HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-ATTACHMENT LAttachment L
RESOLUTION NO. 18-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH# 2017041031),
MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
(MMRP), FINDINGS AND FACTS, AND STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL OF
THE RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -13).
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council 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
Resolution No. 18-73
GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001
Page 2
5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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. The proposed Specific Plan would
ensure implementation of architecturally -coordinated development
in the area, allow for mixed use projects, and foster & encourage
the development of new businesses and rehabilitation of the
existing older shopping centers.
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.
That the Final Program EIR addresses the potential environmental
impacts of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan, which is further
described and incorporated herein by reference in this Resolution.
J. In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
FPEIR consists of the following which are incorporated herein by
reference:
Resolution No. 18-73
GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001
Page 3
• 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
• 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.
M. That pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15043 the City Council
has the authority to approve this Project even though it may cause
significant effects on the environment so long as the City Council
makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that there is
no feasible way to lessen or avoid the Project's potential significant
impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091).
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
Resolution No. 18-73
GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001
Page 4
Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit
E.
O. That on August 14, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the project and continued the matter until September 25,
2018. On September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing, took additional testimony and adopted Resolution
No. 4367, recommending that the City Council adopt and certify the
FPEIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (SP -13).
P. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held by the City
Council on October 16, 2018, and the Final Program EIR was
considered.
II. CERTIFICATION OF EIR. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final
Program EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse
(SCH# 2017041031)) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines (Exhibit A); that the EIR adequately addresses the
Project's potential environmental impacts; that the EIR was presented to
the City Council; that the City Council has reviewed and considered the
information contained in the EIR including Responses to Comments
(Exhibit B) prior to approving the Project; that the City Council has
considered the Findings and Facts in Support of the Findings (Exhibit E)
and Statement of Overriding Considerations prepared for the EIR (Exhibit
C); and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
City Council.
III. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings
and Facts in Support of Findings of Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Final EIR attached hereto as Exhibit E pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091.
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. The City Council
hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Final
EIR attached hereto as Exhibit C explaining why the Project's benefits
override and outweigh its unavoidable impacts pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15092
and 15093.
V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Council hereby identities the significant effects, adopts the
mitigation measures, adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program to be implemented for each mitigation measure as set forth in
detail in Exhibit D pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
Resolution No. 18-73
GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001
Page 5
VI. CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS. The documents and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which the City Council's decision
are based are located at City Hall. The custodian for these documents is
the City Clerk. This information is provided in compliance with Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15091(e).
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the 16th day of October, 2018.
ELWYN A. MURRAY
MAYOR
ATTEST:
ERICA N. YASUDA
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 18-73
GPA 2017-00001 and ZC 2017-00001
Page 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 18-73
I, 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 Resolution No. 18-73 was duly passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the day of , 2018, by the
following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
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:
httr)://www.tustinca.orci/deDtS
/cd/r)lanninaur)date.as
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
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 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
This page intentionally left blank,
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Table of Contents
of Tustin
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Section 1.0
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 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 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 CECIA 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
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 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
Reference
Commenter
Date of
Correspondence
Page
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 Corman
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 methodology for 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
of Tustin
Letter C-1 Department of Transportation, District 12
Marlon Regisford
March 19, 2018
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
Comment Letter C-1
SPATE OF CAL IFORNtA—C t "KA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMM O. EROWN Jr- Goveoor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 12
1750 EAST FOURTH STREET, SUITE 100
SANTAANA, CA 92705
PHONE (657) 328-6267
FAX (657) 328-6S10
TrY 711
www.dotca oovv
March 19, 2018
Erica Demkowicz
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Dear Ms. Demkowicz,
AEM
Makkg Conservation
a CaIV—ia Way of L*.
File: IGR/CEQA
SCH: #2017041031
12 -ORA -2018-00809
1-5; PM 29.102
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 (1-5) 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 uali
I. 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
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: haus://www.eMaov/sciencematters/livinQ-
close-roadways-health-concerns-and-mitigation-stmte¢ies. Consider this strategy
"Prow* a safe, su imiabk, Inmra d and a ftkw &wwoHadon symm
to ad mice Calybn ia's ecmroW and 1hobday"
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 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
S. 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 Plannine
3. Caltrans currently has plans for 1-5 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.
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 a sie, s wowbk, morv%wd and a84c ew ovn poradon syskm
to enhatwe Callfomio's ecommmy and lhabdoy"
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
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:
http://www.dot.ca.govlhg/tpp/grants.htmi 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
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 fiumiture, 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 fluid
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 fiord 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.%*. nagahmbk, huegraW anda kkW #agporktla- system
to enhowe Cav rxia's ecoway and Iiwbduy"
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 CaltransT 8
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 If bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from Edinger Avenue to Nisson Road, Class II
bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from HI Camino Real to First Street, Class If bike lane on
Red Hill Avenue from First Street to Melvin Way, and Class II bike lane on Red 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 11 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
II 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;
• 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.
"Provide a s*. systaimbk. ktkgrakd and of cknt Owuporwhm sokm
to enhona Calfwnkr's eca s"y and 1lvability"
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-6
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
10
Section 3.0
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, multinodal 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 11
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. ovLhq/LandArchlmainstreet/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,
MARIAN REGISFO
Branch Chief, Regional-IGR-Transit Planning
District 12
,•Provide a sq%, -Sft wabk, ihft—d ad a lc#&v daupaYallon syseeni
to enhance Utternia's ecawwW and liwbdo"
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:
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
Projected Queue (feet)
Queuing
AM Peak
PM Peak
Distance
Number
Intersection
Ramp
Movement
(feet)
of Lanes
Hour
Hour
On -Ramp
NB Meter
407
2
116 a
16 a
Off -Ramp
WBL
480* a
2
113/200 `
131/225
Red Hill at 1-5 NB Ramps
WBR
380' a
1
222/344°
383/544°
On -Ramp
SB Meter
431
2
272 a
168 a
Off -Ramp
EBL
430' a
1
85/154`
293/434`
Red Hill at 1-5 SB Ramps
EBR
430+a
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, 50th / 95th 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
City of Tustin
Response 4
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
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%2
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 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
Citv of Tustin Responses to Comments
Letter C-2 South Coast Air Quality Management District
Ujin Sun, J.D., Program Supervisor
March 14, 2018
Comment Letter C-2
RECEIVED
South Coast MAR 18 2016
Air Quality Management District
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(909) 396-2000 • \vww.agmd.gov BY:
SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: March 14, 2018
edemkowicz(&tustinca.org
Erica Demkowicz, AICP, Senior Planner
City of Tustin, Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Draft Environmental lmnact Report (Draft EIR) for the Pronosed
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the
Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR.
