as part of future development. • Objective 1-4: Coordinate a bus shelter and transit stop improvement program to ensure that all bus stops have the appropriate amenities. Goal 2: Improve visual and functional connections and linkages between Red Hill Avenue, surrounding residential neighborhoods, adjacent public and institutional uses,and Interstate 5. • Objective 2-1: Identify ways to improve and enhance linkages and connections between new development in the Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods. ■ Objective 2-2: Develop design criteria that encourage optimal building configuration and design, parking strategies, signage, pedestrian amenities, landscaping, and appropriate, timeless architectural styles. Goal 3: Balance flexible and diverse land uses that foster economic development opportunities and support housing opportunities. Land use in the Specific Plan area will allow for residential opportunities along with neighborhood-serving retail, office, and commercial uses. • Objective 3-1: Establish a land use program that encourages a mix of land uses responsive to market demands and Tustin community priorities. • Objective 3-2: Refine allowable land uses within the area to encourage the desired development envisioned by the Specific Plan. ■ Objective 3-3: Establish development standards for future land uses that are compatible with the surrounding area and preserve the small town feel and community character. • Objective 3-4: Develop land use standards that focus on retention and enhancement of commercial development, but supports integrated mixed-use development, sidewalk- adjacent development, parking behind building frontages and pedestrian activity. Goal 4:Streamline processes to support future development in the Specific Plan area. ■ Objective 4-1: Adopt a program-level environmental clearance document to utilize in subsequent development proposals within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area. • Objective 4-2: Establish a tiered environmental review process for discretionary development application review to streamline the approval process as described in Chapter 1 of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. ■ Objective 4-3: Establish development incentives such as tailored development standards or streamlined review processes, to encourage new development that fulfills the vision of the Specific Plan. • Objective 4-4: Identify local, State, and Federal funding opportunities that can provide businesses-assistance and offer the City the means to upgrade the area. 7 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Goal S: Improve pedestrian and bike accessibility and vehicular circulation to minimize potential conflicts between different users and improve mobility throughout the Specific Plan area and connectivity with the greater community. ■ Objective 5-1: Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and facilities, particularly in areas that contain large, expansive parking lots. At these locations, accessible pedestrian connections from the sidewalk to building entrances should be encouraged. ■ Objective 5-2: Minimize curb cuts or driveways onto arterial roads and collector streets. ■ Objective 5-3: Promote and develop a transportation system which includes provisions for public transportation, bikes, and pedestrians. Goal 6: Implement parking standards that reflect verifiable demand and consider future land uses in the area. ■ Objective 6-1: Promote the development and maintenance of adequate parking facilities commensurate with parking demand. ■ Objective 6-2: Monitor parking supply and utilization to identify deficiencies or conflicts with the movement of traffic as new development occurs. Goal 7:Coordinate existing and future development with infrastructure capacity. ■ Objective 7-1: Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan area meets future demands. • Objective 7-2: Coordinate future land use planning with sustainable transportation and infrastructure planning. Goal 8: Ensure development within the Specific Plan area is sensitive to and compatible with surrounding land uses. ■ Objective 8-1: Ensure that the form, scale, and design of new development, including new construction, renovations, or additions, does not negatively impact the existing surrounding uses and structures. ■ Objective 8-2: Implement "four-sided architecture" principles that consider the aesthetic quality of development from all sides, whether visible from the public right-of-way or not. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Final Program EIR includes the Draft Program EIR dated February 2018, written responses on the Draft Program EIR that were received during the 45-day public review period, and written responses to those comments and clarifications changes to the Program EIR. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project. ■ Completion of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), which was released for a 30-day public review period beginning on April 7, 2017. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies and the State of California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) State Clearinghouse and was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder's office and on the City's website. 8 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of{overriding Considerations ■ During the NOP review period, one Scoping Meeting was held to solicit input on the content of the Program EIR. The Scoping Meeting was held for agencies and the interested persons and groups. Attendees were provided an opportunity to provide verbal and written comments on the range of actions, alternatives, and environmental issues they felt should be addressed in the Program EIR. The Scoping Meeting was held on April 20, 2017 at the Clifton C. Miller Community Center, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. The notice of the public Scoping Meeting was included in the NOP. • The Draft Program EIR was made available for a 45-day public review period (February 1, 2018 to March 19, 2018). The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Program EIR was published in the February 1, 2018 edition of the Tustin News, a newspaper of general circulation. The NOA was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to State agencies. The NOA was posted at the Orange County Clerk-Recorder's office on February 1,. 2018. Copies of the Draft Program EIR were made available for public review at the City of Tustin Community Development Department and the Tustin Branch Library. The Draft Program EER was placed on the City's website: http://www.tustinca.org/depts/cd/planningupdate,as. ■ The Final Program EIR includes the Draft Program EIR, agency and public comments on the Draft Program EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the Draft Program EIR, and appended documents. The Responses to Comments were released on , 2018. in compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City has met its obligation to provide written Responses to Comments to public agencies at least ten days prior to certifying the Final EIR. ■ A notice of the Tustin Planning Commission hearing of August 14, 2018 for the Specific Plan Project was published in the , 2018 edition of the Tustin News, a newspaper of general circulation; and mailed to all property owners within feet of the Specific Pian area, a minimum of ten days in advance of the Planning Commission hearing consistent with the Tustin City Code. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City's website. ■ A Planning Commission public hearing was held on August 14, 2018. ■ A notice of the Tustin City Council hearing of September 18, 2018 for the Project was mailed on , 2018 to all property owners of record within feet of the subject site and all individuals that requested to be notified. A notice for the City Council hearing was posted at City Hall as required by established public hearing posting procedures. Additionally, notice for the hearing was published in the 2018 edition of the Tustin News, a newspaper of general circulation. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT As a result of the NOP circulated by the City on April 7, 2017, in connection with preparation of the Draft Program EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the following potential environmental effects noted below, and therefore, determined that these potential environmental effects would not be 9 Exhibit E Red Mill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and statement of Overriding Considerations addressed in the Draft Program EIR. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft Program EIR, and the comments received by the public on the ❑raft Program EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the Project would have an impact on the identified environmental topics within the following environmental areas: (a) Aesthetics and Visual Resources — Scenic Highway Resources: There are no rock outcroppings or any other scenic resources within the Specific Plan area. There are ornamental trees located in landscaped areas but the trees are not considered scenic resources. Additionally, there are no State scenic highways adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is not within a State scenic highway nor is the Specific Plan area visible from any officially designated or eligible scenic highway. (b) Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The Specific Plan area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the Specific Plan area is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Specific Plan area does not include forest resources, including timberlands, and is not zoned for agriculture. (c) Biological Resources: The Specific Plan area is in a developed part of the City and does not contain sensitive habitat or protected species, it does not contain riparian habitat or any water resources. (d) Geology and Sails: Land uses within the Specific Plan area do not require the use of septic tanks. Therefore, whether soils can support the use of septic tanks is not relevant to the Project. (e) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires and the Specific Plan area is not located within the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. (f) Hydrology and Water Quality: The Specific Plan area is outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. The area is also approximately 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean and approximately 100 feet above mean sea level. The area is not at risk from tsunami inundation, a seiche, or mudflows. (g) Land Use and Planning: The Specific Plan Project would not divide an established community. The Specific Plan's goal is to promote revitalization of the area by adding a mix of land uses. The Project would not introduce new roadways or infrastructure that would bisect or transect the existing uses. The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. (h) Mineral Resources:The Specific Plan area is not currently being used for mineral mining purposes nor is it zoned for such uses. (i) Noise: The Specific Plan area is not within two miles of a private or public airport and is not located within the John Wayne Airport's Airport Environs Land Use Plan. 10 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (j) Population, Housing, and Employment: The Project would not displace existing residential units or residents. As a result of the preparation of the Program EIR,the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the Specific Plan would have no impact or a less than significant impact on the topics noted below; no standard conditions or mitigation measures would be required. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Program EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft Program EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the Project would have an impact as noted within the following environmental areas evaluated in the Program EIR: (a) Aesthetics and Visual Resources: There are no scenic vistas within or viewed from the Specific Plan area. Implementation of the Specific Plan would alter the existing visual character with the goal of improving it. With compliance with the Specific Plan Design Criteria and Land Use Regulations, the City's General Plan, and the Tustin City Code, impacts to visual resources would be less than significant. Future development within the Specific Plan area would introduce new sources of lighting. Compliance with the land use regulations and the Design Criteria of the Specific Plan, the General Plan, and the Tustin City Code would preclude significant impacts. (b) Air Quality: Proposed land uses are not considered uses associated with odor complaints by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (c) Cultural Resources: Implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would not cause significant adverse effects to historic resources. (d) Geology and Soils: The Specific Plan area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no known active faults cross the area. The Specific Plan area is relatively level without threat of landslides. (e) Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not interfere with the implementation of the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG's) 2015-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), or the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) Scoping Plan consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32. (f) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Allowable land uses would not emit hazardous emissions or materials within one-quarter mile of a school or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. (g) Hydrology and Water Quality. The Project would not interfere with groundwater recharge or deplete groundwater supplies. (h) Land Use and Planning: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not conflict with applicable land use policies. (i) Noise: Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Specific Plan area. 11 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (j) Population, Housing, and Employment: The Specific Plan's forecasted population, housing, and employment growth are within SCAG's overall projections for the City of Tustin. (k) Public Services: The Project can be served by the Tustin Police Department without adverse effects on police services. New residents would nominally increase the demand on library services. The Tustin Library would continue to meet the County's standard for library size with buildout of the Specific Plan. (1) Transportation and Traffic: Road segments within the traffic study area would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. No Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities would be impacted. No impacts related to air traffic patterns are associated with the Project. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts related to design features or incompatible uses with compliance with applicable Tustin City Code standards and the design review process for individual development projects under the Specific Plan nor would circulation through the Specific Plan area adversely affect emergency access. Lastly, the Specific Plan encourages public transit, and would provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (m) Utilities: Wastewater flows would not exceed the established wastewater treatment requirements. Utility service providers can serve buildout of the Specific Plan without adversely affecting their ability to continue serving the area. There would be less than significant impacts to additional demand for electric and natural gas services and infrastructure with implementation of the Specific Plan. 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Program EIR, and the effects of the Project were considered in the Program EIR. Where as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), the following potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)that "Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment," which is referred to herein as "Finding 1". Where the potential impact can be reduced to less than significant solely through adherence to and implementation of standard conditions, these measures are considered "incorporated into the project" which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant effect, and in these situations, the City also will make"Finding 1" even though no mitigation measures are required. Where the City has determined pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that "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," the City's findings is referred to herein as"Finding 2". Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that either: (a) even with compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level; or 12 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding considerations (b) no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives are available to mitigate the potentially significant impact, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) that "Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report," referred to herein as "Finding 3". Air Quality (1) Potential Impact: With respect to potential conflicts with the applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the AQMP provides controls sufficient to attain the Federal and State ozone and particulate standards based on the long-range growth projections for the region. Implementation of the Specific Plan would incrementally exceed population growth forecasted in the RTP/SCS on which the 2016 AQMP is based, as well as exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of Standard Condition (SQ 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 and Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3 (set forth below),this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Although the Project's long-term impacts would be consistent with the 2016 AQMP and SCAG's goals and policies, the Specific Plan's exceedance of population forecasts and operational nitrogen oxide (NOx) thresholds would potentially result in a long-term impact on the region's ability to meet State and Federal air quality standards. Construction-related air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable due to the potential magnitude of construction that could occur from implementation of the Specific Plan. Impacts associated with AQMP compliance would be significant and unavoidable due to the exceedance of SCAQMD's NOx operational thresholds. The Specific Plan Project, which encourages mixed-use, infill development with access to alternative transportation, is consistent with regional policies established in the 2016 RTP/SCS that promote alternative modes of transport and "livable corridors" to reduce air quality impacts from vehicle emissions. Specific Plan implementation would improve the job-housing balance in the City, which reduces vehicle miles traveled by residents to employment opportunities outside the City. Although the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions, the Project would exceed population forecasts on which the AQMP is based. Implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however, the combined emissions from future new development in the Specific Plan area would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds. 13 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and facts in Support of Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQM P. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. SC 4.2-1 Dust Control. During construction of future development within the Specific Plan area, project applicants shall require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following: • Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. ■ Cut and fill: Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. ■ Earth-moving activities: Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; re- apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete. ■ Importing/exporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions. ■ Stockpiles/bulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site occupied buildings must not be greater than 8 feet in height, must have a road bladed to the top' to allow water truck access, or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. ■ Traffic areas for construction activities: Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; stabilize all haul routes; and direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more acres of grading or with a daily earth-moving volume of 5,000 cubic yards at least 3 ' Refers to a road to the top of the pile. 14 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations times in 1 year. Future development within the Specific Plan would potentially be considered a large operation. Large operations are required to implement additional dust-control measures (as specified in Tables 2 and 3 of Rule 403); provide additional notifications, signage, and reporting; and appoint a Dust Control Supervisor. The Dust Control Supervisor is required to: ■ Be employed by or contracted with the Property Owner or Developer; ■ Be on the site or available on site within 30 minutes during working hours; ■ Have the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403 requirements; and ■ Have completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and have been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class. SC 4.2-2 Architectural Coatings. Architectural coatings shall be selected so that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. MM 4.2-1 Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City's Building Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications designate that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use. MM 4.2-2 Vanpool/Rideshare Programs. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the City's Building Official shall confirm that future commercial uses within the Specific Plan area include Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach, such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. This measure is not. applicable to residential uses. MM 4.2-3 Operational Emissions Reductions. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City's Planning Official shall confirm that project plans and specifications consider and mitigate the impacts on regional air quality and GHG emissions when reviewing proposals for new development. Impacts shall be evaluated in accordance with SCAQMD recommended methodologies and procedures. Recommended mitigation measure may include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Install heat transfer modules in all furnaces; 15 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Install solar panels for water heating systems for residential and other facilities; ■ Incorporate renewable energy sources in the project design (e.g., solar photovoltaic panels). ■ Include passive solar cooling/heating design elements in building designs; ■ Include design elements that maximize use of natural lighting in new development; • Include provisions to install energy efficient appliances and lighting in new development. ■ Install higher efficacy public street and exterior lighting. • Increase project density. ■ Incorporate design measures that promote bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation use. ■ Provide preferential parking spaces for alternatively-fueled vehicles. ■ Incorporate measures that reduce water use and waste generation. ■ Provide informational materials on low ROG/VOC consumer products, cleaners, paints, and other products, as well as the importance of recycling and purchasing recycled material. Informational materials shall be provided to residential and commercial occupants through CC&R requirements. • Incorporate measures and design features that promote ride sharing and consistency with the commute-reduction requirements of SCAQMD Rule 2202 (On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options). (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project would violate air quality standards and/or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality standard. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR. However, the City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2, and MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.3, this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activities would consist of grading, demolition, excavation, cut-and-fill, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. Construction worker vehicle trips, building material deliveries, soil hauling, etc. would occur during construction. Quantifying individual future development's air emissions 16 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations from short-term, temporary construction-related activities would be speculative due to project-level variability and uncertainties concerning locations, detailed site plans, construction schedules/duration, equipment requirements, etc., among other factors, which are presently unknown. Depending on how development proceeds, construction-related emissions associated with future development could exceed SCARMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, construction-related air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable due to the potential magnitude of construction that could occur from implementation of the Specific Plan.. Specific Plan-generated emissions would exceed SCAQMD recommended thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and NOx. The SCAQMD's significance thresholds would be relied upon to determine the significance level of a future project's operational impact. While some of the individual development projects may be able to incorporate design and reduction features that would reduce emissions to below SCAQMD thresholds, the overall Project was evaluated for significance consideration. At a programmatic level, operational emissions would exceed thresholds and impacts would be potentially significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 are applicable (see above) MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2, and MM 4.2-3 are applicable (see above) (3) Potential Impact: The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment under an applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAQS) or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Finding:The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EER. However, the City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2, and MMs 4.2-1 through 4.2-3, this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: The Air Basin is designated nonattainment for the Federal and State one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards, the Federal and State PM-10 standards, the Federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and the State and Federal annual PM2.5 standard. Future Specific Plan development could result in increased emissions of regional criteria air pollutants and precursors that would be forecasted to exceed SCAQMD's project-level significance thresholds. Although these thresholds are intended to apply to individual development projects, future development within the Specific Plan area could contribute to an increase in frequency and/or severity of air quality violations, which may delay attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Emissions with some future projects could 17 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations potentially exceed SCAQMD-recommended significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project's contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 are applicable (see above) MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2,and MM 4.2-3 are applicable (see above) (4) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR, as a result of the implementation of MM 4.2-4. Facts in Support of Finding: I-5 bisects the Specific Plan area. Residential units could be constructed as close as 100 feet from I-5. The proximity of potential future development to 1-5 poses a concern for toxic air contaminants(TAC) exposure. MM 4.2-5 requires a project- specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) be conducted for future residential uses proposed within 500 feet of 1-5. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.2-4 Toxic Air Contaminants/Health Risk. Assessment. A project-specific Health Risk Assessment shall be conducted for future residential development proposed within 500 feet of the Interstate 5 right-of-way, pursuant to the recommendations set forth in the GARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook. The Health Risk Assessment shall evaluate a project per the following SCAQMD thresholds: • Cancer Risk: Emit carcinogenic or toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million. ■ Non-Cancer Risk: Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of one in one million. The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level (REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index less than one (1A) means that adverse health effects are not expected. If projects are found to exceed the SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment thresholds, mitigation shall be incorporated to reduce impacts to below SCAQMD thresholds. 18 Exhibit E Red Bill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources (1) Potential Impact: Grading and excavation activities could impact unknown archaeological resources. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of the mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: An archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS); no resources within the Specific Plan area have been recorded. Although the Specific Plan area has been disturbed, there is the potential for Project implementation to affect previously unidentified archaeological resources. MM 4.3-1 requires future developments under the Specific Plan to retain an archaeologist to determine if any found archaeological deposits meet the CEQA definition of historical (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a)) and/or unique archaeological resource (Public Resources Code § 21083.2(g)). CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following mitigation is applicable MM 4.3-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever feasible, to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CERA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2) incorporating the site into open space; (3) capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or (4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. 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 CERA 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 19 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 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. (2) Potential Impact: Grading and excavation activities could impact unknown unique paleontological resources. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: A paleontological records search identified no vertebrate fossil localities within the Specific Plan area but here are nearby localities from the same sedimentary deposits that probably occur subsurface at the area. The records search determined that surface grading or shallow excavations in the younger Quaternary deposits would likely not uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Deeper excavations that extend down into older Quaternary deposits may encounter significant fossil vertebrate specimens. MM 4.3-2 requires that a paleontologist be retained to determine if any found paleontological resources require further treatment. MM 4.3-2 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall provide a letter to the City of Tustin Community Development Department, or designee, from a paleontologist selected from the roll of qualified paleontologists maintained by the County of Orange, stating that the applicant has retained this individual and that the paleontologist shall provide on-call services in the event resources are discovered. The paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grading conference to establish procedures for paleontological resource surveillance. If paleontological resources are discovered during any development project within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area, ground-disturbing activity within 50 feet of the area of the discovery shall cease. If the find is determined by paleontologists to require further treatment, the area of discovery will be protected from disturbance while qualified paleontologists and appropriate officials, in consultation with a recognized museum repository (e.g., National History Museum of Los Angeles County), determine an appropriate treatment plan. 20 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (3) Potential Impact: The Project would not disturb any known human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Finding: The City hereby makes ; inding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan area has been previously disturbed and developed. There is no indication that there are burials present and it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered during future development. In the event that human remains are discovered during ground disturbing activities, SC 4.3-1 addresses procedures to follow the discovery of suspected human remains. Compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human resources would not occur. SC 4.3-1 California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, CFQA Section 15064.5, and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 mandate the process to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the Specific Plan area, disturbance of the site shall be halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. (4) Potential Impact: Grading and excavation activities could impact unknown tribal cultural resources. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of the MM 4.3-1. Facts in Support of Finding: An archaeological and historical records search was conducted at the CHRIS; no tribal cultural resources within the Specific Plan area have been recorded. In compliance with AB 52 and SB 18, the City provided formal notification to California Native American tribal representatives and entered into consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation. Although the Specific Plan area has been disturbed, there is the potential for Project implementation to affect previously unidentified resources. MM 4.3-1 is applicable. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following mitigation is applicable: 21 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations MM 4.3-1 is applicable (see above) Geology and Soils (1) Potential impact: The Specific Plan area is in a seismically active area. Development could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The City is in an area designated to have a moderate to high potential for ground shaking associated with regional earthquake activity. Future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the seismic design requirements of the California Building Code (or applicable adopted code at the time of plan submittal or grading and building permit issuance for construction) which would reduce anticipated impacts related to the proximity of earthquake faults by requiring structures to be built to withstand seismic ground shaking. Projects would need to comply with the Tustin City Code which regulates grading, drainage, and cut and fill activities. SC 4.4-1 identifies that the issuance of grading permits is subject to approval of geological and soils engineering reports. SC 4.4-2 requires geotechnical evaluation to identify appropriate engineering design measures to reduce potential impacts relative to strong seismic ground shaking. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.4-1 Projects are required to comply with Tustin City Code, Chapter 9, Grading and Excavation. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the grading plans shall be accompanied by geological and soils engineering reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City. Grading plans shall indicate all areas of grading. Grading plans shall provide for temporary erosion control on all graded sites scheduled to remain unimproved for more than 30 days. SC 4.4-2 A specific geotechnical survey shall be prepared by a certified geotechnical engineer to confirm/refine engineering design parameters regarding site preparation, grading, and foundation design, to assure design criteria are responsive to specific development site soils and potential effects of differential settlements resulting from ground shaking, as well as effects of subsidence, lateral spreading, and collapse potential. All geotechnical recommendations shall be noted on individual site development plans and implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Project-specific geotechnical measures shall be developed, as needed, based on the design-level geotechnical report and depicted on plans prepared by the geotechnical engineer of record or on plan sheets included 22 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations within final grading plans, and subject to the approval by the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Public Works Department. (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan could expose people or structures to liquefaction during a seismic event. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding T and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Earth materials underlying the Specific Plan area are susceptible to limited amounts of seismically-induced liquefaction. Most of the Specific Plan area is mapped as a Liquefaction Zone (CGS, 2001). Site-specific geotechnical investigations would be required for future development projects. Remedial grading including the replacement of unsuitable soil materials with suitable engineered fill materials can preclude liquefaction impacts. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.4-7 and SC 4.4-2 are applicable (see above) (3) Potential Impact: Future development within the Specific Plan area could result in soil erosion. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: During construction, future development projects would be required to comply with the NPDES permitting process for sites greater than one acre or the City's requirements for an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for sites less than one acre; see SC 4.4-3, SC 4.7-1, and SC 4.7-2. The NPDES permitting process requires development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the Construction General Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The General Permit would include erosion-control and sediment-control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented throughout the construction process which would prevent or reduce erosion. Erosion-control BMPs are designed to prevent erosion, whereas sediment controls are designed to trap sediment once it has been mobilized. Upon completion of projects, sites would be fully developed and landscaped. The potential for soil erosion or loss would be extremely minimal. SC 4.4-3 Future developments shall limit grading to the minimum area necessary for construction. Final grading plans shall include best management practices (BMPs) to limit on-site and off-site erosion and a water plan to treat disturbed areas during construction and reduce dust. The plans shall be submitted to the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Public Works 23 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5C 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that would disturb more than one acre, the project applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works an approved copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities, confirming to the Current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The SWPPP shall be made part of the construction program. This SWPPP shall detail measures and practices that would be in effect during construction to minimize the individual project's impact on water quality and storm water runoff volumes. The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the future development is completed. The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all dewatering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction. SC 4.7-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works. The WQMP shall include appropriate BMPs and low impact development (LID) techniques to ensure project runoff is adequately treated. (4) Potential Impact:The Specific Plan area includes expansive soils. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Soils that expand and contract in volume ("shrink-swell" pattern) are considered expansive and may cause damage to aboveground infrastructure as a result of density changes that shift overlying materials. Fine-grain clay sediments are most likely to exhibit shrink-swell patterns in response to changing moisture levels. Where expansive soils are present, remedial grading including the replacement of unsuitable soil materials with suitable engineered fill materials is anticipated to be required. The City's continued compliance with State and local regulations, inclusive of SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2, would preclude potentially significant impacts. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following mitigation is applicable: SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2 are applicable (see above) Greenhouse Gas Emissions 24 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (1) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan's cumulative contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would exceed SCAQMD's 4.1 metric tons (MT) carbon dioxide equivalent (COze) per year threshold, and the Specific Plan's cumulative GHG impacts would also be cumulatively considerable and potential impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The City has determined that while the above-described impact can be partially mitigated the incorporation of SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 and MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-3, this impact cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. There are no feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Annual (construction, operational, and mobile) GHG emissions from implementation of the Specific Plan would total approximately 9.1 MT of COze per service population. Under a worst-case scenario, these emissions would exceed the 4.1 MT CO2e per year threshold. Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG reduction programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS strategies, implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed growth projections for the area in the RTP/SCS and result in an increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. CERA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.2-1 and SC 4.2-2 are applicable (see above) MM 4.2-1, MM 4.2-2, and MM 4.2-3 are applicable (see above) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan could potentially create a hazard to the public or the environment through exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater, as a result of a previous hazardous material incident at a property within the Specific Plan area. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: There are hazardous materials regulated facilities within the Specific Plan area with known or unknown history of contamination. The contamination status of each property would be reevaluated, when the individual site changes land use. In addition to known facilities, future development on a site with a current or former hazardous materials regulated facility would need to be evaluated in consultation with Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division (OCHCA-EH) to determine if there is a contamination risk to the proposed land use. Remediation of a contaminated site to applicable standards for the proposed land use may be required as described in MM 4.6-1. Compliance with all applicable Federal, State and regional 25 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations regulations, and implementation of MM 4.6-1 would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment. MM 4.6-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a human health risk evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with Change County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health Division (OCHCA- EH) for any individual site application proposed on a site with a current or former hazardous materially regulated facility to determine if there is a contamination risk to the proposed land use. Remedial activities, if necessary, may be required, in consultation with OCHCA-EH. (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan area is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan area is not included on a hazardous site list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC, 2017). However, review of regulatory databases through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), the California State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor indicate that there are multiple listings currently present within the Specific Plan area that have or previously had cases associated with hazardous material spills, violations or incidents. Implementation of MM 4.6-1 would reduce potential impacts to the public or environment from a hazardous material site. CERA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.6-1 is applicable(see above) Hydrology and Water Quality (1) Potential impact: Implementation of the Specific Plan would have the potential to adversely impact water quality in downstream receiving waters through the discharge of runoff that contains various pollutants of concern. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Clearing, grading, excavation, and construction activities associated with the Project may impact water quality by induced sheet erosion of exposed soils and the subsequent deposition of particulates in local drainages. Grading activities and sediment stockpiles can lead to exposed areas of loose soil that are susceptible to uncontrolled sheet flow and wind erosion. Impacts can also occur from sediment laden runoff and mobilization of pollutants associated with vehicle staging and operation. 