Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 18-73 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: I. 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 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 7. Hydrology and Water Quality Resolution No. 18-73 Page 1 of 5 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: • The Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) — Exhibit A; • Response to Comments & Native American Tribal -- Consultation on the DPEIR— Exhibit B • Comments Received on the DPEIR Resolution No. 18-73 Page 2 of 5 • 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 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). Resolution No. 18-73 Page 3 of 5 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. 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. Resolution No. 18-73 Page 4 of 5 ATTEST: ERICA N. YA DA, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) 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 16th day of October, 2018, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Murray, Gomez, Bernstein, Puckett, Clark (5) COUNCILMEMBER NOES: (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: (0) ERICA N. YASUD , City Clerk 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 Resolution No. 18-73 Page 5 of 5 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 354 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 355 City of Tustin Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan ii Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 356 Section 1.0 City of Tustin Introduction 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction The purpose of this document is to present public comments and responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2017041031) for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan located in the City of Tustin. The Draft Program EIR was released for public review and comment by the City of Tustin on February 1, 2018 for a 45-day review period ending on March 19, 2018. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines Section 15088,the City of Tustin, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Draft Program EIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. 1.2 Format The Final EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific 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 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a)directs persons and public agencies to focus their review of a Draft EIR "on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible....CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 1-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 357 Section 1.0 City of Tustin Introduction or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental Issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, "Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence." Section 15204(d)states,"Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency's statutory responsibility." CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e)states, "This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section." In accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, copies of the written responses to public agencies will be forwarded to those agencies at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 1-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 358 Section 2.0 City of Newport Beach List of Respondents 2 LIST OF RESPONDENTS In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the following is a list of public agencies, organizations, and individuals and businesses that submitted comments on the Draft Program EIR received as of close of the public review period on March 19,2018. Comments have been numbered and responses have been developed with corresponding numbers. Letter Date of Page Reference Commenter Correspondence No. C-1 Department of Transportation,District 12 March 19,2018 3-3 C-2 South Coast Air Quality Management District March 14,2018 3-11 C-3 Orange County Transportation Authority March 16,2018 3-23 C-4 City of Irvine February 26,2018 3-26 C-5 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County March 16,2018 3-33 C-6 Kevin Heydman February 4,2018 3-35 C-7 Kathy Hall February 16,2018 3-38 C-8 Peter Kim February 16,2018 3-40 C-9 Howard L.Abel March 15,2018 3-42 C-10 Jerry Marcil February 5,2018 3-46 C-11 Tim Mcc February 22,2018 3-48 C-12 Qantas 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 359 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 otr4lotiout for deletions. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 360 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Red 1-1111 Avenue Specific Plan 3-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 361 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-1 Department of Transportation, District 12 `, Marlon Regisford March 19, 2018 Comment Letter C-1 • DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION �n DISTRICT 12 1750 EAST FOURTH STREET,SUITE 100 ;"l SANTA ANA,CA 92705 Way tioa PHONE(657)3284267 MakinMakinI a FAX(657)328-6510 a Cai(kallla WWay yfL* ijs. TTY 711 www.dotcaaov • March 19,2018 Erica Demkowicz File:It3R/CEQA City of Tustin SCH:#2017041031 300 Centennial Way 12-ORA-2018-00809 Tustin,CA 92680 1-5;PM 29.102 Dear Ms.Demkowicz, Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation(Caltrans)in the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan bordering the Interstate 5(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 732 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 Ouality 1. Caltrans recommends that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use.The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multifaceted