SCAQMD Staffs Summary of Project Description
The Lead Agency proposes to develop a comprehensive set of goals and objectives, a land use plan,
regulatory standards, design criteria, and administration and implementation programs to guide future
change, promote high-quality development, and implement the community'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-residential uses and 500
additional dwelling units. The Proposed Project extends along Red Hill Avenuc and is generally
bounded by Bryan Avenue to the northeast and Walnut Avenue to the southwest. Interstate 5 (1-5) bisects
the Red Hill Avenue in the middle of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is expected to be
developed over time with an expected buildout year of 20351.
SCAOMD Staff's Air Quality Analysis
Based on a review of the Air Quality Section, SCAQMD staff found that the Air Quality Analysis was
based on the expected buildout scenario. The Lead Agency did not quantify construction emissions
because it determined that "[qjuantifying individual future development's air emissions from short-term,
temporary construction -related activities is not possible 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. Since these parameters can vary so widely (and
individual project -related construction activities would occur over time dependent upon numerous
factors), quantifying precise construction -related emissions and impacts would be speculative'"
However, the Lead Agency found that "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'."
The Lead Agency quantified the Proposed Project's operational air quality emissions based on the
expected buildout scenario and compared the emissions to SCAQMD's regional air quality CEQA
significance thresholds for operation. After incorporating Mitigation Measures (MM) 4.2-1 through 4.2-
45, which require future projects to accommodate electric vehicle charging stations, include a voluntary
vanpool/shuttle ridesharing program for commercial uses, consider and mitigate the impacts on regional
air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through recommended mitigation measures for future
site plans, and conduct a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for future residential development located
Drag EIR. Section 3.2: Specific Plan Project Overview, Page 3-I.
2 Ibid. Section 3.8: Phasing. Page 3-33.
1 Ibid. Section 4.2.5 Environmental Impacts. Page 4.2-11.
' Ibid Page 4.2-13.
5 Ibid Page 4.2-15.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-11
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
of Tustin Responses to Comments
Erica Demkowicz March 14, 2018
within 500 feet of I-5, the Lead Agency found that the Proposed Project's mitigated operational emissions
would exceed SCAQMD's regional CEQA significant thresholds for NOx emissions, resulting in a
significant and unavoidable impact'. Although the Lead Agency did not conduct a localized significance
thresholds (LSTs) analysis or a HRA analysis because, as the Lead Agency stated, the analysis could only
be conducted at the project -specific level' 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 (DPM), resulting in a less than significant impact
with implementation of MM 4.2-4,
SCAOMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
On March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD's Governing Board adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan
(2016 AQMP)s, which was later approved by the California Air Resources Board on March 23, 2017,
Built upon the progress in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 2016 AQMP provides a regional
perspective on air quality and the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin. The most significant air
quality challenge in the Basin is to achieve an additional 45 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx)
emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment.
General Comments
SCAQMD staff has reviewedthe Air Quality Analysis in the Draft EIR and has comments on the
methodology, Please see the attachment for more information. Additionally; as described in the 2016
AQMP, to achieve NOx emissions reductions in a timely manner is critical to attaining the National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone before the 2023 and 2031 deadlines, SCAQMD is
committed to attain the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. The Proposed Project plays an
Important role in contributing to NOx emissions during operation. Therefore, SCAQMD staff has
comments on existing air quality mitigation measures and recommends additional mitigation measures to
ftirther reduce NOx emissions as well as RW_ PM10, and PM2.5 erni,Qainns. Finally, the attachment
Includes recommendations to Include a discussion on SCAQMD rules and regulations,
Closin
Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092,5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section
15088(b), SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide SCAQMD staff with written responses
to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Finan EIR. In addition, issues raised in
the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are
not accepted, There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response, Conclusory statements
unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory
statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful 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 them in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15091).
Ibid. Page 4.2-20.
Ibid, Pages 4.2-9, 4,2-15, and 4.2-16.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. March 3, 2017. 2016 Air Quality ,tlanagement Plan. Accessed at:
:ilw v d, nv ���libran/clean-air-plan�air-qualitymat-nlan.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-12
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
conrd
1
Section 3.0
City of Tustin Responses to Comments
Erica Dernkowicz March 14, 2018
SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these Issues and any other questions cont'd
that may arise. Please contact Ryan BaPiuelos, Air Quality Specialist, CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3479 1
if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments.
Sincerely,
Lijin Sun, ),I).
Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources
Attactuncmt '
IS[RB
ORC 160202-02
Control Number
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
ATTACHMENT
Air Ouality Analysis–Construction ImnactAnaiysis
I. When specific development is reasonably foreseeable as a result of the goals, policies, and guidelines
in the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should Identify any potential adverse air quality impacts
and sources of air pollution that could occur using its best efforts to find out and a good -faith effort at
full disclosure in the EIR. "Drafting an EIR [... ] necessarily involves some degree of forecasting.
While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best efforts to find out and
disclose all that it reasonably can" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15144). The degree of specificity will
correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the
EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15146). When quantifying air quality emissions, emissions from
both construction (including demolition, if any) and operations should be calculated.
When the precise construction schedule or scenario is unknown, the Lead Agency should identify and
quantify a worst-case construction impact scenario that is reasonably foreseeable at the time the Draft
OR is prepared, As shown in Table 34 and Table 3-5 in the Draft EIR, the Lead Agency has
identified the estimated development potential in terms of a net increase of 325,000 non-residential
square feet and 504 additional dwelling units for the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Lead Agency
can and should use this information and its best efforts to identify construction activities that would
be required to implement the maximum build -out scenarios and quantify associated construction
emissions, including emissions from any demolition activities.