26 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations In compliance with NPDES regulations, the State of California requires that any construction activity disturbing one acre or more of soil comply with the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit). The permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP and monitoring plan, which must include erosion-control and sediment-control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit to control potential construction-related pollutants(SC 4.7-1). Prior to issuance of any grading permits for any development project within the Specific Plan area, a preliminary WQMP would be submitted as part of the entitlement process for development projects; the preliminary WQMP would outline the required quantities of storm water required to be treated and the appropriate treatment methods(SC 4.7-2). CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.7-1 and SC 4.7-2 are applicable (see above) (2) Potential Impact: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Specific Plan area in a manner which would result in a substantial on-site or off-site erosion or siltation,flooding, or polluted runoff. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding: Because of the predominately developed nature of the Specific Plan area, it is anticipated that the storm drain system would largely maintain the same existing drainage patterns and connectivity. Construction within the Specific Plan area would not substantially increase or change the overall drainage areas from existing to the proposed condition. Individual drainage areas could be slightly altered. Hydromodification measures would not be required but BMPs would be required to treat the drainage associated with the proposed impervious areas. MM 4.7-1 requires an applicant to prepare a hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by Project flow rates. Where a development site does not have a direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system, MM 4.7-2 requires an applicant to prepare a hydraulic analysis of the downstream storm drain system to demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. CEQ.A requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4,7-1 and SC 4.7-2 are applicable (see above) SC 4.7-3 Projects within the Specific Plan area would be subject to conditions imposed by the City of Tustin Community Development Department and the Public Works Department in accordance with Section 4902 (Control of Urban Runoff) of the Tustin City Code which requires the project applicant to provide all drainage facilities necessary for the removal of surface water from a site and to protect off-site properties from a project's water runoff. 27 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The storm drain system must be designed in accordance with the standards of the Orange County Flood Division. MM 4.7-1 Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the project applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works a hydrology and hydraulics analysis demonstrating that the existing condition flow rates are not exceeded by the proposed project flow rates. MM 4.7-2 Prior to issuance of any grading or buildings permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that do not have a direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system, shall provide to the Department of Public Works hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. Noise (1) Potential Impact: Future projects within the Specific Plan area would generate noise associated with construction activities, stationary equipment,and operational activities. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation measures. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction Noise: Individual projects within the Specific Plan area would generate temporary construction noise that could exceed existing ambient noise levels in the area, but construction noise would be short-term in duration and would cease with the completion of individual development projects. Noise impacts associated with construction activity are a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Construction of individual projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to occur within the hours, as specified in the Tustin City Code, per Section 4616(2); refer to SC 4.9-1. MM 4.9-1 provides Best Management Practices such as noise barriers, using sound dampening mats or blankets on engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment, and limiting haul trips. Stationary Noise: New stationary noise sources would result in small noise level increases that in some instances would be proximate to noise-sensitive land uses. Projects would be required to comply with SC 4.9-2 which establishes exterior noise levels at set forth in the General Plan Noise Element. No significant impacts would occur. Operational Noise:The Specific Plan would increase the number of delivery and trash hauling trucks traveling through the Specific Plan area. Tustin City Code Chapter 3, Section 4313 prohibits the collection of solid waste from within 200 feet of any residences in the City between the hours of 6:00 PM and 7:00 AM and on Federal holidays. Delivery and trash truck trips in the Specific Plan area would be a periodic source of operational noise. Trash trucks 28 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations would be required to comply with the Tustin City Code standards for trash collection vehicles and delivery trucks would be subject to State regulations. Due to the existing ambient noise and traffic noise within the Specific Plan area, potential future residential units could be exposed to exterior noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL, which is considered normally incompatible by the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element. The City requires proposed developments to prepare and submit an acoustical report to demonstrate compliance with the General Plan and to identify all reasonable and feasible measures to satisfy the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard and 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard. With implementation of existing regulations, as implemented through SC 4.9-2, impacts related to development of residential units within the Specific Plan area would be anticipated to be less than significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.9-1 To ensure compliance with Tustin City Code, grading and construction plans shall include a note indicating that loud noise-generating project construction activities (as defined in Section 4616(2) and Section 4617(e) of the Tustin City Code) shall take place between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays and from 9:00 AM to .5:00 PM on Saturdays. Loud, noise-generating construction activities are prohibited outside of these hours and on Sundays and City observed Federal holidays. SC 4.9-2 Development projects are required to meet or exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard, as defined by Table N-3 of the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element, and the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level standard of the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element, and by Title 24, Part 2,of the California Building Code. MM 4.9-1 Construction Noise. Prior to approval of grading plans, the City of Tustin Building Division shall ensure that plans include Best Management Practices to minimize construction noise. Construction noise Best Management Practices may include the following: ■ Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards, and all stationary construction equipment shall be placed so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive use nearest the construction activity. ■ The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receiver nearest to the construction activity. ■ The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment by Tustin City Code Article 4, Chapter 6, Section 4617. The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses to delivery truck noise. 29 Exhibit E Red Hi11 Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ Construction activity within 50 feet of occupied noise sensitive uses shall reduce construction noise levels exceeding 85 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive land uses by one or more of the following methods to reduce noise to below 85 dBA Leq: 1. Install temporary construction noise barriers within the line of site of occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities that could generate noise exceeding 85 dBA Leq. The noise control barrier(s) must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall: a. Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; b. Be maintained and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired;and c. Be removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. 2. Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment (e.g. graders, dozers, heavy trucks).The dampening materials must be capable of a 5-dBA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use. (2) Potential Impact: Construction of individual projects within the Specific Plan area could generate vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activity associated with implementation of the Specific Pian would be a temporary source of groundborne vibration. Buildings near a construction site respond to vibration to varying degrees ranging from imperceptible effects at the lowest levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and up to minor damage at the highest vibration levels. Vibration levels attenuate quickly over distance, so vibration would not be noticeable at receptors outside of the immediate vicinity of construction. MM 4.9-2 would minimize and avoid vibration impacts should pile-driving be required associated with a future development project. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.9-2 Construction Vibration. The following measures shall be implemented by applicants for development within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area to reduce construction vibration at nearby receptors: 30 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations a. Avoid impact pile-driving where possible. b. In areas where project construction is anticipated to include pile drivers in close proximity to schools or historic structures, conduct site-specific vibration studies to determine the area of impact and to present appropriate vibration reduction techniques that may include the following: ■ [Develop a vibration monitoring and construction contingency plan to identify structures where monitoring should be conducted, set up a vibration monitoring schedule, define structure-specific vibration limits, and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before and after construction conditions. ■ Identify construction contingencies for when vibration levels approach the standards. ■ At a minimum, conduct vibration monitoring during pile-driving activities. Monitoring results may indicate the need for more or less intensive measurements. ■ When vibration levels approach standards, suspend construction and implement contingencies to either lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. ■ Conduct a post-survey on any structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of vibration. Public Services (1) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with fire services. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan would allow for an increase of up to 500 additional dwelling unit, and 325,000 sf of additional non-residential uses. This increase in development would incrementally increase the demand for fire apparatus, equipment, performance, and personnel. All new development would be required to comply with the existing International Fire Code and California Fire and Building Codes in the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, SC 4.11-1 requires future development projects to prepare a Fire Master Plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: 31 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations SC 4.11-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for any development project under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit a Fire Master Plan to the Orange County Fire Authority for review. Payment of fees and Fire Master Plan approval shall be obtained prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. (2) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with school services. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Specific Plan buildout is anticipated to generate 81 elementary school students, 32 intermediate school students, and 33 high school students. School funding comes predominantly from Federal, State, and local contributions, such as business and personal income taxes, sales tax, and property tax. In accordance with Government Code Section 65995 and the Tustin City Code, the School district requires all new development to pay fees to help offset the effects to school facilities from new residential, commercial, and industrial development. Payment of fees would offset impacts from increased demand for school services associated with development in the Specific Plan area by providing an adequate financial base to construct and equip new and existing schools. The School District would be able to provide adequate school facilities for the projected students and payment of impact fees would ensure that impacts are offset and remain less than significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.11-3 Pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code, prior to the issuance of building permits for any development projects under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, the applicant shall pay developer fees to the Tustin Unified School District; payment of the adopted fees would provide full and complete mitigation of school impacts. SC 4.11-4 New development under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan shall be subject to the same General Obligation bond tax rate as already applied to other properties within the Tustin Unified School district for Measure G (approved in 2008) based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses. Recreation (1) Potential Impact: Buildout of the Specific Plan Project would increase the use of existing and planned parks and recreational facilities. 32 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions and mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: In accordance with the Quimby Act, a jurisdiction may establish a parkland dedication standard based on its existing parkland ratio, provided required dedications do not exceed 5 acres per 1,006 persons. The City's parkland dedication requirements of 3 acres per 1,000 residents is the same as the Quimby Act. The City identifies parkland acreage requirements by multiplying the number of dwelling units by the parkland acres per unit based on the established density categories in the Tustin City Code. The Specific Plan does not establish density ranges. Because the Project proposes multi-family residential development and encourages it to be provided in a mixed- use setting,the Program EIR uses the 15.1 to 25 dwelling units per gross acre category in the Tustin City Code which assumes 2.24 persons per unit or 0.0067 acre of parkland per unit.' If future residential units were subject to the Quimby Act (because of a subdivision), the total amount of new parkland would be approximately 3.35 acres. The Tustin City Code also notes that dedication of land may be required by the City for a condominium, stock cooperative, or community apartment project which exceeds 54 dwelling units, regardless of the number of parcels. Therefore, the City may require the dedication of land regardless of where the future residential development projects within the Specific Plan are subdivisions. General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Policies 14.6 and 18.4 encourage future parks to be designed as joint-use facilities with public schools to reduce overall operations and maintenance costs. A source of additional funding for the maintenance and construction of new parks and recreation facilities is the City's General Fund, including property taxes collected from residents. Because future residential development within the Specific Plan area may not be subject to the Quimby Act or the subdivision provisions of the Tustin City Code, future development projects could cumulatively contribute to the parkland deficiency identified in the City's General Plan. In order that park and recreational facilities be provided to serve future residents within the Specific Plan area, mitigation is required. MM 4.12-1 applies the parkland dedication and development fee provisions set forth in the Tustin City Code to new residential dwelling units within the Specific Plan area that would not be subject to Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 3, Part 3,Section 9331.4 (Parkland Dedication). CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.12-1 Prior to the approval of the final map for subdivisions under the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, applicants shall comply with the City of Tustin Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code). Developers may dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu or a z The California Department of Finance,Table 2: E-5, 2017,identifies a citywide average of 3.04 persons per household which includes single-family,multi-family,and mobile home dwelling units. 33 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations combination of both. The value of the amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication. Dedication of land may be required by the City for a condominium, stock cooperative, or community apartment project which exceeds 50 dwelling units. MM 4.12-1 For residential projects not subject to City of Tustin Subdivision Code (Article 9, Chapter 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants shall dedicate parkland or pay a park fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting the value of land required for park purposes. The amount of such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for land Dedication: The public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety requires that three (3) acres of usable park land per one thousand (1,000) potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling Units per Gross Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0-7 3.39 .0102 7.1-15 2.85 .0086 15.1-25 2.24 ,0067 25.1&Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve three(3) product type acres/ 1,000 population Mobile Home Parks 2.24 .0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000) persons. Transportation and Traffic (1) Potential Impact: The Specific Plan Project would not conflict with applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Finding:The City hereby makes Finding 1 that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. MM 4.2-1 is applicable. However, Finding 2 identifies that "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 34 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations other agency". The City of Tustin cannot impose mitigation on another jurisdiction. Therefore, traffic improvements that would require the approval of Caltrans are considered significant, unavoidable impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce this impact to a less than significant. Therefore, the City hereby also makes Finding 3 which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition of Project approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Implementation of the Specific Plan would have significant impacts to the level of service (LOS) of one intersection within the traffic study area. All other intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of services with buildout out the Specific Plan Project. Using the City's Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology, the addition of Project traffic would cause the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps to worsen to LOS E in the evening peak hour. The level of service would still be LOS C during both peak hours using the Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The Project's impact using the ICU methodology would be considered to be a significant impact. MM 4.13-1 identifies improvements that would achieve an improvement level of service. However, the City cannot impose mitigation on another agency or jurisdiction. Because of the uncertainty of whether Caltrans would allow for the implementation of the improvement, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. All roadway segments would continue to operate at acceptable levels of services with implementation of the Specific Plan Project. Impacts would be less than significant. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.13-1 Red Hill Avenue at Interstate 5 Southbound Ramps: Re-stripe the eastbound approach (the off-ramp) to convert from a shared left-through lane and one dedicated right-turn lane to one dedicated left-turn lane and a shared left- through-right lane. This improvement would provide additional capacity for the heavy eastbound left-turn volume. With this improvement, the intersection would operate at Level of Service D or better during both peak hours. The California Department of Transportation` (Caltrans) approval and cooperation would be required to implement this improvement. Utilities (1) Potential Impact— Buildout of the Specific Plan Project would not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities in a manner that would cause significant environmental effects. Sufficient water is available to serve the Project. Finding The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. 35 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Facts in Support of Finding: The Specific Plan would be served from existing entitlements; new or expanded water entitlements would not be needed due to diversified supply and conservation measures. The City can meet all customer demands within the service area through the purchase of significant reserves held by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, local groundwater supplies, and through implementation of conservation measures in multiple dry years. The City's water supply is reliable. As set forth in the City's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, proposed growth in the Specific Plan area falls within the assumptions made for growth in the City through 2040 and sufficient water supply exists to serve the proposed uses identified in the Specific Plan area. To provide potable water and fire service to the existing and proposed land uses within the Specific Plan area, additional water infrastructure would be required. The City has a long- range plan to upgrade sections of water mains in the area. Other anticipated improvements include public meters and backflow devices that would be required for domestic water service and/or separate fire lines for individual developments as they occur. The Specific Plan can provide sufficient water infrastructure improvements to provide water to the projects within the Specific Plan area, as needed. Projects would be required to comply with SC 4.14-1 and SC 4.14-2. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.14-1 Future development within the Specific Plan area would comply with Article 4, Chapter 10, Section 4952 of the Tustin City Code which seeks to reduce water consumption through (1) permanent water conservation requirements during non-shortage conditions and (2) four levels of water supply shortage response actions to be implemented within the City during times of declared water shortage. The program would prevent waste or unreasonable use of water; maximize the efficient use of water; and ensure a reliable and sustainable minimum supply of water for public health, safety, and welfare. SC 4.14-2 Future development within the Specific Plan area would comply with Article 9, Chapter 7, Section 9704 of the Tustin City Code which establishes procedures and standards for the design, installation, and maintenance of water-efficient landscapes in conjunction with new construction projects within the City to promote the conservation and efficient use of water and to prevent the waste of available water resources. (2) Potential Impact—Storm drainage can be provided to development sites within the Specific Plan area without significantly impacting City infrastructure. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation measures were required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: Projects would be required to apply for encroachment permits for connection to the City storm drain infrastructure. For future development projects 36 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations within the Specific Plan, direct connection to the City's existing storm drain system is preferable provided that the existing tributary areas and flow rates to the existing drains are not exceeded by new development. Alternatively, applicants may provide hydraulic analyses of the downstream storm drain system that demonstrate no significant impacts to the City storm drain infrastructure. In all cases, storm water quality requirements must be met. New on-site storm water drainage facilities would be constructed in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Applicants for future development within the Specific Plan area would be required to demonstrate that existing flow rates would not be exceeded with project development. For all development, post-construction measures under the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) require co-permittees to implement structural and nonstructural BMPs that mimic predevelopment quantity and quality runoff conditions for new development. No large net increases in storm drainage rates or volumes are expected due to implementation of the Specific Plan. Adherence to all applicable provisions within the Orange County DAMP and City permits would result in a less than significant impact. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.7-1, SC 4.7-2, and SC 4.7-3 are applicable MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 are applicable. (3) Potential Impact—The Specific Plan Project would not impact solid waste services. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this potentially significant impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of standard conditions. No mitigation was required or recommended. Facts in Support of Finding: The Bowerman Landfill has a daily maximum intake load of 11,500 tons per day with an 8,500-ton per day annual average. The remaining disposal capacity of 205 million cubic yards, as of February 29, 2008, which is the most current published data. Buildout of the Specific Plan would generate approximately 7,740 pounds of solid waste per day (3.87 tons/day or 1412.5 tons/year). The estimate refuse generation of the project is a nominal percentage of the maximum intake load. Based on the remaining capacity of the Bowerman Landfill and the County's long-term planning programs required to meet CalRecycle requirements, there would be adequate waste disposal capacity within the permitted County's landfill system to meet the needs of the Project. Projects would be required to comply with SC 4.14-3. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: SC 4.14-3 Applicants shall prepare and obtain approval of a Construction and Demolition Waste Management Plan (CDWMD) for a project. The CWMP shall list the types and weights or volumes of solid waste materials expected to be generated from construction. The CDWMP shall include options to 37 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations divert from landfill disposal, nonhazardous materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight or volume (or requirements in place at the time of project entitlement). 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Project Planning Process The following is a discussion of the land use alternatives considered during the scoping and planning process and the reasons why they were not selected for detailed analysis in the Draft Program EIR. Among the factors that can be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an Program EIR are "failure to meet most of the basic Project objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[c]). Alternatives were eliminated during the scoping/planning process either because they were determined to be infeasible or because it could be determined that they would not avoid or eliminate significant environmental impacts when compared to the Project. 1. Alternative Site The Alternative Site scenario assumes 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non- residential uses would be constructed within a defined area elsewhere in the City. The City is proposing the revitalization of other properties including within the historic downtown area. While the proposed land uses identified in the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan could be implemented elsewhere in the City,the purpose of the Project is to promote the revitalization of this specific commercial district to create a vibrant and dynamic area within the City. Development at a different location would be anticipated to require similar discretionary approvals as the Specific Plan Project and result in similar physical impacts to the environment. Therefore, the development of a Specific Plan in an alternative location was reviewed and eliminated from consideration. 2. Alternative Land Use The Alternative Land Use scenario assumes intensification within the Specific Plan area with only residential uses. The Specific Plan assumes an additional 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses; this alternative assumes between 500 and 975 additional units within the Specific Plan area. The residential uses could be developed both north and south of I- 5 on both vacant and underutilized properties. This alternative would not provide for the integration of mixed-use development projects within the Specific Plan area and would not promote the revitalization of this predominately commercial area in the same manner envisioned in the Specific Pian. The Alternative Land Use scenario would have similar discretionary approvals. This alternative assumes less overall development than the Specific Plan; however, it would continue the pattern of the persons living in one area and commuting to jobs, shopping, and services in a different area of the City or outside of the City. As such, this alternative did not meet the objectives set forth in the Specific Plan and was rejected from further consideration. B. Alternatives Selected for Analysis 38 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives" (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6[aj). Two alternatives were evaluated. The alternatives were developed to avoid or minimize impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan Project. Given the nature and scale of the Project, complete avoidance of significant impacts was not feasible. The following alternatives were analyzed: • Alternative A: General Plan/No Specific Plan • Alternative B: Reduced Development The City's Findings and Facts in support of Findings with respect to each alternative considered are provided below. Consistent with the guidance set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the Findings address whether the alternative would feasibly attain most of the basic goals and objectives of the Project; whether it would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project; and whether the alternative is feasible, as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, as being "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors". Alternative A:General Plan/No Specific Plan Description. Alternative A is the "No Project" alternative required by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) which allows the decisionmakers to compare the potential impacts of the Specific Plan Project to the potential impacts associated with the ongoing development in this geographic area consistent with the City of Tustin General Pian. Alternative A would not change the existing policy documents that govern the Specific Plan area; the City's General Plan would remain the guiding document. The existing land use designations for the Specific Plan area include a mix of commercial and professional office land use designations. The General Plan Community Commercial (CC) land use designation applies to more than 90 percent of the properties. The other land use designations are Planned Community Commerciai/Business (approximately eight percent) and Professional Office (approximately two percent). The Specific Plan area has approximately 296,446 square feet of non-residential uses, including but not limited to commercial, office, an institutional use and motels, as well as 21 dwelling units. The General Plan estimated maximum buildout for this geographic area is 913,724 square feet of non-residential development with no additional residential units. Alternative A represents an increase of approximately 617,278 square feet of additional non-residential development. When compared to the Specific Plan, the General Plan represents an increase of 292,278 square feet of non-residential uses. It is estimated that Alternative A would generate approximately 1,372 additional employment opportunities compared to 1,520 new residents 39 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and 722 new employment opportunities associated with the Specific Plan Project3. Additionally, Alternative A would not include streetscape, landscape, and other public improvements which are a part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative A's environmental impacts as compared to the Specific Plan Project is set forth in Section 6.4.1 of the Program EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. With implementation of Alternative A, some effects (impacts on schools, public services, recreation, and utilities) would be reduced because of the elimination of residential development. However, it should be noted that the Project would have less than significant impacts with or without mitigation associated with these environmental topics. Alternative A would have the same or potentially greater impacts on other topical areas because of an increase in non-residential development. For example, Alternative A would generate more traffic than the Project. Air quality operational impacts and GHG emissions would also be greater than the Specific Plan Project. Ability to Achieve Specific Plan Project Goals and Objectives:This alternative would fulfill some of the Specific Plan's objectives but would not realize the objective to increase housing opportunities through mixed-use development within the Specific Plan area or allow enough new development to provide increased vibrancy in the Specific Plan area. Feasibility: Alternative A is feasible. Under Alternative A, the area could continue to be developed but not in the same manner envisioned in the Specific Plan. Finding. This Alternative would not avoid or eliminate the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. It would not achieve many of the goals and objectives established for the Project in the Red Hill Specific Plan to guide future change, promote high-quality development, and implement the community's vision for the Specific Plan area. For these reasons, the City finds that the Specific Plan Project is preferred over this alternative Alternative B: Reduced Development Description: Alternative B was developed to evaluate whether a reduction in the amount of development could meet Specific Plan objectives and reduce Specific Plan impacts. This alternative would reduce both dwelling units and non-residential development and, in that respect, would incrementally reduce impacts that are associated with the Specific Plan. However, it would not avoid the significant impacts associated with the Project. Alternative B would reduce the amount of new development; it assumes up to 284 additional dwelling units and up to 241,237 square feet of additional non-residential development. When compared to the Specific Pian, Alternative B reduces the number of units by 216 units (a reduction of approximately 43 percent) and reduces the non-residential uses by 83,763 square feet (a reduction of approximately 26 percent), This development would occur within the same 3 Population projections were developed based on a generation factor of 3.04 persons per household,as determined in the California Department of Finance 2017 estimates. Employment projections assumes 450 square feet of retail per employee,per$GAG'S Employment Density Summary Report. 40 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Specific Pian area footprint. Alternative B would require the same discretionary actions as noted for the Specific Plan. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of Alternative B's environmental impacts as compared to the Specific Plan Project is set forth in Section 6.4.2 of the Program EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. Alternative B would incrementally reduce significant impacts associated with the intensity of development. When compared to the Specific Plan, Alternative B would reduce but not eliminate significant unavoidable air quality impacts and GHG emission impacts. The reduction in traffic associated with Alternative B may preclude a significant impact to the intersection of Red Hill Avenue at the 1-5 southbound ramps to worsen to LOS E in the evening peals hour. As with the Specific Plan Project, standard conditions and/or mitigation measures would be required to reduce potential significant impacts associated with the remaining environmental issues. Ability to Achieve Specific Pfau Project Goals and Objectives: With 284 additional residential units and 241,237 additional square feet of non-residential uses, this alternative would meet many of the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan. However, Alternative B assumes incrementally less development than the Specific Plan. Feasibility: Alternative B is feasible. Under Alternative B, less development would occur than envisioned in the Specific Plan. Finding:While Alternative B would lessen some of the environmental effects of the Specific Plan Project, it would not eliminate all significant and unavoidable impacts. For these reasons, the City finds that the Specific Plan is preferred over this alternative. 41 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Introduction The City of Tustin is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve a project. In making this determination the City is guided by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 which provides as follows: CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental 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, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support. its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Project against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the Project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the Specific Plan Project, none of which both meet the Project goals and objectives, and is environmentally preferable to the Project or feasible for the reasons discussed in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings. 42 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations The Tustin City Council, having reviewed the Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project, and reviewed all written materials within the City's public record and heard all oral testimony presented at public hearings, adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which has balanced the benefits of the Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in reaching its decision to approve the Project. Significant Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Although most potential Project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated, as described in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, there remain some Project impacts for which complete mitigation is not feasible. For some impacts, mitigation measures were identified and adopted by the Lead Agency, however, even with implementation of the measures,the City finds that the impact cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant. The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of the Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the Project, each of which standing alone is sufficient to support approval of the Project, in accordance with CEQA Section 210$1(b) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15093. 43 Exhibit E Attachment D RESOLUTION NO. 4368 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT [GPA 2017-000011 INCLUDING TEXT AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN EXHIBITS/MAPS FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13). The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated the preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction in conjunction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. In conjunction with the RHASP the revision of text and maps within the General Plan is necessary to make all elements internally consistent and consistent with the proposed Plan. B. That General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-00001 shall include amendments to the Land Use Element and other minor text amendments to various related sections as well as related graphic exhibits and maps. C. That the City of Tustin, as Lead Agency, has determined that collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) has been prepared and environmental impacts associated with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project have been analyzed as referenced in Resolution 4367. D. That the Planning Commission has considered the FPEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017- 0001 . E. That California law requires that a specific plan be consistent with the General Plan of the adopting locality. A General Plan Consistency Analysis has been prepared as part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that finds the project to be consistent, with adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment. F. That California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Resolution No. 4368 Page 2 Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project. G. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project on August 14, 2018, by the Tustin Planning Commission. At the meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and continued the public hearing to September 25, 2018. H. That the Commission has reviewed and considered FPEIR prior to recommending approval of GPA 2017-00001. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve GPA 2017-00001 authorizing a change to the General Plan Land Use Designations of Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) within the project area to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) and text amendments as identified and attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 25th day of September, 2018. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4368 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4368 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 25th day of September 2018. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibits: A. General Plan Consistency Analysis B. Revised General Plan text, exhibits and maps associated with the RHASP C. Existing and Proposed General Plan Maps Exhibit A Exhibit A General Plan Consistency Analysis Following a thorough analysis of the City of Tustin General Plan, the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) has been found to be consistent with the Tustin General Plan, as amended. The text below includes a discussion on the relationship of this Specific Plan to relevant General Plan goals from the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Conservation/Open Space/Recreation, Public Safety and Noise Elements as follows: 1 Land Use Element • Goal 1: Provide for well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open space and community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, diversified economy adequate to provide future services. • Goal 2: Ensure that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning. • Goal 3: Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses in the community, the City's circulation network, availability of public facilities, existing development constraints and the City's unique character and resources. • Goal 4: Assure a safe, healthy and aesthetically pleasing community for residents and businesses. • Goal 5: Revitalize older commercial, industrial and residential uses and properties. • Goal 6: Improve urban design in Tustin to ensure development that is both architecturally and functionally compatible, and to create uniquely identifiable neighborhoods, commercial and business park districts. • Goal 7: Promote expansion of the City's economic base and diversification of economic activity. • Goal 8: Ensure that necessary public facilities and services should be available to accommodate development proposed on the Land Use Policy Map. The vision of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP) is to create a vibrant, commercial-retail district through the establishment of a new land use plan that provides a complementary mix of commercial, retail, office and residential uses in an integrated, pedestrian friendly, mixed—use setting. Greater emphasis will be placed on the pedestrian and bicyclist, in addition to the needs of the automobile and public transit through allocation of the use of space within the public right-of-way. The evolution of land uses will enhance the economic and social vitality of the area. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 2 of 6 Adding residential uses and increasing pedestrian-oriented retail and commercial uses will help create a more dynamic, eclectic, and attractive place for both residents and visitors. A greater variety of activities along the street will be encouraged through the development of either horizontal or vertical mixed-uses that reinforce pedestrian orientation. The increased demand for commercial uses and services will lead to a revitalization of the area's underutilized parcels. Open space and community facilities and City services to serve the future residents of the area are also promoted, which in conjunction with the commercial uses will allow the RHASP to preserve a healthy, varied economy sufficient to provide future services. The RHASP and the RHASP EIR evaluated existing public facilities and infrastructure and determined that the existing facilities and services were adequate to serve the development proposed in the RHASP. The development standards and design criteria of the RHASP provide regulations and criteria to ensure the compatibility of new development with the adjacent character of the nearby existing single-family and multi-family neighborhoods through consideration of adjacent uses, building setbacks and site planning. Development will be directed to reflect the vision and enhance the overall architectural theme of the area. The Community Development Department will enforce these standards through the design review process. The RHASP area includes only the commercially-zoned properties along Red Hill Avenue and does not include any residential or industrially-zoned properties. The RHASP ensures that future land use decisions are the result of sound and comprehensive planning through a master planned approach with design criteria and standards that will guide future development for the area. The RHASP planning effort included community workshops, meetings and public input which promoted public interest in, and understanding of, the General Plan and regulations relating to it, including this Specific Plan. This effort led to the plan presented in the RHASP. 2 Housing Element • Goal 1: Provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio-economic needs of all community residents. • Goal 3: Increase the percentage of ownership housing to ensure a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing within the City. • Goal 6: Ensure that new housing is sensitive to the existing natural and built environment. The Specific Plan would promote revitalization of the commercial district by providing a mixed-use land use program, design criteria and a streetscape program to improve jobs/housing balance, aesthetics and promote mobility. As stated in the consistency discussion under the Land Use Element section, the RHASP allows residential uses in a mixed-use setting which will create more housing opportunities and increase the diversity of housing offered within the City. Depending on the product type, different price General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 3 of 6 points would be offered which will help meet the diverse socio-economic needs within the community and help ensure that a reasonable balance of rental and owner-occupied housing is maintained within the City. New development and reconstruction of existing uses within the Specific Plan area would be constructed using the California Green Business Standards, which require energy efficiency, water efficiency, and material conservation and resource efficiency. The Specific Plan would also be in compliance with the Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 7, Section 9704 which establishes standards for water-efficient landscapes. Development standards contained within the RHASP would also ensure that new mixed-use developments will be compatible with the existing adjacent commercial and residential area. 3 Circulation Element • Goal 1: Provide a system of streets that meets the needs of the current and future inhabitants and facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods throughout the City consistent with the City's ability to finance and maintain such a system. • Goal 4: Maximize the efficiency of the circulation system through the use of transportation system management and demand management strategies. • Goal 6: Increase the use of non-motorized modes of transportation. • Goal 7: Provide for well-designed and convenient parking facilities. As referenced in the consistency discussion under the Land Use Element section,the vision for the RHASP includes the creation of a distinct commercial-retail district that is both pedestrian & bike- friendly while also accommodating automotive and public transit needs. This is accomplished by introducing more residential uses in either a vertical or horizontal mixed use setting, utilizing the public right-of-way with an enhanced streetscape plan and encouraging enhancements to commercial uses. The Plan proposes revisions to the Red Hill Avenue roadway to include a striped on-street bike lane along the entire length of the Specific Plan area to promote more multimodal travel opportunities. Enhanced bikeway signage would also be introduced to promote bike usage and provide directions on how to connect to other bikeways or key points in the City. There are existing continuous sidewalks on Red Hill Avenue and cross streets within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan proposes improvements to the public realm in the Specific Plan area with an enhanced streetscape that would balance vehicular and pedestrian needs with a Flexible Amenity Setback adjacent to the public right-of-way with landscape parkways, street trees, landscape median and cohesive street furniture; allowing pedestrians to feel secure; cohesive wayfinding signage throughout the Specific Plan area; and safe, improved pedestrian crossings. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 4 of 6 The development standards within the RHASP include parking regulations to ensure future development within the Specific Plan area provides sufficient off-street parking for all land uses. The development standards also provide provisions for the shared use of parking facilities for future development within the Specific Plan area. 4 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element • Goal 1: Reduce air pollution through proper land use, transportation and energy use planning. • Goal 2: Improve air quality by influencing transportation choices of mode, time of day, or whether to travel to establish a jobs/housing balance. • Goal 3: Reduce particulate emissions to the greatest extent feasible. • Goal 4: Reduce emissions through reduced energy consumption. • Goal 5: Protect water quality and conserve water supply. • Goal 8: Conserve and protect significant topographical features, important watershed areas, resources, and soils. • Goal 10: Reduce solid waste produced within City. • Goal 11: Conserve energy resources through the use of available energy technology and conservation practices. • Goal 12: Maintain and enhance the City's unique culturally and historically significant building sites or features. • Goal 13: Preserve Tustin's archeological and paleontological resources. • Goal 14: Encourage the development and maintenance of a balanced system of public and private parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces that serve the needs of existing and future residents in the City of Tustin. • Goal 18: Ensure that recreational goals and policies are pursued and realized in an organized, incremental, and cost-effective manner and consistent with the City of Tustin's financial resources and legal authorities and the appropriate responsibilities of other agencies, the private sector, and individual and group users. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 The RHASP encourages environmentally-friendly practices that would reduce air pollutant emissions, energy consumption, and water use. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Mitigation Program set forth in the RHASP EIR Section 4.2 (Air Quality) regarding operational emission reductions and Section 4.14 (Utilities and Service Systems) relative to recycling of wastes and use of recycled materials. Individual development projects within the Specific Plan area would comply with water quality regulations. Stormwater runoff generated from individual development projects would be managed in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local water quality rules and regulations to effectively preclude significant impacts on water quality. A Water Quality Management Plan and/or SWPPP,which includes site-specific best management practices (BMP's) for erosion and sediment control,would be prepared and implemented for projects within the Specific Plan area. As with all development in the City, projects in the Specific Plan area are required to submit grading plans, which would be accompanied by a soils engineering report, engineering geology report and drainage calculations that would analyze existing topography, soils and any associated potential impacts. Standard conditions (SC 4.4-1 and SC 4.4-2) contained within Section 4.4 (Geology and Soils) of the RHASP EIR also specify the preparation of geological and soils engineering reports. Future development within the Specific Plan area would be constructed in accordance with the California Green Business Standards, which require energy efficiency, water efficiency, and material conservation and resource efficiency. Development would also be required to comply with Title 24 California Uniform Building Code requirements which include measures related to solar, energy and water efficient building design, appliances and fixtures. The Specific Plan area is not in an area that is considered sensitive for archaeological resources and there is low likelihood for paleontological resources or other unique geologic features within the Specific Plan area. The records search determined that surface grading or shallow excavations would likely not uncover significant vertebrate fossil remains. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.3 (Cultural Resources) of the RHASP EIR which requires developers or new projects to retain an archaeologist to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated archaeological discoveries and any applicable archaeological requirements. The RHASP EIR supports the City's policy of providing adequate parkland in compliance with Tustin City Code Article 9, Chapter 3, Part 3, Section 9331.d. Projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with applicable City requirements and the Mitigation Program set forth in Section 4.12 (Recreation) of the RHASP EIR which requires projects not subject to parkland dedication requirements to pay a parkland development fee to the City of Tustin. 5 Public Safety Element • Goal 3: Reduce the risk to the community from geologic and seismic hazards. General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit A Page 6 of 6 • Goal 4: Reduce the risk to the community's inhabitants from exposure to hazardous materials and wastes. • Goal 5: Reduce the risk to the community's inhabitants from fires and explosions. • Goal 6: Stabilize demand for law enforcement services. Development projects within the Specific Plan area would be required to design all development and associated infrastructure in accordance with the California Uniform Building Code seismic design standards. The Code contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type,the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with specified probability of occurring at the site. The Specific Plan would also require new developments to adhere to the California Fire and Building Code, which references the use of fire-retardant materials to reduce hazards and severity. The Specific Plan area is in a developed area that is currently served by the Tustin Police Department. The Specific Plan would introduce new residential and commercial uses and increase the population of the City; however, tax-base expansion from development with the Plan area would generate funding for the police protection services. 6 Noise Element • Goal 2: Incorporate noise considerations into land use planning decisions. Future developments within the Specific Plan would be reviewed to ensure compliance with noise requirements. Section 4.9 (Noise) of the RHASP EIR identifies and addresses the General Plan's noise standards, including land use compatibility. Exhibit B residential densities, traffic circulation, controlled growth, environmental preservation, and crime prevention (a complete summary of the survey results is available in the Planning Department); o Two public "Open House" sessions held early in the process to solicit input for issues identification and goal formulation; o Opportunities to publicly address decision makers directly regarding issues, concerns, and desires at Planning Commission and Joint City Council/Planning Commission General Plan Workshops, both prior to preparation and during review of the Preliminary Draft General Plan; and o Public review and comment on the Draft General Plan and its supporting documents during public hearings held before the City's Planning Commission and City Council. o For the 2001 amendment of the General Plan associated with the reuse of MCAS Tustin, a public "Open Hous" was held to review the Draft Amendment, followed by public hearings held before the City's Planning Commission and City Council. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS As amendments to the General Plan are considered and adopted by the City, a general description of each should be identified and added as an attachment to the Introduction to the Plan. Amendment of Table 1-2 as an attachment to the Introduction Chapter below will not require an amendment to the General Plan. Table I-2 below identifies each amendment and the General Plan elements affected. TABLE I-2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Amendment Name Date of Affected Amendment Description Adoption Elements 2016-00001 XX XX 1 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 8 Land Use Resolution No. 18-XX CITY OF TUSTIN INTRODUCTION GENERAL PLAN 10 JUNE 2018 INTRODUCTION TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element is a guide to the allocation of land use in the City and provides a framework or context for the issues and subject areas examined in the other Elements of the General Plan. PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT The purpose of the Land Use Element is to describe present and planned land use activity, and to address issues concerning the relationship between land uses and environmental quality,potential hazards, and social and economic objeeobject tives. The Element identifies the general distribution and location of residential and non- residential land uses, as well as quantifiable density and building intensity.The Land Use Element constitutes official City policy for the location of various land uses, and provides guidance to ensure orderly growth and development. Goals and policies included in the Land Use Element establish a constitutional framework for future land use planning and decision making. The Land Use Plan portion of the Element promotes the achievement of these goals by establishing logical,organized land use patterns and standards for future land use.The Plan accomplishes this through the use of descriptive text,tables,charts,and maps. SCOPE AND CONTENT OF THE ELEMENT The Land Use Element includes the City's goals and policies for the long-term growth, development and revitalization of Tustin. The Element contains text describing land use goals and policies, descriptions of land use types, a Land Use Policy Map, and a statistical summary of the City's future land use composition. A primary component of this Element is the Land Use Plan Policy Map which graphically identifies future planned land uses within the planning area.The Land Use Element contains a narrative description of the land use designations depicted on the Land Use Plan Policy Map. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 1 JUNE 2018 COMPATIBLE AND.COMPLEMENTARY DEVELOPMENT o The intermixing of land uses in some areas without adequate buffering has resulted in land use incompatibilities, such as those related to physical scale,noise,and traffic.Specific types and examples of incompatible land uses include the following: ■ obtrusive industrial uses adjacent to residential development; ■ commercial uses abutting residential development without adequate buffering; ■ high density residential adjacent to lower residential densities without adequate buffering; ■ noise sensitive uses adjacent to freeways, highways and railroads. o The market trend for mixed-use housing opportunities within a walkable downtown as well as within the Red Hill Avenue commercial area has created a desire for a mix of compatible commercial,office and residential uses. o New development,if not regulated,can interfere with public vistas and views of the surrounding hillsides, public monuments,and other important viewsheds. REVITALIZATION OF OLDER COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL,AND RESIDENTIAL USES AND PROPERTIES o While most of Tustin's housing stock is in good condition, certain neighborhoods,such as the Southwest area of the City, are in need of concentrated rehabilitation and code enforcement efforts. o Tustin contains numerous historically and architecturally significant structures whose maintenance and preservation is important to the heritage of the community. o Some of the City's older residential areas are impacted by adjacent freeways,commercial and industrial land uses. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 7 }F-.AUGUST 2018 Policy 11A Integrate existing uses,new development and potential future redevelopment uses. Policy 11.5: Upgrade the edge conditions between industrial/ business park uses and residential development through private development standards and onsite landscaping of industrial/business park uses. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER IN THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area is envisioned to be a distinctive,vibrant and thriving district witli interconnected commercial,office,and residential uses in a mixed-use setting. The area serves as a prominent gateway to the City with Interstate 5 northbound and southbound on and off-ramps at Red Hill Avenue,allowing for residents,retail commercial customers and existing business owners within the area to have immediate freeway access. Goal 12: Enhance streetscape, landscape, and public amenities, improve visual and functional connections and linkages between Red Hill Avenue, surrounding residential neighborhoods, adjacent public and institutional uses and Interstate 5, balance flexible and diverse land uses that foster economic development opportunities and support housing opportunities, streamline processes to support future development,improve pedestrian and bike accessibility and vehicular circulation to minimize potential conflicts between different users and improve mobility,implement parking standards that reflect verifiable demand and consider future land uses,coordinate existing and future development with infrastructure capacity, and ensure development within the Specific Plan area is sensitive to and compatible with surrounding land uses. Policy 12.1: Establish a streetscape program using landscaping, signage,street furniture,entry statements,and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. Policy 12.2: Develop coordinated gateway design treatments that establish entry statements and a"sense of place"at key locations within the Specific Plan area. Policy 12.3: Encourage a"sense of place'within the Specific Plan area through duality site design,architectural design,and public improvements as part of future development. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERALPLAN 25 fUN AUGCST2018 Policy 12A Coordinate a bus shelter and transit stop improvement program to ensure that all bus stops have the appropriate amenities. Policy 12.5: Identify ways to improve and enhance linkages and Formatted:Font:Bold connections between new development in the Specific Plan area and surrounding properties. i Policy 12.6: Develop design criteria that encourage optimal building Formatted:Font:Bold configuration and design, parking strategies, signage, pedestrian amenities, landscaping,and appropriate,timeless architectural styles. Policy 12.7: Establish a land use program that encourages a mix of _---- Formatted:Font:Bold land uses responsive to market demands and Tustin community priorities. Policy 12.8: Refine allowable land uses within the area to encourage - - Formatted:Font:Bold the desired development envisioned by the Specific Plan. Policy 12.9: Establish development standards for future land uses that Formatted:Font:Bold are compatible with the surrounding area and preserve the small town feel and community character. Policy 12.10: Develop land use standards that focus on retention and _ - Formatted:Font:Bold enhancement of commercial development, but supports integrated mixed-use development,sidewalk-adjacent development,parking behind building frontages and pedestrian activity. Policy 12.11: Adopt a program-level environmental clearance _ - Formatted:Font:Bold document to utilize in subsequent development Proposals within the RHASP area. Policy 12.12: Establish a tiered environmental review process,for_ Formatted:Font:Bold discretionary development application review to streamline the approval process. Policy 12.13: Establish development incentives such as tailored Formatted:Font:Bold development standards or streamlined review processes, to encourage new development that fulfills the vision of the Specific Plan. Policy 12.14: Identify local, States and Federal grants and other _- Formatted:Font:Bold funding opportunities that can provide business assistance and offer the City the means to upgrade the area. Policy 12.15: Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and - Formatted:Font:Bold facilities,particularly in areas that contain large,expansive parking lots. At these CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 26 :V-z�AUGUST 2018 locations,accessible pedestrian connections from the sidewalk to building entrances should be encouraged. Policy 12.16: Minimize curb cuts or driveways onto arterial roads and_ --- Formatted:Font:sold collector streets. Policy 12.17: Promote and develop a transportation system which Formatted:Font:Bold includes provisions for public transportation,bikes and pedestrians. Policy 12.18: Promote the development and maintenance of adequate Formatted:Font:Bold parking facilities commensurate with parking demand. Policy 12.19: Monitor parking supply and utilization to identify _ Formatted:Font:sold deficiencies or conflicts with the movement of traffic as new development occurs. .Policy 12.20: Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan ---- Formatted:Font:Bold area meets future demands. .Policy 12.21: Coordinate future lands use planning with sustainable Formatted:Font:Bold transportation and 'infrastructure pjanning, .Policy 12.22: Ensure that the form, scale, and design of new _ - Formatted:Font:Bold developnnent, including new construction, renovations, or additions, does not negatively impact the existing surrounding uses and structures. Policy 12.23: Implement "four-sided architecture" principles that Formatted:Font:Bold consider the aesthetic quality of development from all sides,whether visible from the public right-of-way or not. NORTH TUSTIN(UNINCORPORATED AREA) The North Tustin unincorporated area has a low density,semi-rural character.This desirable character is sensitive and vulnerable. GOAL 1312:Maintain the semi-rural and low-density character of North Tustin. Policy 13 .1:Ensure that any infill development in North Tustin is compatible and complimentary to the existing North Tustin community. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 27 } . €.1UGUST 2018 Policy 1312.2: Review and consider the possible development and adoption of pre-zoning designation for the North Tustin unincorporated area as part of any annexation proposal. Policy 131-2.3:Identify the North Tustin Specific Plan Area and entire North Tustin unincorporated area as a Special Management Area. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTER OF TUSTIN LEGACY(FORMER MCAS TUSTIN) GOAL 1413:Continue to implement the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed use,master planned development and that includes the following qualities seeking to create results that are very special and worthy of the site's present and historical importance. Policy 1413.1: Promote new uses and design which will peacefully coexist with surrounding residences and businesses in Tustin and adjacent cities,minimizing impacts on noise,air quality,traffic,and other environmental features wherever possible. Policy 143.2: Encourage a development pattern that offers a connectedness between buildings and uses,and has a strong sense of place through architectural style and creative landscape design. Policy 1443.3:Encourage a mixture of uses that enable people living or working on the site to choose to meet a significant part of their daily needs within the site. Policy 1443.4: Implement the balanced reuse plan that responds to community needs but which does not drain City resources.Wherever possible,tax revenues generated by uses on the site should offset the costs of public services. Policy 1443.5: Promote high quality architecture, landscaping, signage, open space design, circulation patterns, and landscape patterns distinct from surrounding areas. Policy 1413.6:Encourage the distinguished history of the Base to be preserved in one or more locations on site. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 28 rr�AUGL'SC 2018 Policy 14-3.7:Promote uses and institutions which will accommodate and attract 21st Century jobs and technologies. Policy 141-3.8:Encourage uses that benefit broader community's needs and which are balanced with development that is compatible with the Tustin community. Policy 1443.9: Ensure that land and water are clean and safe to use and that other environmental considerations are taken into account during design. Policy 141-3.10: Promote a successful transition from military to civilian use that reasonably satisfies the public interests at local, countywide,regional,state and federal levels consistent with the need for any reuse plan to be fiscally sound and to foster economic development. Policy 141-3.11: Strategically place development in a manner responsive to requirements for hazardous material cleanup, circulation and infrastructure capacity,and market absorption. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES The goals and policies described in the Land Use Element are related to and support subjects included within other General Plan elements. In turn,many goals and policies from the other elements directly or indirectly support the goals and policies of the Land Use Element. These supporting goals and policies are identified in Table LU-1. CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 29 rr�AUGUST 2018 TABLE LU-1 LAND USE RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES BY ELEMENT Land Use Issue Land HousinCirculation Conservation/ Public Growth Area Use g Open Space Safety Noise Management Balanced 1.9,3.1 1.10,5.2, 2.12,8.11, 1.1,2.5,2.6, Development 5.6 14.12, 2.7,2.8,4.1 14.13,15.2 Compatible/ 1.11,4.4, 1.3,1.4,7.3, 1.6,3.3, 1.2,1.9, Complementary 4.5,5.1, 7.4,8.1,8.5, 3.9,4.5, 2.3,2.4, Development 6.2, 8.7,8.9, 7.1,7.2 2.5,2.7, 6.12 8.10,8.12,8.13, 2.8 8.16,14.7,14.8, 14.9,17.3,18.5 Revitalization of 1.2,1.3, 121 9.1 Older 5.1, Development 5.3,5.3 Improved City- 1.18 1.2,1.9, 1.2,1.5,5.3, 53,6.5 2.6 wide Urban 1.14,6.8 7.1, Design 8.6,11.1,11.2, 123,14.1,17.2 Economic 2.5 Expansion/ Diversification Public Facilities/ 1.16,6.9 2.10,5.6,14.5, 3.2,5.3 3.1,3.2 Services 14.6,16.10, Coordination 18.4 East Tustin 7.6,8.15,8.17, Character 14.14,14.15, 15.1 Old Town/First Street Character Pacific Center East Character Red[-fill.venue Specific Plan North Tustin (Unincorporated Area Tustin Legacy 16.8 (Former MCAS Tustin) Character CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 30 !U;1�AUGUST 2018 ►iii♦�♦�� r pill ��■� o , !��;��;���� ,ems♦ �� � ���i�♦��� ZVI UP • ♦,, 1 /,r/ii oj111F/,,�bi�, � � Ij I� Ij ♦ � • uu�W nn mi un i � � � � I.♦,.ai��.' J ❑ S _ a 11 0 a x o � m d ® 7 - �y ❑ oQ as =a _ € cc 8 .2 Ins cc 03 Q ^ _ - _ $ ° a of i4 ^ y - lz - cc HP — E areas, to allow for an unforeseen need for public utilities, and to recognize that some owners will maintain their land in an undeveloped state beyond the time span of the Plan.The Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG) has recommended that plan capacity overage not exceed approximately 20 to 25 percent of the projected population. The measurement of overage is accomplished by dividing the maximum population capacity of the plan by the projected population.For the Tustin Planning Area,the maximum population capacity of the Plan is 129,655, and the projected population is 104,312 resulting in an overage of approximately 24 percent. SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS Certain areas within the planning area have special characteristics or unique properties which require continuous City management to ensure that City policy is implemented and desired results are achieved.These"Special Management Areas"(SMAS)are regulated in different ways by the City and other public agencies having specific responsibilities for methods and timing of land development. For these reasons,two Special Management Area Policy Maps have been prepared to identify these areas consistent with Land Use Element goals and policies and related policies, contained in other General Plan elements which impact land use decisions.Special standards for development in Special Management Areas are applicable regardless of other land use descriptions on a property.Figures LU-4 and LU-5 delineate the boundaries of Special Management Areas in the Tustin planning area. Existing Specific Plans Specific plans are designed to implement General Plan goals and policies by desegregating land uses, densities, developments and design standards. Adopted specific plans within the planning area include: East Tustin, Pacific Center East, Downtown Commercial Core,Red Hill Avenue,North Tustin,and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). East Tustin Specific Plan: The East Tustin Specific Plan area represents a portion of the Irvine Company property which was annexed to the City of Tustin incrementally in 1977,1980,and 1981 CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 51 "�:\UGUST 2018 { r,e t r N � f 1 ---------------- f --- ---------- r f ! F \ fic Plans Dovnkmn CununnN W Care f/ M Ewit�•J Ltl VUG[7T2 /��7!' .,• IC fr'taliq'�.25C f Ci g'orTo<dn Red Hill Avenue S,y6tfe of Ja Pue-re:r'.-Livis g A— TI STI N Figurc LU-4 ! �./ Special Managcment areas GENERALPLAN SoccIfIcPlans Updated June 29,2018 r w Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan(RHASP):The RHASP focuses on a portion of Red Hill Avenue north and south of the existing Interstate 5 freeway within the City. The planning area includes approximately 36 acres of land and extends from Bryan Avenue to the northeast and Walnut Avenue to the southwest. The area was primarily developed in the 1960's as primarily a vehicular corridor with a mixture of low-intensity commercial,retail,restaurant and office uses within traditional shopping centers. The RHASP intends to encourage a greater mix of uses within the Specific Plan area with an emphasis placed on the pedestrian and bicyclist in addition to the needs of the automobile and public transit. The goals of the Specific Plan include the addition of residential uses in either a horizontal or vertical mixed-use setting with retail commercial or office that reinforce a pedestrian orientation with a greater variety of activities along the street. The RHASP creates an identity and vision for the area with the option of doing development projects that combine residential living with commercial uses through a discretionary review process which evaluates and encourages high-quality mixed use. North Tustin Specific Plan:The North Tustin Specific Plan applies to portions of the unincorporated area of North Tustin in the general vicinity of 17th Street and Newport Avenue. All development activities within this area of the County are subject to provisions of the North Tustin Specific Plan.A more lengthy discussion of the plan can be found in the Land Use Technical Memorandum. The North Tustin Specific Plan (NTSP) is a County document presently controlling development under the County's jurisdiction.It was formulated by community consensus in response to a perception that this area forms a buffer zone between commercial development to the south and west and low density residential to the north and east. This General Plan recognizes the continued need for stable specific designation for this sensitive area by requiring that development regulation in this NTSP be utilized in review of any development proposals within this area under the Tustin General Plan.Should the subject area or any part of it be annexed to the City of Tustin,the NTSP document will be revised to reflect the changed jurisdiction and authorities.In the case of ambiguity due to map scale, or other special concerns such as topographic or environmental constraints,the County of Orange's exhibit maps in conjunction with CITY OF TUSTIN LAND USE ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN 56 AUGUST 2018 Exhibit C ti r; i i mJ l a I" Q� Q�t tim ��A 3 �♦♦♦•j4jiIY� � i� � ,. S \\ •x.01 .. vii.••.p���•i . �j �. i, t ►�• ♦C♦��i'y OI��M•'�a t 1.�_���1. � �... was .5 i`�I:e��~ :M e •����t ,.r '�4��♦o v a� �-�'��''6.�s.......a'-==`�':.�tee:-�:. �� J J.o N v 1'1, i�....•••im /�- 3��''��n`Sp ' " y'a 1ti�i.�1a.3 ~�''��C O:.�%�C••jo.a G :�_ "`!f• � y�•GJis�i �•` ♦t•�j►l _ � n_y�:�'::d...� - S s -�i ••zl�Nw- �l7PouI••.�N :°se.• '.:'��� :" .JL7l7i?' e:,_s?�.....'.�.•.::":7:%z'o. I15 �....n.. •� .►6•:�''+' CoTi� 7D$e':: a-5 p ' ., B.rn:::: E:�s __ V�� ,„•, a•`. i -�j��'•cr: Lr ��•y.: a�:; .f ::f�.i�n"°a:e= s �_ SII • ' '♦.:.'' . ire rr!����i���ir►�� - .• M-- 1 0 10 I OFA. �w..♦41 INS ♦��. ' •� ♦ � '• ii - ,X10��1�•� °�. ���yii��i��i �♦�,;♦� a ��� �+��; ''�'�O�, �I ♦ ��i�i�► ��i Vii♦ � b� w G •���� ,�I,�Ir► �����i�� �'44 �O;���'\ 0 Attachment E RESOLUTION NO. 4389 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE 1498 APPROVING ZONE CHANGE (ZC) 2017-00001 FOR THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND ADOPTION OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City Council initiated preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan in July 2015 with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction and development within the existing Red Hill Avenue commercial area. B. That to facilitate the intended vision and implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (RHASP), General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017- 00001 and Zone Change (ZC) 2017-00001 are necessary. C. That ZC 2017-0001 will amend the Zoning Map and adopt SP-13, the RHASP. D. That SP-13 would establish a new, integrated mixed use land designation for the area and would include residential uses in addition to commercial, retail and office uses. The mix of uses would encourage development in the area and provide incentives to redevelop existing underutilized parcels. The RHASP would allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional nonresidential square footage to the area. E. That SP-13 (Ordinance No. 1498) will be consistent with the Tustin General Plan, as amended by GPA 2017-00001. That the proposed SP- 13 will further the goals and policies for the long-term growth, development and revitalization of the Red Hill Avenue commercial corridor. F. That the City of Tustin, as Lead Agency, has determined that collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act. A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) has been prepared and environmental impacts associated with the RHASP project have been analyzed as referenced in Resolution 4387. Resolution 4369 Page 2 G. That the Planning Commission has considered the FPEIR, prior to making recommendation to the City Council on ZC 2017-00001. H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project on August 14, 2018, by the Tustin Planning Commission. At the meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and continued the public hearing to September 25, 2018. I. That California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1498 approving ZC 2017-00001 authorizing a change to the Zoning designations of Retail Commercial (C-1), Central Commercial (C-2), Commercial General (CG) and Professional (PR) within the project area to Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP-13) as attached hereto and adopt the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan document. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 25t" day of September, 2018. AUSTIN LUMBARD Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution 4369 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4369 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 251h day of September, 2018. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibits: A. Ordinance No. 1498 approving Zone Change 2017-00001 for the RHASP B. Revised Zoning Map C. Final Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan — dated July 2018 Exhibit A of Ordinance No . 1498 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1498 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 2017- 00001 INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-13) AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE TUSTIN ZONING MAP. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the Tustin City Council has indicated a desire to encourage revitalization and economic development while emphasizing business retention and attraction for the Red Hill Avenue area. Many of the existing commercial shopping centers and retail areas within the Specific Plan area represent antiquated site planning and layout. As a result, the area has not reached its full potential. Based upon this, the Tustin City Council initiated preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and supporting documents with the intent of encouraging economic development and business attraction and development with the area. B. That in July 2015, the City Council authorized the preparation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan and related supporting documents. C. That to facilitate the intended vision and implementation of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project, the preparation of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2017-00001 and Zone Change 2017-00001. D. That SP-13 would establish a new, integrated mixed use land designation for the area and would include residential uses in addition to commercial, retail and office uses. The mix of uses would facilitate development in the area and provide incentives to redevelop existing underutilized parcels. The Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian would allow up to 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional non-residential square footage to the area. E. That California law requires that a specific plan be consistent with the general plan of the adopting locality. A General Plan Consistency Analysis has been prepared as part of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan that finds the project to be consistent, with adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendments. F. That SP-13 (Ordinance No. 1498) will be consistent with the Tustin General Pian, as amended by GPA 2017-00001. That the proposed SP- 13 will further the goals and policies for the long-term growth, development and revitalization of the Red Hill commercial corridor; Ordinance Na 1498 Page 2 G. That between July 2015 and February 2018, a total of three (3) public workshops were held for the project. The purpose of the workshops was to receive comments on the Draft Specific Plan. The final workshop was also a joint study session between the Planning Commission and City Council where the final draft Specific Plan was presented and additional comments were voiced and/or submitted in writing; H. That California Government Code Section 55450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt specific plans, including a requirement that the City's Planning Commission must provide a recommendation on the proposal to the City Council, the final approval authority for the project. I. That the City of Tustin, as Lead Agency, has determined that collectively, GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001 constitute a "project" under the California. Environmental Quality Act. A Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) has been prepared and environmental impacts associated with the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan project have been analyzed as referenced in Resolution 18-XX. J. That as part of the approval process for the RHASP (SP-13)/Zone Change and the General Plan Amendment and the associated actions thereto, the FPEIR must be adopted/certified by the City Council prior to or concurrently with approval of the project. That the City Council has considered the FPEIR prior to or concurrently with approval of the project. K. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project on August 14, 2018, by the Tustin Planning Commission. At the meeting, the Planning Commission took public testimony and continued the public hearing to September 25, 2018. L. That a continued public hearing for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP- 13) was held on September 25, 2018 and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4359 recommending that the City Council adopt Ordinance 1498. M. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on the proposed project October 16, 2018, by the Tustin City Council. N. That on October 15, 2018, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-XX adopting and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the RHASP project. O. That on October 16, 2018, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-XX (General Plan Amendment 2017-00001), ensuring that the RHASP project is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. Ordinance No. 1493 Page 3 SECTION 2. That the RHASP district regulations are attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court or competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that is would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. That the City Council adopts Ordinance No. 1498 approving ZC 2017- 00001 amending the City of Tustin Zoning Map attached hereto as Exhibit B and adopt the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this 16th day of October, 2018. ELWYN A. MURRAY MAYOR ATTEST: ERICA N. YASUDA, CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 1498 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1498 Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1498 was duly and regularly introduced and read by title only at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1V day of October, 2018, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 61" day of November, 2018, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: Erica N. Yasuda, City Clerk Published: Exhibits: A. Final Draft Red Hili Avenue Specific Plan — dated July 2018 B. Revision of the Tustin Zoning Map E xhib- d -t B of Ordinance No . 1498 LnUw ' C 7 N [6 CU v x L L. a 2 c E[7. E• E 2 •[j N fAaj C C C C S T LU E 3 p.1 O C c. � c o ro .e v U cu LL a ry ' C �- u N - 07 N [] C L Q 0- 0 Uj Y 77 co CL T Fn 7a cro c�vL) 0 uym D ¢ H va m E Y [� •• r, cl 67 E 61 P CC c❑T co r, �, •�� a c c�� rn n -8.2 -Q U Lo " Na 2 �,? no m- /r Erf eto E �' Qjl ;\[a� w•.' "' i:. �• m .c U) a DC r!)D L iA LU a-CLD_ '�ff`tib /y 4► ��M�• .• N[1 L)A= IX Y N 0 .•� r a w a cr tr�a 0-CL m o u r ►.•*, a CD 4-1 o U] 4- 5 N� CL yN LL C7 4— s O yl•b Q CD T , k } CD od �r �_h T. ueld u91]adS an uany llIq peH. 1]I115Ip ueld]9-ds��� w�IealawwoO u.uolumop l;: �lauppn111sv{pueagq%Ap—no pauve{d-IdOd �owun�1111,3-LOO Ie1lua Plsati ]ae3�aluaO uyl]ed IauolMlllsvl We]IHnd-w --i 10a d-ad= 81els31an�+Plsa}J-q3 —S"WA�'l�'l-�'/.`1 MA-1Nlunwwap Peuueld-ON[Od Mood awoll alWOW-"W va eiMlnep6b lenuco say uymi P-3 W1Lll Iewsnpul-W_ wawdolanall puuueld-Od BuIUOZ IWI-g46aN 11H IaWanpul pauueld-Wd le9uaplsay glunwweO pauue.d-s3NOd C� sw]wd —ld u9snl 0 IelswwuwO 0--0 pauueld-WOO'Od— IgryaPlsad,ie ws-rod O AeP-0*—, .a!g —Ieiws,uw.3-00 M A j,.,::[6i11rvW-E-d leplela.—n—U 1BunllrvOE 1 wens.❑ueld]9!oeds upsnLSVOW® IewewwuO le luaO-ZO® leeuaplaad xaldnp-7d, ayw!l Al.O u!ISM1J,O sal!W b S'0 9Z-0 0 N uilsnl jo Al!:D aul jo deyq BuiuoZ f s 4 I:. 1 q - II !�I A. I �Yb H J Exhibit C of Ordinance No . 1498 For a copy of the Final Draft Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ( RHASP), please refer to the City's website at following link: http://www.tustinca .org/depts/cd/planning update-asp Attachment F =+ CCl) U) a3 [� C a) + +J D U) in C �_ CI) N � Co � U) Q Ca ay () U) Q 0-0 U)Cf) 5E � a �. U a ca •— QJ U -0 U -0 � Q :3 0 CU 0 OL Q_ : — a -a LU m aa) 0 � a Z ° O CD C) -0L r- U) L RS Z CU ca C U V E > ° p ° a ° a — a — 2a) CU � -oma cv � aa °} E ° a� 0 a) a) `� a) Ems° C L � cl asr �] £� E p a) _• SJR � U] LLU74� .� � H � E n -a f ECV �Y •L Q LU r Q} D C -Q b to O a U co -� m CTQ) � tT3 m0) co Cf W 0 cm Q UJ f� Q R3 Qj s� a) fl] C77 Ui �r CIS C i7 U [a C C a O m E ° Q w Q Q U = L1 � °+ a) -Q 7 � - U Ca) 4-1 m aso � � > a � d � OL L7 C � C: � � O a) � �, o Qas m D Qco yW.r y'-' (� L a� a •M L L •C CZ C E ° CCS Q 'se Q a -a j E Q a) 0) o d) .� 0 X o u oEaiIU r � Q- ° `� � � c� C00m U C U Q "� Q a) ° D U) Ui Q v Ocn N ° z OL U N Q a) LL 43 C Z cQn N " E C a) U) ? ,�? a - Q - C) cwn M L m L --� Q_ C L L r_ (n ca 0) (1) > 0 P -0 V) = - - � E CL D Q7 C _ � ? "= C L CCS Q -0 g >+ C m L a1 M U N C V L E m Q- U ° C "' ° U U Q Q i d 0 m � ,L X a) � � a) a Z � a) C � co � U m - ti-- (n Ll. N L CK LL Co }. a Q LR � � to U—) �- UU) a UJ Un I r Q = N C 4 o " CL E R § \ g $ G -0 R § % = m ® S g 8 § ( d i R Cl) E Q � 2 co m £ 2 3a SiE % 2a � � \ � � \ e = E E = o . o CL. o \ 2 a) 0 E § § .� \ o = -- n E 0)2 a 0 E ) ! 7 o m � o ; / \ # R I ± $ c § § rN c CL ( 0 � ' `� §� & $ \ > e k § - E 2 \ a f , -V m \ 2 § ^ 2 ) } ƒ § 2 / CL � 222 .77 @ -0 0- 2 & « a 7 -0 n � m o { 6 E g o / / \ 4 0 \ # Q / § / k � $ � § / ) / m Cr g » S I @ \ cu k m 2 . Attachment G LaLEE & LASSOCIATES® cbrviMERCIAL'REAL ESTATE SERVICES August 9,2018 Via E=mail Mayor Al Murray and Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Members of the City Council Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Tustin,CA 92780 E-mail: Ci Council tustinca.or E-mail: cityclerk tustinca.or� Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner City of Tustin RECEIVED 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 ' . auGt��..0 2018 E-mail: edemkowiczAtustinca.org COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Dear Mayor Murray, Chairman Smith, Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and Ms.Demkowicz, Lee &Associates represents Richter Farms Trust, the owner of Red Hill Village shopping center (99 Cent center) located at 14511-14601 Red Hill Avenue. We appreciate the city's desire to improve the Red Hill Avenue commercial corridor. However,we are opposed to the plan as currently drafted and believe it will result in the exact opposite of the intended objective.