Alternatively, the Lead Agency should use construction scenarios from other comparable projects to
develop an appropriate construction scenario for modeling the Proposed Project's construction.
Impacts, For example, the Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan in the City of Tustin is
expected to be. developed over time from 2018 and 2035; and the maximum constniction emiminns
were quantified and disclosed in the Draft EIR for that project. Therefore, the Lead Agency should
use the construction scenarios that has already been developed for the Downtown Commercial Core
Specific Plan to quantify the construction air quality impacts for the Proposed Project. Otherwise,
there is no substantial evidence to support the Lead Agency's finding that the Proposed Project's
construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Air Quality Analysis -Interim Milestone Years
2. The Draft EiR included only one Air Quality Analysis year for modeling; 201911 (operational year).
By 2035, the Proposed Project is assumed to be fully built based on the projections. Although the
Proposed Project may not be at peak capacity in earlier years, it is possible that due to higher
emission rates of vehicles, trucks, and equipment in earlier years, peak daily emissions may occur in
2018 and beyond. The overall emission rates of vehicles, trucks, and equipment are generally higher
in earlier years as more stringent emission standards and technologies have not been fully
implemented, and fleets have not fully turned over, Furthermore, according to the Lead Agency,
construction activities associated with future development would occur in incremental phases over
time and would be based on numerous factors". Therefore, SCAQMD staff recommends that the
Lead Agency include interim milestone years (i.e., year 2020, year 2025, and year 2030) in the Air
Quality Analysis to ensure the peak daily emissions are identified and adequately disclosed in the
Final EIR, The interim milestone years will also assist in the demonstration of progress overtime
from implementing air quality -related mitigation measures and policies included in the Draft EIR.
9 Draft Elk Downtown Commercial Core Specific Pian. February 2018, Page 5.2-17. Accessed at:
hno://www.twtinca,ore/civicaelPilebmikiblobdload. mox?Blobl D=28094,
ie. Ibid Appendix Bi Air Quality and Greenhouse Lias, Pages 3, 11, 20, 28, 37, and 48.
11 ibid,, Section 4.2.5. Page 4,2.12,
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-14
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
City of Tustin Responses to Comments
Erica Demkowlez March 14, 2018
Air Ouality Analysis —Q,yerlapnine Construction and Operational Impacts
3. Based on a review of the Air Quality Analysis, SCAQMD staff found that the Lead Agency did not
analyze a scenario where construction activities overlap with operational activities, Since
implementation of the Proposed Project is expected to occur over a multi-year timeframe of 17 years
from 2018 to 203512, an overlapping construction and operation scenario is reasonably foreseeable,
unless the Proposed Project includes requirement(s) that will prohibit overlapping construction and
operational activities, To properly analyze a worst-case impact scenario that is reasonably
foreseeable at the time the Draft EIR is prepared, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency
identify the overlapping years, combine construction emissions (including emissions from
demolition) with operational emissions, and compare the combined emissions to SCAQ.MD's air
quality CEQA operatlona thresholds of significance to determine the level of significance in the
Final EIR, In the event that the Lead Agency, after revising the Air Quality Analysis, finds that the
Proposed Project's air quality impacts would be significant, mitigation measures will be required
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. For more information on suggested potential
mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency, please see Comment No. 6 below and visit
SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook websites',
Air Quality Analysis Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) Analysis
4. When specific development is reasonably foreseeable as a result of the goals, policies, and elements
in the Proposed Project, the Lead Agency should identify any potential adverse air quality Impacts
and sources of air pollution that could occur using its best efforts to find out and a good -faith effort at
full disclosure in a CEQA document, in the Draft '.BIR, the Lead Agency stated that "LSTs are
applicable to projects at the project -specific level and are not applicable to regional projects such as
Specific Plans (SCAQMD, 2003). As such, LSTs would be required for future development projects,
but do not apply to the programmatic Specific Plan analysis"," SCAQMD staff is concerned with
this analysis, Detailed comments are discussed below,
Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis
To analyze and disclose a worst-case impact scenario that is reasonably foreseeable at the time the
Draft EIR is prepared, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use its best efforts, based
on already available Project information such as build -out nonresidential uses in square feet and
dwelling units to quantify the Proposed Project's localized emissions and disclose the localized air
quality impacts in the Final EIR, SCAQMD guidance for performing a localized air quality analysis
is available on SCAQMD websites, Alternatively, the Lead Agency should consider to include a
new air quality mitigation measure to require a project -level LSTs analysis prior to issuance of a
grading permit as follows:
Prior to Issuance of a rading lyrinit for new rievetolvnent groierts that are one acre or larger,
the aaFlicanildeveloyer shallproyide modeling oftine (oralized emissions rNOx. Q.) PAno and
SCAQMD's sigltiflranre thresholds for those emissions.
11 Net Section 3.8. Page 3.35,
13 South Coast Air Quality Marnagetaent District. Accessed at:
hunihv�vFv ar�md qpv/hnmelre�ulatinns/cecialair•quality anaivgi; handtwtak.
14 Ibid. Section 4.2,4. Page 4.2.9.
is South Coast Air Quality Management District. localized Significance Thresholds, Accessed at:
tt t//hvww.ggmd.uov/home/reaulations7ce tc algin gltn ry anAly is•handl�nkiincalired-significaneg-threshnld�.
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, 2018
This mitigation measure ensures that the Lead Agency has adequately analyzed the Proposed
Project's localized air quality impacts to justify deferring the LSTs analysis, that a project- or site- cont'd
specific LSTs analysis will be completed in a later stage, and that any nearby sensitive receptors are 5
not adversely affected by the Proposed Project's construction activities that are occurring in close
proximity.
According to the Lead Agency, residential units could be constructed as close as 100 feet from the 1-
516, To facilitate the, purpose and goal of CEQA oil public disclosure, SCAQMD staff recommends
that the Lead Agency use applicable Project information that is already available in the Draft EIR to
conduct a HRA analysis" and to disclose thepotential health risks in the Final EIRt". In addition, the
Lead Agency, as part of MM 4,2-4, is committed to a project -specific HRA for future residential
development proposed within 500 feet of I.S. This mitigation measure ensures that the Lead Agency
would adequately consider the Proposed Project's health impacts and that a project -level HRA
analysis will be completed in; a later stage to facilitate the disclosure of health impacts to prospective
residents. Further, the Lead Agency is committed to mitigation should a project -level HRA be found
to exceed the SCAQMD's HILA thresholds".
Additional Consideration for Existing MM 4.24
a) The Lead Agency should also consider requiring the use of enhanced filtration systems with
maximum efficiency rating value (MERV) of 13 or better in residential units within 500 feet of 11-
5 to ensure the maximum reduction of health risks from exposures to diesel particulate matter
(DPM) emissions from vehicles and trucks traveling on the freeway.
b) if enhanced filtration system is installed, it is important to consider the limitations, In a study that
SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters", a cost burden is expected to be within the range of
$120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. In addition, because the filters would not have any
effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the
residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents
are indoors, and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the
residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project.
Moreover, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust.
Therefore, the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully
evaluated in more detail and disclosed to prospective residences prior to assuming that they will
sufficiently alleviate exposures to DPM emissions,
16 Ibid, Section 4,2,$. Page 4.2-K
""Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air
Quality Analysis," Accessed at:
hno /lww%vaamd aovlhome/relulutionslceoalav nualnv analvsts•handirooklmobile>sc>urce•tocics•analv+is.
'r SCAQMD hasdeveloped the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in ane million for cancer risk.. When SCAQMD acts as the
t,ead Agency, SCAQMD staff conducts a HRA, compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to
detennine the level of significance for health risk impact., and identifies mitigation measures if the risk is found to be
significant.
y Ibid. Section 4.2. Page 4.2-20.
This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better, Accessed at:
lhvwtiv uymd ~ovldocsldclhuit source%cawhandlwok/aamdniiotstudvfinatrepart ndt Also sea also 2012 Peer Review
Journal article by SCAQMD; http lld7 iunir corNsitsldefaulUliles! f/Palicktri ct-x42012 odf.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-16
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
of Tustin Responses to Comments
Erica Demkowicz
March 14, 2018
Because of the limitatlons, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency make the
following disclosures to prospective residences and include them as requirements in the Finai
EIR,
• Disclosure on potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in proximity to
freeways and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open;
• Disclosure on increased energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents;
• Recommended schedules (e,g., once a year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced
filtration units;
o Ongoing cost sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration emits;
• Identification of the responsible implementing and enforcement agency such as the Lead
Agency for ensuring that enhanced filters are installed at residential units before a permit of
occupancy is issued;
• Identification of the responsible entity such as Homeowners Association or property
management for ensuring filters are replaced on time, if appropriate and feasible;
• Criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and
• Process 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
SCAQMD staff recognizes that there are many factors Lead Agencies must consider when
making local planning and land use decisions, To facilitate stronger collaboration between Lead
Agencies and SCAQMD to reduce community exposure to source -specific and cumulative air
pollution impacts, SCAQMD adopted the Guidance Avitmenl.for Addressing Air Quality Issues
in General Plans and Local Planning in 200521. This Guidance document provides
recommended policies that local governments can use in their General Plans or through local
planning to prevent or reduce potential air pollution impacts and protect public health. Therefore,
it is recommended that the Lead Agency review this Guidance document in addition to the
California Air Resources Board's Guidance document, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A
Community Health Perspective, prior to approving the Proposed Project.
Additions) Recommended Mitigation MeasuEn
6. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be
utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. SCAQMD
staff recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final
EIR to further reduce emissions, particularly from ROO, NOx, and particulate matter, Additional
information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency is available on the
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook website.
Require all off-road diesel -powered construction equipment meet or exceed Tier 4 off-road
emissions standards. A copy of the fleet's tier compliance documentation, and CARE or
SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided to the Lead Agency at the time of mobilization of
each applicable unit of equipment. In the event that all construction equipment cannot meet the
Tier 4 engine certification, the Lead Agency must demonstrate through future study with written
findings supported by substantial evidence before using other technologies/strategies, Alternative
strategies may include, but would not be limited to, reduction in the number and/or horsepower
rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and
21 South Coast Air Quality Management District. May 2005, "Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General
Plans and Local Planning" Accessed at:
hem:ll�cw��,uumd.auv!<lacs/defauk :warcelnlanninclulr-uuality uutdance/crmpkte-apid�nce•documegt.gdr.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-17
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
contd
6
Section 3.0
City of Tustin Responses to Comments
Erica Demkowicz
March 14, 20018
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, 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.
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.
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 Iight colored "cool" roofs and cool pavements.
h) Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters.
i) Require use of electric town 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 aft disturbed areas.
b) Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning onsite
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 aro carried to adjacent streets (recommend
water sweepers with reclaimed water).
d) Apply water three times daily or non-toxic soil 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
confd
7
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 EiR, In the Air
Quality Analysis, the Lead Agency refers to "MM 4.2-5" to mitigate threshold 4.2-4; however, the
Lead Agency did not proposed or include the "MM 4.2-5" in the Draft EIRz-'. This inconsistency 8
makes the Air Quality Analysis difficult to follow. Therefore, the Lead Agency should correct the
inconsistency in the Final EIR.