•Some of our reasons are listed below: Forced Obsolescence and Blight: Paragraph 4.6 Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Parcels states in part; "When land uses intensify or change(including re-tenanting of existing commercial spaces), existing structures or sites are modified by more than 50% of their existing square footage, additional square footage, or new development is proposed, conformance with the regulations and design outlined in the Specific Plan will be required". This provision would force a landowner to comply with,the new guidelines:whenever they re- tenant a commercial space. A change in tenancy occurs on a regular basis. If not allowed to re-tenant,.a shopping center owner would be forced to leave a space vacant,perhaps board up to avoid vandalism and crime. Nearly every new tenant requires more than 50% of the space to be renovated with new tenant improvements. Frequently a highly desired national quality tenant will require upgrades to the facade which would not be allowed under the RHASP. This forced obsolescence would occur of the next few decades before the buildings and existing long-term leases expire wherein the value of the shopping centers would be the land value only and permit the development as proposed in RHASP. This would also force out all of the"Mom and Pop" convenience store merchants who rely upon existing centers to provide reasonable rental rates. Customers, many of whom have enjoyed decades of convenience to their favorite stores and restaurants, would be forced to shop elsewhere. The shopping centers currently for the most part are 100 percent leased. Lee&Associates-Irvine.Inc. A Member of the Lee&Associates Group of Companies Corporate ID#01044791 /9838 Research Drive/Irvine,CA 92618 Office: 949.727.1200/Fax: 949.727.1299 August 9,201$ Page 2 Unfair Burden: Paragraph 3.2.1 Mixed Use states in part; "Freestanding commercial/office uses will likely continue to be the dominant pattern within the Specific Plan area,as many parcels are too small to accommodate the parking, common open space, and pedestrian-oriented requirements outlined in the Development Regulation and Design Criteria in an integrated mixed-use development." This correctly identifies that all of the smaller"freestanding"commercial properties along this proposed corridor would not be able to comply with RHASP set-backs and improvements leaving the entire cost and land dedication burden upon three shopping center owners (Red Hill Village, Stater Brothers Center and Red Hill Plaza). In order,for these three owners to comply, it would require that their properties be reduced to land value wiping out 2/3`d'of the current value equating to tens of millions of dollars in losses. We ask the question: Who is going to pay for all of the overhead utilities going underground for the non-center properties.? Will they go underground at the shopping centers, then pop up in the non- center commercial properties? By having only three properties eventually improved along the corridor it would look more like a smile with missing teeth than the pedestrian friendly environment RHASP envisioned. Not My Tustin: Paragraph 1.1 Executive Summary states in part; "The RHASP provides. for an.additional 500 dwelling units and an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses as a threshold of development intensity." This increased"intensity" would require as stated in RHASP 4 and 5 story buildings on the three shopping center parcels. I have lived near Foothill High School in North Tustin.for over 30 years. On a daily basis we enjoy shopping and dining in Tustin primarily for convenience but also for the quiet charm that Tustin has been famous and envisioned by Columbus Tustin over 150 years ago when he and his partner purchased 1,300 acres from Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. We have enjoyed for the most part single story buildings with our children participating in the Tiller days ` parade. This proposed increased density would increase traffic,pollution and population. All of which is contrary to what we Tustin residents have grown to enjoy. This RHASP plan may work on vacant land such as the District but not in our existing neighborhoods. Viable Alternative: We welcome the plans to increase street median plantings and partitions such as currently Provided in the southern portion of the plan area. Also, nicer bus stop and sidewalk areas could be provided. If a parcel becomes vacant, such as the parcel to the West of Red Hili Plaza, then I would suggest a Mixed Use overlay that could be obtained through the Conditional Use Permit process where each project could be evaluated on its own merits. Then at that time and place, residents and governing agencies could evaluate and potentially allow greater densities than what are currently allowed. Conclusion: Although our above concerns do not address all the issues, we believe the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan as.currently drafted is without economic foundation, putting the primary cost on three owners. The Plan is contrary to the Tustin charm and destined for failure. We hope the city will not adopt this plan. Best regards, Bruce Heathcote L&AsSOCIATES- COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES August 9,2018 Page 3 Principal cc: Richter Farms Tryst s 5 L&AsSOCIATES- COMMERCLAL EE REAL ESTATE SERVICES r• v�rnKvw�cc, Inca From: Kristen Nesselrod <krisness@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday,'August 10, 2018 4:10 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Redhill Plan feedback- Re: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hello Erica, As a resident of Tustin,just off 1st Street near Redhill, I have some big concerns regarding the Redhill Ave Specific Plan. In particular, for the proposed 4-5 story high-density housing. That level of density is much greater than that of the surrounding areas. The neighborhoods nearby area all 1 to 2 story (with the exception I think if the development near the freeway by the corner of EI Camino). The smaller streets and older infrastructure are not meant to handle the increase in traffic(especially with the proposed "I" street diet." A 4-5 story level of density is seen over in the•newer developments of The District where new infrastructure is created to managdthat level of density. Furthermore, 4-5 story developments would impact the sight lines of the neighbors and change the setting of the surrounding areas. Also, maybe'I missed it, but I didn't see any propositions for green spaces or walking paths. Please let it be known that I wish the city to preserve the vanishing character and charm of our neighborhood. I feel a collaborative approach that respects the voices of people who live with the impacts of decisions is the best way to go about this. Maybe the 4-5 story proposition is in "shoot for the moon" style, but 2, maybe 3 stories max would be-more appropriate. Please don't sacrifice my/our neighborhood for the benefit of for-profit developers. L Sincerely, Kristen Nesselrod E 1st St Tustin From: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz tustinca.or > Sent:Thursday,August 9,201810:18 AM To: krisness@hotmail.com Cc:TustinPlanning Subject: FW:Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hello Kristen, Please feel free to e-mail me with any comments or feedback-regarding the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. Mye-mail is edemkowicz@tustinca.or . Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz,AICP 1 Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way i 1►k`f1 J►0-.1141 edemkowicz@tustinca.org ----Original Message---- From:TustinPlanning Sent:Thursday,August 09,2018 9:11 AM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: FW: Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Please see below regarding Red Hill SP. ----Original Message---- From: Kristen Nesselrod [mailto:krisness@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday,August 03,2018 11:33 AM To:TustinPlanning Subject:Can we email comments if we can't attend planning meeting? Hi, !_ Just saw the Facebook post about the public meeting on the proposed Redhill Ave development plan.Can we, if so where,sendfeedback/comments, if we are unable to attend the meeting? Thank you, Kristen Nesselrod Sent from my Whone. Please forgive typos&strange auto corrections. Thanks. z SAPETTO REAL ESTATE SOLUTIONS, INC. RECEIVED AUG 114 2018 August 13, 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Tustin Sent via email RE: Public Hearing of August 14, 2018, Agenda Item 5: Red Hili Avenue Specific Plan EIR—Mitigation'Measure 14.12-1 Recreation Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: We have been discussing with City staff the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 requiring the Park Land Dedication or In-lieu fee (the "Mitigation Measure"). The Mitigation Measure provided in the January 2018 draft EIR would have required a fee that, based on the most recent Park Land Valuation, would have totaled approximately $3,644,444 per acre or $24,000 per dwelling unit, which is an amount that would make any development project infeasible. According to the staff report released on August 10, 2018 for the Red Hill Specific Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the Mitigation Measure has now been revised and indicates that a Park Land Dedication of 3 acres per 1,000 population, consistent with the Quimby Act, is required for all projects within the Specific Plan. Further, for projects with density of greater than 25du, the Average Persons Per Dwelling Unit will be determined by the Community Development Director based upon product type. (See Attachment A.) We appreciate staff s willingness to address our concerns, however, this revision does not provide the information needed for a developer to determine with sufficient certainty the feasibility of a project proposed within the Specific Plan area. Specifically, the revised Mitigation Measure provides no set fee amount or calculation parameters for projects with densities greater than 25 du per gross acre. We have reviewed the population generation rates developed by a number of Orange County cities for apartment units and they range from 1.3 to 1.9 persons per unit, with fees ranging between $5,000 to $10,000 per dwelling unit. We recommend that a per unit fee be provided by the Mitigation Measure for projects greater than 25du per acre at no more than $8,000 per base unit (as defined in the. recently approved City of Tustin Voluntary Workforce Housing Ordinance No. Sapetto Real Estate Solutions,Inc•One Park Plaza,#600 PMB 313,Irvine,California 92614•(949)252-0841 www.SapettoRealEstate.com Redhill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August13,2018 Page 2 1491), and that the measure should require that fees collected pursuant to the Mitigation Measure be used only for additional park land or improvements to existing parks located in reasonable proximity to specific residential project paying fees, and within the Specific Plan area. Further, we request that the Parkland Mitigation Fee should only be imposed on the basis of"base units" because it is not clear pursuant to the existing Mitigation Measure text whether the City intends to require payment of the fee imposed for bonus units provided to projects receiving a density bonus under California Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65915-65918) as an incentive to provide affordable housing units on-site or offsite. California Density Bonus Law encourages development of affordable housing via a package of incentives, including density bonuses and project concessions, that are intended to make development of affordable housing economically feasible. To the extent the City intends to calculate the Parkland Mitigation Fees for Red Hill Specific Plan projects in a manner that allocates a fee to these incentive bonus units provided under state law, it would be contrary to the purpose of the Density Bonus Law and burdensome for projects that would otherwise help the City achieve important affordable housing goals. We believe that in order to encourage the development of much needed housing, (and affordable housing) in the Specific Plan area, which is in need of revitalization, the City should provide incentives to builders. Exclusion of bonus density units from application of the Parkland Mitigation Fee is one of the best ways for the City to assure that developers attain the full benefit of incentives provided by state law to encourage development of housing. We sincerely appreciate to your consideration of our request. Respectfully, Pamela Sapetto Principal Sapetto Real Estate Solutions, Inc. RedHill Avenue Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 14.12-1 August 13,2018 Page 3 Attachment "A" Existing Text: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Manitaring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requlrements Islgniture Oatevf,• c.iStandirdCondidan(Sq and Mitfgatlori Measu.a.(MM}f. .,rlmplerm ntbn._.' ,� Tlinji. •' Ras ponsib0ityfor.Monitudn8�..r�_.�CamPlfance) -[ MM 4.12-2»For residential projects not Subled to City of Tustin Subdivision' Applicant Prior to the.ldsuance of Community Development Code(Article,9,Chapter 3,Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code),prior to the Building Permits Department—Planning& Issuance of building permits,app)icant8 shall dedicate parkland or pay a park Zoning Division fee,on a perunit basis,reflecting thevalue of land required for park purposes.The amount cif such fee shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the fallowing stand5rds and formula. Standards and Formula for Land Dedication: The public interest,convenience,health,welfare,and safety requires that three(3)acres of usable park land per one thousand(1,006)potential papulation be devoted to local parkarid recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: DmTling units per 'Average Persons per P.==per Ave Gross Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0-7 3.39 .0102 7.1.15 2.8S .0086 ss.1-25 7.24 .0087 . _ 25.1&Above As determined by COD To be calculated to based upon p-posed schle„c dtree 13)aces/ raduct type IrOW poauladan Mobile Home Parks - 2.24 ,0057 , These density ranges,average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three(3)acres of parkland per one thousand{1,000(persons. Recommended text: Delete 4" row of of the table set forth in Mitigation 4.12-1. Add text following the revised tab mandating: "Projects proposing a'Residential Allocation Reservation of base units that result in a density of 25.1 du per gross acre or more shall pay a Parkland Mitigation Fee of $81000 per `Base Unit," as that term is defined in Municipal Code Section B9912." August 14,2018 Mayor Al Murray Honorable Members of the City Council -- - — - - - Chairman Ryder Smith Honorable Members of the Planning Commission Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner Re: fled Hill Avenue Specific Plan I personally commend you for attempting to encourage the development and enhancement of the Red Hill Avenue corridor. I'm sure we all agree that Red Hill Avenue.from Edinger Avenue to north of First Street has fallen into complete disrepair and is an embarrassment to the City and her residents. How the City let it decay to such a state is not is not the purpose of this letter. 1t is how are we,the residents, businesses, landowners, and the City are going to remedy the situation. Asa 30 year resident of Tustin, a graduate of Cal Poly with a Bachelor of Science degree in Urban and Region Planning, and:a 28 year career in land development as a civil engineering designer, I have to once again voice my concern over the proposed development within this specific plan. First let me say that I am not opposed to mixed land use.What I am opposed to is the high density of } development proposed within it.If all the land within the study area was devoted to residential development, it would result in a land use density of 13.97 units per acre.That seems reasonable, but when the plan allows for concentrating 500 dwelling units plus 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses on to 36 acres of land,you are looking a very intensive land use. Keep in mind the plan allow for 395 dwelling units plus other mixed uses on the land north of 1-5.And it would allows the transfer of some if not all of the'remaining 105 dwelling units allocated for the land south of 1-5 to be transferred to the to the land on the north side.This is a tremendous increase in density. Acco"Mingto the EIR that would result in an increase of 1,520 additional residents Section 4.1 page 9"The Specific Plan would not change allowable building heights in the Specific Plan area such that it would degrade the quality or character of the area. "The current zoning'and Genera- Plan Land Use designation for high density limits building to 35 feet.The specific plan proposes building heights of 40 feet to a maximum of 50 feet. The building heights of 4 to 5 stories does not reflect the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. Visualize 4 and 5 story buildings along Red Hill as you travel either north or south from the 1-5 freeway. Then at San Juan Street to the north and Mitchell Avenue to the south there would a visual jolt as you go from 4 and 5 story buildings to 1 and 2 story buildings.That is a change in the character of the area. In fact the General Pian Goal 1,Policy 1.1: "Preserve the low-density,quality ofTustin's existing single- L) ingle-Li family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi-family development to meet regional housing a a needs where best suited from the standpoint of current development,accessibility,transportation and public facilities." When residents purchased their homes,they envisiondd that their neighborhoods would retain their character based upon the General Plan. Now with the proposed specific plan,those neighborhoods will be impacted with 40 to 50 foot tall buildings. How would you feel if you,your family,you children, or grandchildren's home would be impacted by this plan? Parking The requirement for 2.25 spaces for each residential unit is not adequate.The plan anticipates 1,520 new residents with 500 dwelling units.That results in 3 people per unit.The plan does not suggest how many bedrooms would be in each unit or who would be living in these units. It could be multiple adults sharing an 2 or 3 bedroom unit with each person having their own vehicle. The parking from the multi-family housing along Red Hill Avenue is currently spilling in the surrounding single family neighborhoods.Thus detracting from those neighborhoods,and reducing the amount of parking for the residents.Also vehicles are left parked there for days.The residents adjacent to Pine Tree Park are already impacted by the heavy use of the park on the weekends. In addition,the employees and guests of The Groves,an assisted living and memory care facility on Bryan, park their 1 vehicles in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. � J Shared parking does not solve the problem of inadequate parking standards.Will one parking stall for every-1,b00 square feet of non-residential development really be adequate?The 325,000 square feet of proposed non-residential development will only require 325 parking stalls.Could this be another parking disaster like The District? Air Quality Section 4.2 page 11"Although the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions,the Specific Plan would exceed population forecasts,on which the AQMP is based. Further, implementation of proposed mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however,the combined emissions from future development(i.e., new development in the Specific Plan area)would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds(refer to discussion under Threshold 4.2-2). Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQMP. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable." With this in mind, please consider the students that will be walking to the various schools adjacent to Red Hill Avenue. Increasing the pollution these students will be exposed to is not something we should subject them to. Have airborne pollutants been tested for at the congested intersections—ie Red Hill and the 1-5, Red Hill and EI Camino affecting students walking to school? With regards to the cumulative impacts The Specific Plan Project would result in operational air quality impacts because emissions would exceed the SCAQMD-adopted operational threshold for NOx(nitric oxide). Mitigation Measures MM4.2-1 and MM 4.2-2 are really just suggestive efforts to change public behavior but cannot guarantee the desired results of lower pollutant emissions. Mass transit and car pooling have not been successful in the past and itis not a problem the City is capable of solving. It's a regional problem based upon the OCTA not having schedules that reflect users needs and residents unwilling to give up their personal vehicles. Please read Section 4.2.8 Level of Significance after Mitigation— Section 4.2 page 20"Specific Plan-Related Operational Emissions. Despite implementation of MMs 4.2-1 through 4.2-3,the Specific Plan's mitigated operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD thresholds for NOX resulting in a significant unavoidable impact." "Additionally,operational activities would create a significant and unavoidable impact due to exceedances of SCAQMD thresholds.for NOX. Implementation of MM 4.2-1 through MM 4.2-4 would reduce impacts; however,a significant and unavoidable impact would remain." Section 4.2 page 21"The Project's contribution to regional pollutant concentrations would be cumulatively considerable." f, Green House Gases(GHG) Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG reduction programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS (Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy) strategies, implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed growth projections for the area in the RTP/SCS and result in an increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. Section 4.5 page 16 The mitigation is based upon events that do not exist today. Future legislative actions? Future local mass transit? Have you tried to get from point A to point B with OCTA? 4.5.7 Level of Significance After Mitigation "Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG Reduction Programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a substantial increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact." Water Quality Section 4.7 page 13 Ground Water—The EIR states that the increased need of 106,262 gallons of water per day for the proposed specific plan versus the current general plan is not significant. However they don't seem to account for future extended drought conditions.Tustin currently purchases 24%of its water,what will happen as the demand for water increases in Southern California due to development? Jj Who will bear the cost?Conservation can do only so much. n Land Use and Planning Section 4.8 page 5 Even though the City feels there would be no adverse impact, it will have a significant impact on the adjacent existing surround single family residences due to increased residential density within the specific plan area. Please understand I am not anti-development and I am not against change.Change is inevitable. I am very concerned about my community. Preserving.the hometown atmosphere,the sense of place. I am concerned about what life will be for future generations. Please postpone approval of Resolution No.4367,4368,and 4369 until you have fully read and digested the EIR and Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan.Think about the long term consequences of approving the plan and its impact on the residents,students,and schools that will be affected by this development plan.There are some really good ideas and concepts contained within it, but some concepts don't really mesh with the surrounding neighborhoods. I personally ask each one of you to consider how you would feel if you lived near this project area. Would you want this type of development?What would you change to make it better? I understand that there are developers that are twisting your arm to make these changes.They do not have a real stake in our community.They will build it,sell it off, and move on to the next property.What Ef` you decide will be here for decades, maybe longer.What do you want your legacy to be? Thank.you for taking the time to consider what l have say. If you would like to meet with me personally, please call me at 714.544.7176 Sincerely, Charlie Laumann y moi. a Al :n CA low ti. z,• �, .4? �• � �+�,I..