22 ]bid Section 4.2.5. Page 4.2-I6,
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. 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 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 3.0
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
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 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 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 CARB 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 8
The comment identifies a typographical error in the numbering of the mitigation measure referenced on
page 4.2-16 of the Draft Program EIR. 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 4.2-154 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
City of Tustin
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
Letter C-3 Orange County Transportation Authority
Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs
March 16, 2018
Comment Letter C-3
OCTA
60ARD OF DIRECTORS
March 16, 2018
Llsa A. 8anletl
Chair
Ms. Erica Demkowicz, AICP, Senior Planner
runsha
Re Chairmann
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
Laurie Davies
Director
300 Centennial Way
Barbara Dalgloae
Tustin, CA 92780
Director
Andrew Do
Subject: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report —
Director
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
LoriDonchak
Director
Dear Ms. Demkowicz:
Michael Hennessey
Director
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Notice of
Steve Jones
Availability of a Draft EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project. The following
Director
comments are provided for your consideration:
Mark A. Murphy
Dimclor
Active Transportation Comments
RichardA•lurphy
. As noted on Page 3-20 of the DEIR and the City of Tustin General Plan,
Director
Figure C-5 (Master Bikeway Plan), a Class II bikeway is planned on Red Hill
Al Murray
Director
Avenue within the project study area. The bikeway exists at 1-5 within
Caltrans managed areas at the interchange ramps. OCTA is supportive of t
Shawn Nelson
Director
the Specific Plan proposed "revisions to the roadway cross section for Red
Hill Avenue to include a Class II striped on -street bike lane the entire length
Miguel Pulido
Dbeclor
of the Specific Plan area."
Todd Spitzer
Director
a OCTA is preparing OC Active, the first countywide bike and pedestrian master
Michelle Steel
plan. The report and other studies under preparation by OCTA will include
Director
recommended treatments to improve infrastructure for pedestrian
Tan Tait
function. OCTA will continue to collaborate with the City of Tustin as a 2
Director
resource for consideration of engineering treatments to enhance safety for
GregoryT 441witerbotrom
people walking and biking within the community and the project area.
Director
Ryan Chambedaih
. New residential land use construction provides an opportunity to encourage
Ex-0ffrce Member
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
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE
3
guests_ Short-term parking in the ratio of one bicycle parking space for each
four units might be considered, and inclusion of a secure ground floor indoor
Darrell Johnson
Chief Executive ONicer
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,
Orange County Transportation Authority
550 South Main Street / P.O. Sox 14184 / Orange / California 92863-1584 / (714) 560 -OCTA (6282)
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-24
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
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
Rem limiting bicycle commuting by employees. 4
Transit Planning Commen
• 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) 5605907 or by email at DPhuocta.net.
Sincerely,
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, 2018
-4OF+gL
U
Community Development
1 Civic Center Plaza. Itvine. CA 92606-5208
February 26, 2018
Ms. Erica Demkowicz
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Comment Letter C-4
cityotirwne.org
949-724-6000
Sent via USPS and
email: edemkowicz@tustinca.org
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, gateway/wayfinding 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 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:
• 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
City of Tustin
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
Ms, Erlca Demkowicz
February 26, 2018
Page 2 of 6
• Intersections of Irvine Blvd at Newport Ave., Browning Ave. and Tustin Ranch
Rd.
e Intersections of Bryan Ave. at Newport Ave., Browning Ave, and Tustin Ranch
Rd.
confd
The additional intensity of this proposed project warrants additional intersection f
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 built -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.
Gown d wwl [oif
Yoram s ooao
Red Ml Conrldor SP
Vistro FD*: K:I..Umft Red Hit PM.*tro Scenado 4 80 WP PM
Report File0 ,.W 80 WP PM„ ADJ EX.pdf 1%22/2018
Intersection Analysis Summary
10
Interaeatfon Name
Control Type
Method
worst Mv01
Vic
Dalen (stveh) LDS
1
Bryan Ave /Red Hill Ave
signsUod
ICU 1
Wo Thru
0.863
- 0
2
San Juan St t Red Hill Ave
*robed
ICU 1
NO TIM
0.481
A
3
Camino Real I Red Hit A _
ed
M 1
NS Thru
0.804
D
4
WS N8 Ramps 1 Red Hill Ave
nak*d
ICU 1
w8 Right
0:859
S
5
1.15 Se / Red HW Ave
signalized
ICU 1
N8 RIght
0;972
E
6
Red HIM Ave 6Nisson Rd
Sigmitzed
ICU 1
NS Thru
0.647
D
7
Rad Hill Ave I MGEchell Ave
Signalized
ICU 1
NS Thru
0.747
C
6
Rad HMI Ave I Walnut Ave
Soulized
ICU 1
N8 Thru
0.904
E
9
Red HIO Ave I Sycamore Ave
signalized
iCU 1
N13 Thru
0.666
8
VIC, Way, Los: For hoo-wey stop, these vaWas are taken from the movement with the worst (highest) delay value. for
all other contra types, they are taken for lha whole intersecoon,
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
PTV V,STRQ
wwodion Levs1 of 34"rke Repmf
Maoeseaden M RW HIM Ave J WsMW Aw
cm WToc slpn bf w Ddey(w?vsh�
AnslyAs M " , 1: ICU 1 Leve( d 9W*A" E
MWY* Petbd' 14 MKA" Volume 10 C4 p8* (viny, 0,901
ho .11- s4Wp
No*
IeMHill Aw
RW HOA"
W*UAw
WdWA Ave
AW06-h
Na wrwsowhbauw
.
984"d
N4abourd
L.e.0060"Oon
ifff
-iI
-,I
X71 h
TW"MawnwM
Left TMv N*
W ltxu MO
Left Tlru ftN
Lsb TA WW
Law %A (MJ _
MOD 1200 12,00
1740 12.00 - MO
1200 12.00 MW
12.00 13.00 12.00
Na. of Laws h pa" —
0 0
0 0
0 - 0
0 0
PO" LONG (11)
.
Sp..dIwON
30,00
00.00
30.00
,30,00
COW* ny
040
0.00
0.00.
040
craswvM
Yet
Ya
Ya
Yea
Several build -out traffic volumes appear to conflict with IBC Vision Pian P2035 tum
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 Mom TIA dated January 2018
BO AM WP
e«.+ww ®®
vrr..aa00b
Wr..aIYM 1M.1W..I." MW1
WV"I*wit a 0.W" AW t sd NW Aw
C4*0 Tr" $ON W+ 00"IWIV"
An✓f.FMMgd: "t L"W<9 SWA. o
MWliiIm, WA W *h." .04.*rk't aw
b6W.w* *W"
n.. n.awAw n.cwA. dcu.rsw ec.W.wr
►..vh..M+N++�1 y+ >� aro �s itls a n xe iw as u� i�
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-29
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
conrd
2
Section 3.0
City of Tustin Responses to Comments
Ms, Erica Demkowicz
February 26, 2018
Page 4 of 6
BO PM WP
tlw..«a.11 L«IN a.wtt,
ho"".0" l: a ta*" I4.IIR W MMA"
Ctype sto +d U,Ny (trolwb).
Ayly*yR lMtlwlk ICU1 twrldbrvkt tl
Kwok 0-0 10 0 Vow—I0 C10KNY tVft ; OAM
Mlnr IWIIYM. RMilYAw BCaalUelW EIO'.Mn'IfM
M�YNM M,/14 {n11N+. W IM IIS VMI tlF 1i 10i t" t" 1 itl 1 11
--M*Vd.n�.Ai►�r.w�Iw� 1,000► tppp I.OmO 1.0000 10000 AAOOO tAOM fAe00 1-00 i01g0 1.0000 k0090
Excerpt from IBC Vision Plan 2015 Five Year Update P2035 Cumulative
Baseline
30 , lied Mill AV. at 61 Caro* Wa
1TAM I2%4 P2035 Cg=%ALIV4i 1"TIM ISMI
AM PK 40VA
PM PK MOOR
4MO
CAPACITY
VOL
VIC
VOL
VIC
ROL
2
3400
394
.12"
42:
.13
MILT
3
5100
473
.13
11
, l6•
USA
1
1700
213
.11
317
.19
SAL
I
1740
41
.OS
35S
.tS•
SaS
3
1100
1276
.24•
451
.11.
so It
0
0
59
51
PLL
1
1700
!0
,tl;
32
IMT
2.5
$140
216
1.071•
95'S
126,
no
1.5
26S
1,071
172
M41,
I.S.
312
1,121•
357
1.x71•
WaT
1.S
5140
243
,12
96l
.291
Ralf
0
44
1St
CI*4tAACA Iht*rVal
.05•
,05"
TOTAL
CAPACITY UT$U 2ATIOM
.62
.tS
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-30
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
cont'd
3
Section 3.0
of Tustin Responses to Comments
Ms. Erica Demkowicz
February 26, 2018
Page 5 of 6
Traffic Volume Comparision Summary
AM Peak
Project Build -Out
_184
IBC Vision Plan
EBR
___._.._..
_ 265
SBR
15
__.....� 59
WBR
14
— 46
PM Peak
rn
Project Build -Out
IBC Vision Plan
SBL
37
255
EBT
305
958
WST
423
_ 963
WBR
27
151
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 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 of the Specific Plan was accompanied by a concurrent
zoning map amendment to designate the area "Red Hili 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.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-31
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
confd
3
City of Tustin
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 mchao aAcitvofirvine,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
to Comments
City of Tustin
Response 1
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
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 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
C7RANGE CgUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY
T!55"1 3160 Airway Avenue •Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949,252.5170 fax; 949.252.6012
March 16, 2018
Erica Demokowicz, Senior Planner
City of Tustin
Community Development Department
300 Ccntcnnial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Subject: Notice of Availability of a DR1R Red 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 (J WA). However, portions of
the proposed project fall within the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 approach and
transitional surfaces forJWA,
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
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 conditions of approval imposed or
recommended by the FAA and ALUC including filing 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 iubmitted through the City to the ALUC 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 DEER. Please contact Lea Choum at
(949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichoum0ocair.com should you have any questions related to the
Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County.
SSiincerely, _
el
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 <kheydman@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2018 8:50 PM
To: Demkowicz, Erica
Subject Hello Mrs. Denikowics 1 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, I currently live in the area for the Red Hill Ave. Plan. How will this affect
people who live in the area? From what I have read it is to build new shops and residential wets, 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
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-36
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
of Tustin
Response 1
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
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
of Tustin
Demkowia, Erica
From: Demkowicz, Erica
Sent: Friday, February 09, 20181:03 PM
To: 'Kevin Heydman'
Subject: RE: Hello Mrs, Demkowics I have some questions about the Red Hili Specific Plan
Hello Kevin,
Section 3.0
to Comments
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. Mixed use means a
combination of either commercial retail and/or office on the ground floor with residential or office uses above (Le.
vertical) or commercial/office uses and residential uses next to each other (i.e. horizontal), on the same site or
property. The Specific 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 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 Hili 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 a new 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/dents/cd/`olanningui3date,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
edet Aowez@tustinca.org
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-38
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
City of Tustin
Letter C-7 Kathy Hall
February 16, 2018
Demkowicz, Erica
From:
Kathy Hall <khall@startmail,com>
Sent:
Friday, February 16, 20181"4 AM
To:
Demkowicz, Erica
Subject:
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
Hi Erica,
Section 3.0
to Comments
Comment Letter C-7
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 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. When 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
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
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-39
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
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 CECIA 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, 201810:53 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.
http JCwww.tusti nca.orF,/deptslcd/pla n ninsuodate.aso
Regards,
Erica H. Demkowicz, AICD
Senior Planner
City of Tustin - Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
(114) 573-3127
ede ►kowi listinca>oW
From: peter888 rmallto:peter@cwlnsRe.com]
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 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
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)
:- I•.
1
car warsYr inaibe
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 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/pianningupdate.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
RECEro0,D,
March 15, 2018
Via Email, US Mail First Class Mail and Hand Delivery MAR
To: Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner, City of Tustin OOMMUNnYDEVELOPMENT
300 Centennial Way BY:
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 92657
E-mail: luckvhwrdOaol.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 dty 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
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 Pian. 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
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
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.
N
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-44
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
cont'd
I
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
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,
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.
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.
Howard L. Abel
3
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-45
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
4
of Tustin
Response 1
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
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
Dernkowicz, Erica
From:
Gerald Mardi <jermarcil@aol.com>
Sent:
Monday, February 05, 20181;51 PM
To:
Demkowicz, Erica
cc:
tarahelang@Yahoo.com, David Delgado
subject:
CEQA Red Hill Avenue
To: Tustin Planning Dept.