�'�fr� e�r rye }w��'� � ' � — . t .A " tLo r Pr' , a f �j x�Y�,.''tee. r .6 txo -TT `f y � Dc as _ �. /. �' 1 7 r, II f � YY ! y t Qj pX N X7 a m O Demkowicz, Erica From: TustinPlanning Sent: Thursday,August 16, 2018 5:39 PM To: L Kahrs Cc: Demkowicz, Erica; Reekstin, Scott Subject: RE: Red Hill Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged r Hello Leane, The City is in receipt of your e-mail and it will be added to the public record. Regards, Erica H. Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 (714)573-3127 edemkowicz@tustinca.or� From: L Kahrs [mailto:lkahrs223@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 11:42 AM To: TustinPlanning Subject: Red Hill Specific Plan Dear All: I attended my first Planning Commission meeting last night, August 14,2018 and found it fascinating. I have been a resident of Tustin Meadows for over 20 years. Thank you for all of the work you do and the difficult decisions you must make on a regular basis. I did not speak at the meeting, I just wanted to observe the,proceedings. - I understand that the commissioners are still interested in getting resident input on the Red Hill Specific Plan. I hope this is the correct email address to use to send comments. My first comment is regarding parking. Yes it is bad-right now it is bad. I don't like the piecemeal 'solution'of requiring permitting in any of the neighborhoods. Permitting just pushes the problem over a block or two. Residents have already shown that they won't need/want fewer cars because of parking problems. The parking issues have already spilled over into Tustin Meadows as people leave their cars here for days and get rides to their apartment buildings nearby. Everyone seems to agree that Tustin currently does an inadequate job of requiring.enough parking spaces in any of the local shopping centers either. If anything parking space 1 requirements should be increased, not decreased. Its no wonder that many people prefer to shop online and order take-out delivery rather than battle traffic and parking problems. How will any mixed-use businesses find customers if there is nowhere to park? Please reexamine the mixed use properties in Old Town Tustin. It took years to get those sold and even now many of the lower level businesses sit empty or unused. I was really dismayed at the dismissive attitude of the experts Tustin hired to come up with a plan. There won't be any new parks in an already open space deficient area. They agreed that traffic will be worse,pollution will be worse,noise will be worse..What will be better? It might be prettier???I don't like that trade-off at all. There was no discussion regarding if any of this will be affordable housing either. One of the charms of Tustin is that it is more integrated then many of the surrounding communities.We need to at least try to keep Tustin affordable. Thank you so much to Dr.Moore who spent some time researching plans by Caltrans to expand the 5 freeway through this area. Our hired 'experts'didn't address that issue at all. The expansion will clearly cause more issues with traffic flows on Red Hill and parking on Nisson. Please consider the bigger picture of these plans. The shopping center owners also made great points against the Specific Plan. Unless the city plans to take control of the properties entirely, or somehow subsidize them for their lost rents during transition/construction how could this possibly be implemented? Are these owners in a financial position to implement these plans even if they wanted to? I sort of doubt it or they most likely would have made improvements to their properties already to try to attract higher rents. Thank you for your kind attention, Leane Kahrs 2 Demkowicz, Erica From: Victoria Kim <victoriahkim@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,August 23, 2018 9:14 PM To: Demkowicz, Erica Subject: Red hill specific plan Hi Erica Thank you for your presentation of the Red Hill Specific Plan at Planning Commission in August. I am new to Tustin and I've heard of the proposal for Red Hill. My only concern is the traffic congestion-a few people had mentioned parking at the meeting but what about the traffic, especially to 1-5 south? It is the only entrance to that highway in that area; Newport doesn't have one.The cars taking the freeway already back up and there is only one lane going unto the freeway. saw that there is a traffic study done-with the increased density I'm afraid that there will be an increase of the number of cars and thus congestion on that road. Thank you, Victoria JiAugust 28,2018 RECEIVED Mayor Al Murray Honorable Members of the City Council AUG 2 8 2418 Chairman Austin Lumbard Honorable Members of the Planning Commission C0144UNITY DEVEWP".60 Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Thank you for letting me speak at the Planning Commission Meeting on August 14th and I look forward to the next meeting on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. I am actually in favor of mixed land use within the Plan's boundaries. However there are some things that would need to change before I could fully support the Plan. • Restrict developments or projects to 3 stories or 30 feet in height. o Developments higher than that do not reflect the nature of the surrounding land uses. o Even with stepped setbacks taller developments would create a canyon like feel. ■ No one has developed a virtual 3-D model showing the visual impact to a pedestrian,cyclist,or driver traveling along Red Hill Avenue. ■ The only exhibits shown are the possible street widths with bicycle or pedestrian paths without the adjacent 5 story buildings. ■ In addition,all the photographs appear to be taken with a wide angle lens which distorts the perspective by making the space look larger. The photographs should have been taken with a 50 mm lens(considered to be what the human eye sees)and at the appropriate height of a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver of a standard vehicle. o Taller developments could funnel Santa Ana winds down Red Hill Avenue. o Residents who purchased their homes that border the Plan area envisioned that their neighborhoods would retain their character based upon the General Plan. • The overall residential density needs to be reduced in the plan to the R2 and R3 of the surrounding properties especially when combined with 325,00o square feet of commercial uses. o The increased density will affect the lifestyle of current residences and business by increasing traffic on an already congested Red Hill Avenue. o Do not allow the transfer of 105 residential units allocated for the land south of 1-5 to be transferred to the to the land on the north side.This is a tremendous increase in density. o The General Plan Goal 1,Policy 1.1: "Preserve the low-density quality of Tustin's existing single-family neighborhoods while permitting compatible multi-family ? - R development to meet regional housing needs where best suited from the standpoint of current development,accessibility,transportation and public facilities." • Increase the amount of required to at least 3.25 spaces for each residential unit o The plan anticipates 1,520 new residents with 500 dwelling units.That results in 3 people per unit.The plan does not suggest how many bedrooms would be in each unit or who would be living in these units. It could be multiple adults sharing a 2 or 3 bedroom unit with each person having their own vehicle. o The residents from the existing multi-family housing along Red Hill Avenue are currently using the streets of surrounding single family neighborhoods.This detracts from those neighborhoods and reduces amount of parking for the residents.Since the vehicles are left parked there for days, it becomes an open invitation for crime.The residents adjacent to Pine Tree Park are already impacted by the heavy use of the park on the weekends. In addition,the employees and guests of The Groves, an assisted living and memory care facility on Bryan, park their vehicles in the surrounding single family neighborhoods. • Eliminate the shared parking and increase the required parking for the commercial uses. o One parking stall for every 1,000 square feet of non-residential development its not_ adequate. o Restaurant and dining uses generate more customers per square foot than retail commercial uses.The City cannot or will not review the ratio of various uses within a proposed project or development now or in the future,to make sure there is adequate parking within any given development or project. • In order to protect the students who walk to and attend the various school adjacent to the Plan area, airborne pollutants need to be tested for at the congested intersections of Red Hill Avenue and EI Camino as well as at Red Hill Avenue and Nisson Road. o The EIR Section 4.2 page 11 stated"Although the Specific Plan would be consistent with the goals of the RTP/SCS to reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air pollutant emissions,the Specific Pian would exceed population forecasts,on which the AQMP is based. Further, implementation of proposed mitigation measures and compliance with SCAQMD rules would reduce conflicts and obstruction of the AQMP; however,the combined emissions from future development(i.e., new development in the Specific Plan area)would exceed SCAQMD operational thresholds (refer to discussion under Threshold 4.2-2). Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQMP. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable." • Re-evaluate how much growth and developmental density do we really need.On August 15, 2018 as reported in the Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsi.com/articles/agency-says-lake- mead-could-drop-below-critical-threshold-1534374220.The Bureau of Reclamation,the agency that manages water and power in the west stated there is a 52%probability that water levels will fall below a threshold of 1,075 feet by 2020.This could trigger a federal water shortage declaration for the Colorado River.The Colorado River has been in a long term decline,the driest 19 year period in recorded history.Such a declaration could seriously impact Southern California o In the EIR Section 4.7 page 13 Ground Water—The EIR states that the increased need of 106,262 gallons of water per day for the proposed specific plan versus the current general plan is not significant. However they don't seem to account for future extended drought conditions.Tustin currently purchases 24%of its water,what will happen as the demand for water increases in Southern California due to development?Who will bear the cost?Conservation can do only so much. o The City could work with other agencies to promote a desalination plant for Orange County.Conservation and the Toilet to Tap programs can only do so much.At what cost is the desire for every increasing density and growth are you will to put on future generations for your decisions today. I am not anti-development and 1 am not against change.Change is inevitable. However, I am very concerned about my community.We need to preserve our hometown atmosphere, its the sense of place. I am also very concerned about what life will be for Tustin's future generations. Please consider the changes 1 have proposed to the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan.Think about the long term consequences of approving the plan and its impact on the residents,students,and schools that will be affected by this development plan.There are some really good ideas and concepts contained within it, but some concepts don't really mesh with the surrounding neighborhoods. I personally ask each one of you to consider how you would feel if you lived near this project area. Would you want this type of development?What would you change to make it better? Developers and absentee landowners do not have a real stake in our community.They will build it,sell it off, and move on to the next property.What you decide will be here for decades, maybe longer.What do you want your legacy to be? Thank you for taking the time to consider what I have say. If you would like to meet with me personally, please call me at 714.544.7176 Sincere) COare aumann � v� RECEIVED City of Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way AUG 2 8 2018 Tustin,CA 92780 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 8Y: Dear Planning Commissioners, I live adjacent to the Red Hill Specific Plan area. I am writing to urge you to,make the two modifications, set out below,to the current version of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. First,the height of buildings on the north side of the freeway need to be limited to three stories,just as those on the south side are.The area north of the freeway,along Red Hill, is a community of single family residences, lower density apartments,a park,and a school.The addition of a commercial/residential mix along the north side of the freeway would be fine,but the visual impact of huge, looming five story buildings would be jarring and not fit well with the rest of the area. Second, high density housing will provide too much automobile traffic in the area.The corner of Red Hill and EI Camino is already,according to the Tustin Police, one of the worst intersections for accidents. In addition,the auto pollution (emissions+brake dust)create microparticles that are unhealthy to children's lungs—and Tustin High is right next door.Apartments are fine, but please make there low density to conform to other apartment concentrations in the area and limit traffic. If Caltrans widens the freeway,there's already going to be more air pollution (electric cars are only slowly catching on). Finally, I have some suggestions: Please make the sidewalks wide enough for multiple people to walk side by side and two wheelchairs to pass, and also mandate bike lanes.The sidewalks in the older part of Tustin are generally too narrow,as are the bike lanes down Bryan. Pedestrian-bike conflict on the sidewalks happens all the time and accidents have happened. And the trees for the Plan area—please no more magnolia trees or messy carrot wood trees! Magnolias consume too much water,they have surface roots the heave sidewalks, invade sewer systems, and crack slabs. Magnolias are found throughout parks and public places in the Deep South where it rains a lot, but they just don't work here.They shed leaves year-round, making a mess on sidewalks here. (The leaves when dry are very slick.They form layers and slide against each other, making a walking hazard for elderly people).Chinese Pistache(which are planted near the Specific Plan area,on Lear Lane) consume less water than magnolias,and don't heave sidewalks with surface roots.They have miniscule scarce flowers in summer,the leaves turn a beautiful gold in October and they shed leaves only for about 6 weeks in November and December.They leaf out again in the spring to shade the area.These trees would save the city maintenance money and look a lot better than the scrawny drought-starved magnolias currently planted along Bryan Ave. Next, a company called Carbon Cure makes concrete that is injected with carbon dioxide, making it stronger and longer-lasting that conventional concrete for city infrastructure.That would save the city money in the long run too.And could we require solar power and backup batteries for all buildings? It would he great if the city was in the forefront of progress for a change instead of dragged kicking and screaming from the past into the present. Anyway, thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns. Sincerely, Beverley Laumann 1292 Lear Lane Tustin, California 92780 Attachment H RHASP Social Media Comments Matrix Issue Summarized Comments Number of Mentions Traffic • Increase in traffic 26 • No traffic mitigation Parking . Decrease in street parking availability 19 Current lack of parking with no solution to the issue • Parking reduction would be bad 0 5 stories of development with insufficient parking Density . Area is overcrowded 7 • Density increase will become too high • City Council seems determined to overbuild and overpopulate • Increase of cars • City Staff not interested or concerned about increased density levels Water Use . Will water restrictions in the City change? 5 Huge increase in water use Affordable Housing . Increase in housing costs 5 • Lack of affordable housing No New Housing . Already enough people in Tustin 4 • New housing is not needed Orange Grove • Lass of the Nissan orange grove to development 3 Development • Development needs to happen to force beautification to 3 the area on developers • New development is needed to bring down housing costs Power Grid . Infrastructure not capable of handling the increased use 2 Safety . Increase in street parking provides cover for people who 2 don't mean well Sewer System ! Increased burden on sewer system 1 Develop Parking Area . Make a parking lot to park overnight without a fee 1 Air Quality • Details hard to find in linked website 1 • Increase in Greenhouse gases Property Values . Property values would increase 1 Resident Population 0 Already enough people in Tustin 1 Quality of Life . Reduction in quality of life because of RHASP 1 Architecture + Lack of new architecture style blending in with the old 1 • Lack of attractive architecture since initiation of construction at Legacy until present day Deteriorating Red Hill . Continuing deterioration will result in more crime 1 Attractiveness ■ Attractive elevations and landscaping plans 1 Amenities • Amenities are significant 1 Disclaimer.Comments included in this matrix represent a SUM MOry of concerns expressed and not all individual comments are listed. Some of the comments appear verbatim while others were summarized to convey their accuracy and intended meaning. m a a Q a ® O E o ® v ro i � o L Q) y N � v n c m Lo V) Q r o m O c ® o z 3 z Z v �z a v O O N P .-i ti ✓� O Q 1 N W n v e m M M .Z} U) 0 r U) °J N a rt n c v 03rL v ro .+ {p z2. M Ck _ nj � N -+ Do CD fD u�a r-F cn Q ro c (D Q CD CD 3 7 ro T Q C) p 3 w rD r'p Attachrrient Exhibit I Average Daily Traffic (ADT) NOT TO 5CAtE There were nine (9) intersections Brva� -, that were analyzed in the Final Program Environmental Impact z Report for the Red Hill Avenue L Specific Plan. S'tn Juan St These intersections, identified by their respective numbers, are g shown on the map. All of the traffic study area intersections are signalized. e The intersections of Red Hill Avenue at Interstate 5 (I-5) northbound and southbound ramps were also analyzed. e Exhibit I — cont'd. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Table 4.13-7, below, illustrates the different roadway segments along Red Hill Avenue and the existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) plus projected additional trips generated by the development potential of the Specific Plan (i.e. "Project). The Project is defined as 500 additional residential units and 325,000 square feet of additional commercial space within the Specific Plan area. Based on the street segments shown below, the number of additional ADT generated by the Project with build-out of the Specific Plan, ranges between 2,300—8,800 ADT per day. As a percentage, this is an increase of 8%to 34%0 over no-project conditions. The bulk of the increase in traffic is due to the additional commercial square footage that would be allowed within the area. There is 296,446 square feet of existing non-residential development within the Specific Plan area and with the proposed 325,000 square feet of additional non-residential development under the Plan, the total development estimate is 621,446 square feet. However, the existing General Plan estimated maximum buildout based on existing land use designations for the Specific Plan area is 913,724 square feet of non-residential development and no dwelling units. In comparison with the maximum estimated buildout under the General Plan, the Specific Plan would result in the reduction of 292,278 fewer square feet of potential non-residential development but with an addition of 500 residential units. With this reduction in potential non-residential development, it is possible that the full implementation of the Specific Plan would result in fewer ADT than the full implementation of the existing General Plan maximum buildout in the area. If the focus is only on the residential units that would be added with the proposed Specific Plan, the 500 additional residential units would result in an average increase of approximately 3 percent to the existing ADT volume of each segment of Red Hill Avenue. All roadway segments would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service and the addition of Project traffic would not cause a significant impact at any traffic study area intersection. Table 4.13-7. Roadway Segments-Existing Plus Project Existing LOS D gaily + LOS D Capacit Existing Project Project or Roadway Segment y ADT Traffic Volume Better? Red Hill Bryan Avenue to San Juan Street 50,600 21,800 2,500 24,300 Yes Avenue San Juan Street to El Camino Real 50,600 25,900 8,800 34,700 Yes Nisson Road to Mitchell Avenue 50,600 29,200 6,300 35,500 Yes Mitchell Avenue to Walnut Avenue 50,600 26,704 4,500 31,200 1 Yes Walnut Avenue to Sycamore Avenue 50,600 27,700 1 2,300 1 30,000 1 Yes LDS=Level of Service;ADT=Average Daily Traffic Bold and shaded values indicate a deficient Level of Service,based on City of lrvaie'traffic Analysis Guidelines. Sources Kirnley-horn,2018.