From: Jerry Marcil
Re: CEQlA Red Hill Avenue
Dear City Planner, {
own the property at 14445 Red Hill Ave (Waterston Garden Apts) and 14251-351 Browning Ave j
(Rancho Sierra Vista) a total of 117 apt. uriits. I am stunned you want to put another 500 units into
this neighborhood. This is already a densely populated corridor with plenty of traffic. F'nre hundred
more units next door means 1,800 more people (500x 3.6 people per unit assuming 2 BDM units). t
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
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-47
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
City of Tustin
Response 1
Section 3.0
to Comments
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 [mallto:timarteffect@gwgll.Wm]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 7:24 PM
To: 0emkowicz, Erica
Cc: Reekstin, Scott
Subject: Re: RE; Public Comment - Red Hili 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 I 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
acre lot by the church lot and going back, was vaguely discussed. I hope for the bestl
Bottom line is that my pov of the air base was that 1/2 was conserved, with the residential outweighing the
major commercial 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 golgenwest 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, willing small business owners can handle it, repair shops,
furniture, landscaping, law offices, etc. (Because #1 on your slideshow was options and shopping ease) essential
outweighs luxury to 100% of middle class America and still, I say 75% of the "new" middle class. Pay it
forward! The reasoning is what is important to this generation is what they !earned and will pass on, to survive C0"rd
1
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
of Tustin
Response 1
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
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 C-12
From; Qantas Gorman[maiito:gantascorman@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 201810:40 AM
To: Demkowla, 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 1 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
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
City of Tustin
Letter C-13 Susan Ellenberg
February 6, 2018
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
Section 3.0
to Comments
Comment Letter C-13
Hi Erica,
It was a pleasure talking with you today at the City Hall when 1 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.
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 1000 words.
Regards,
Susan Eilenberg
14102 Woodlawn Ave
Tustin, CA 92780
From: Demkowicz, Erica (mailto:EDemkowicz@tustinca.oral
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 3:55 PM
To: Demkowicz, Erica <EDemkowicz@tustinca.org>
Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth <EBinsacki?c tustinca.ore>; Willkom, Justina <1Willkom(d)tustinca.ore>; Reekstin, Scott
<SReekstinC@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, AICP
Senior Planner
City of Tustin - Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3127
edemkowicz@tustinca.ore
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-53
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
of Tustin
Response 1
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
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 Jenson
Direct Dial: (714) 641-3413
RUTAN & TUCKER. LLQ
E-mail: kjenson�u�mtattcom
March 16, 2018
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: CityC.ouncil@tustinca.org
Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
E-mail: edentkowicz@tustinca.org
Re: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
E-mail: cityclerk@tustinca.org
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 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 119i018838-0031
Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 120601483,03+NIS
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-55
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
of Tustin Responses to Comments
RUTAN
huf4 fr TUCiY.d ...3i.
Mayor At 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 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 ;Resign 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 "change in use," and an "expansion or new development," It
then references Section 9273 of 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
I This paragraph also contains a typographical error. The reference to 5.3. 1. should be 5.1.3.
1191011"8. 031
12060)48.3 a0N I R;1 N
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-56
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
City of Tustin Responses to Comments
RUTAN
muvAx L,uY. r:Rm ,:4M
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. 1f 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-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.
119.1018838.0031
11W748.J ;N)N W I N
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 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
I O,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 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 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.
1191101183&_N31
120!07,18.3 003.+I N 18
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-58
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
City of Tustin Responses to Comments
RUTAN
liuf<M <fuk.P,M. tll+
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 are typically satisfied through the use of Reciprocal Easement Agreements
("REAs"). This makes sense since the goat 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.
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.
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 triggered by the reoccupation of an existing building.
1191013838-0031
11060748,3 AMN18
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 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.
4. 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?
11'7'01883 PIM31
n%0748:3 031I1&118
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-60
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 3.0
City of Tustin Responses to Comments
RU'T'AN
Rutaa; tuCxY,a SAM
Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members
Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners
Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner
March 1.6, 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 descriptions on Table 44 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. 1f 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 &'PUCKER, LLP
/(a e`^I
M. Katherine Jenson)le!�p
MKJ,Ir
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)
1191013138.0431
.060748.3 u03110118
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-61
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
City of Tustin
Response
Section 3.0
Responses to Comments
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 (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 CECA 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
CECA 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.
any gFad'ng 9F building peFFAitS and/er aetien that w9uld peFimit project site dist- whance.
(whleheyeF 066LIFS fiFSt) f8F any deyelepment ffejeets within the. Red- Well Aw- we Specifie
Plan aFea, the applieant shall PFeYide a letter te- the City of Tustin E6,;,,;,uity
at 36 GFR PaFt 61, Appendix A stating that the applieant haS Fetained this andividual and
aFea, all aetivity within 90 feet Af the aren Af diseeveFy shall cease and the City shall be
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 4-1
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
of Tustin
5 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS
Section 5.0
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 4.2-54 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][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.
aRY gFading OF building peFffiits aAd�ff aetien that would peffnit ffejeet site diStwFbanee
(whieheyeF eCCUFS fiFSt) feF aRy development prejeets Within the lReed- Will Mot- ue Speeifir:
Plan area, the applieant shall pre -vide a letter. te the City of TustiR Gemmunip 7 A
-at 36 G.FR PaFt 61, AppeRdix A stating that the applicant has FP_taiRPd tho'; 0
and
hat the a
immediately notified. The aF6heelegist shall be eentaeted te flag the area in the field- and
GEQA Gw'deliRes § 15064.5(a)) and/9F unique aFehaeolegoeal FeseWFee (Pub! e ReSOUFees-
Gede [Pori § 21083.2(g+.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-1
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
- - - - - - -
-- -
- - --
--- -- - -
- - -
.•
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-1
Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation
Section 5.0
City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions
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 G'oalsand Policies
Project Consistency
Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element
COSR Policy 1.7: Create the maximum possible opportunities for
Consistent: See responses to 68SR-CIR Policy 6.1 and CIR Policy 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 Hill Avenue within the Citv limits as a designated 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 proper soil management
Consistent, See response to COSR Policy 8,2, Additionally, NIM SC4.4-1 requires geotechnical
techniques to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and other soil -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 Measupa 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), * ff—tQ—tbg-Jssuance of building n rmi s.
applicants shall
of build-+ag perm+ts edicate parkland or tiav a nark fee, on a per unit basis, reflecting th
value of land required for park purposes. The •, ue 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 according to the following standards and formula.
Standards and Formula for Land Dedication:
The public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety reauires that threal3LacLes
of usable nark land per one thousand (1.000) potential population be devoted to loca
hark and recreational purposes.
The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall
e computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland A r
per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the
following table:
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
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 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 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
S C 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
7CZ61CiC7_lLVA 1
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 (SC) and Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Timing
Responsibility for Monitoring
"' Compliance)
NR (JIALITY M s z r r"t t `,
W.=u'' ,a 4.ss_,.
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 shall require all construction contractors to Grading and Building
Department — Building
comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules Construction
Permits
Division
Contractor
402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulates.
Monitor during grading
SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off
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/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 (refers
to a road to the top of the pile) to allow water truck access, or must
Red Hill Avenue Specific Pian
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
MonRor
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,
Construction
specifications
Department— Building
This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications.
Manager
During building plan
Division
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.
Red HIII 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 Planning 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.
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)
■ 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 500 feet of the Interstate 5 right-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
Red HIII 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.
CI�LT�RAI RESOUitCES AWQ�TRiB/1L CUL'll'IJR�U. R`E�SQl1R�S � �
' � r �' � �
� f
� ¢ `,
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
Native American
Zoning Division
location other than a dedicated cemetery. California Health and Safety Code
Heritage
Community Development
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
Department— Building
coroner has conducted an investigation Into the circumstances, manner and
(NAHCCommission
(as
Division
cause of death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and
necess
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 b
g p y y preserving the resource(s) in place.
Archaeologist
issuance of Grading
Zoning Division
Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA 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
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 plans
activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a
qualified archaeologist has assessed the discovery and appropriate treatment
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined.
If discovered archaeological resources are found to be significant, the
archaeologist shall determine, in consultation with the City and any local Native
American groups expressing interest following notification by the City,
appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), preservation in place shall be the preferred
means to avoid impacts to archaeological resources qualifying as historical
resources. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), if it is
demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided, the qualified
archaeologist shall develop additional treatment measures, such as data
recovery, reburial/ relocation, deposit at a local museum that accepts such
resources or other appropriate measures, in consultation with the
implementing agency and any local Native American representatives expressing
interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archaeological site does not
qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria for a unique
archaeological resource as defined in Section 21083.2, then the site shall be
treated in accordance with the provisions of Section 21083.2.
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 '
riming
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
in approved grading
paleontological resource surveillance. If paleontological resources are
and construction plans
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
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.
SC 4.4-1: Projects are required to comply with Tustin City Code, Chapter 9,
Applicant
Prior to 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
Geotechnical
Identified in approved
Division
reports and shall incorporate all information as required by the City. Grading
Engineer
grading and
plans shall indicate all areas of grading. Grading plans shall provide for
construction plans
temporary erosion control on all graded sites scheduled to remain
unimproved for more than 30 days.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
;Monitor
Responsibility for
ture; Date ofStandard
Condition (SC) and Mitigation Measure (MM)
Implementation
Timing
Responsibility for Monitoringmpliance)
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
Engineer
Identified in approved
Works Department
of differential settlements resulting from ground shaking, as well as effects of
grading and
subsidence, lateral spreading, and collapse potential. All geotechnical
construction plans
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 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.
'`FIAZlilkoS N(ID HAZAIIOCIUS"MAf�RIAIS
MM 4.61: 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)
Environmental
Permits
Division
for any individual site application proposed on a site with a current or former
Professional
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:
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)
l)fSlbRblY�IND WATER QUALITY :
,t crkt ,-t . i' .,;;..= 2.
r r
„Y �s r� .z.s#aP r
in
1
SC 4.7-1: Prior to the Issuance of grading permits for any development
Applicant
Prior to issuance of
Public Works 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.
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 4.7-1: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for any
Applicant
Prior to issuance of
Public Works Department
development projects under the 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.
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
Construction
and Building Permits
Department — Building
project construction activities (as defined in Section 4616(2) and Section
Manager
Monitor during grading
Division
4617(e) of the Tustin City Code) shall take place between the hours of 7:00
and construction
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
Applicant
Prior to issuance of
Community Development
CNEL exterior noise level standard, as defined by Table N-3 of the City of
Grading and Building
Department — Building
Tustin General Plan Noise Element, and the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level
Construction
Permits
Division
standard of the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element, and by Title 24,
Manager
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 plans
with manufacturers' standards, and all stationary construction
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
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 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.
Red HIII 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)
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
as a result of vibration.
j pyoccurred
,
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 under the 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 Pian, the applicant shall pay developer fees to the
Zoning Division
Tustin Unified School District; payment of the adopted fees would provide full
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.
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
Land dedication at final
Zoning Division
Tustin City Code). Developers may dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu or a
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.
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Table 1-1. Mitigation Monitoring Requirements
Average Persons per
Dwelling Unit
Parkland Acres per
Dwelling Unit
0-7
3.39
Monitor
7.1-15
Responsibility for
.0086
15.1-25
(Signature; Date of.
Standard Condition (SC) and Mitigation Measure (MM)
implementation
riming
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
Gross Acre
Average Persons per
Dwelling Unit
Parkland Acres per
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
based upon proposed
product type
To be calculated to
achieve three(3)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.
16
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)
Ti�IC AMQ TRANSPORTATION F .. .. t. .. t,
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.
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 City 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 (or requirements in place
at the time of project entitlement).
17
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Monitoring and Reporting Program
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.
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.
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
(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 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 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 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
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 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 Exhibit E
Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Q) 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.
S. 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
(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 Overridine 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
1 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 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 PM10 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: 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 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 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 (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 KOM 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 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
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. (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.
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 Overridine 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.
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 1,000 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.2
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
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 Resected Durine 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 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 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 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
s 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 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
21081(b) and State CEQA Guideline Section 15093.
43 Exhibit E