approach,such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles • The entire length of the Specific Plan is within a mile of Interstate 5.Residents of 1 the new 500 residential units living within the Specific Plan would be exposed to significant concentrations of air pollutants and may be develop health complications.Please consider the creation of vegetation walls to mitigate the effects of air pollutants on residents.Visit the Environmental Protection Agency's website for additional information:https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/livina- close-roadways-health-concerns-and-mitigation-strategies.Consider this strategy • "Proviaa*,,natarmbk awraidandafficiratasupoetatlon symo to animal Callf,is sasanowaadfMabilay" Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-3 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 362 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. oont'd • Since a majority of the proposed land use along Red Hill Avenue will be t commercial,designate rideshare pick-up and drop off areas,as to not interfere with the general flow of traffic. Traffic Operations 2. The Traffic Impact Study(TIS)reviewed multiple intersections,including: 4.Red Hill Avenue at I-5 NB Ramps 5.Red Hill Avenue at I-5 SB Ramps 2 • Please include queuing analysis for Caltrans on/off-ramps.This complements Objective 7-1:Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Specific Plan area meets future demands. — Transportation Planning 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. 4 • Caltrans'previous comment letter for the NOP expressed the importance of increasing multi-modal options and accessibility within the Specific Plan. Please consider the development of a multi-modal transportation fund to mitigate transportation impacts of development.This fund can provide capital for the development of the multi-modal alternatives and enhancement of existing transit facilities.This would complement Objective 4-4:Identify local,State,and Federal funding opportunities that can provide businesses assistance and offer the City the means to upgrade the area,along with Objective 5-3:Promote and develop a transportation system which includes provisions for public transportation,bikes, and pedestrians;of the Specific Plan. •P v,i s 30,antaitabk,nues.araand sOkk,vemwspe.waon:yam 10enhance Calhwnw}amatory aid livability" Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-4 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 363 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 3 5. The Specific Plan is adjacent to multiple educational facilities of all levels,elementary to high school. • Consider the development of a Safe Routes to School Study.This would not only improve the safety of students,but also improve multi-modal travel options to school from the surrounding residential neighborhoods.Caltrans would like to inform the city of possible funding opportunities for the aforementioned Study. Please consider applying for Caltrans'Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant. Coordinate with local school districts,local authorities,surrounding local agencies,and Caltrans about applying for the Grant.Please visit: http://www.dotca.gov/hq/tpp/grants,html for additional information. • The City's Bike Master Plan designates a Class II bicycle facility for the entire length of Red Hill Avenue.The implementation of this proposal not only 5 complements the suggested Safe Routes to School,but also improves multi-modal transportation options along the Specific Plan.The multi-modal transportation find would help in the construction of the bicycle facility.Red Hill Avenue is a major corridor in the City of Tustin and will experience heavy traffic.Please ensure the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by including bicycle and pedestrian signs along Red Hill Avenue.Increase rider safety by improving the proposed Class II with a colored bicycle path.This complements Objective 1-1:Establish a streetscape program using landscaping,signage,street furniture,entry statements, and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. 4111. • The City should mitigate the Red Hill/SB I-5 intersection to a less than significant level,which shall not include the removal of bike lanes. System Planning Comments: 6. Explore the potential of establishing a city wide multimodal transportation fee to fund non-auto infrastructure improvement projects.A fee program as such would support the management of vehicular trip demand. • Developments along Red Hill Avenue in the project area can fund the construction of bike and pedestrian facilities.According to Policy 6.14 in the tl City's General Plan Circulation Element(2008),new developments are required to dedicate land and fund the improvement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.Dedicated funding(such as the funding mechanisms mentioned in the traffic study)can help ensure construction of the facilities. 7. Please explore a potential partnership with Caltrans to provide,or dedicate spaces in an existing lot,to create a park and ride facility within or adjacent to the project area.A park and ride lot would support Caltrans'initiative to create a network of managed lanes 7 facilities.Policy 5.1 of the City's Circulation Element(2008)supports the development of park-and-ride lots near the SR 55 and I-5 freeways. "Provide a safe,eetMoisaide M earaerd a ddicien+Mau orlatla,system to enamor Cadrkmia's ecaeoay and&Mak" Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-5 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 364 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 4 8. Future development plans that fall within the project area should be circulated to Caltrans T 8 • for review and concurrence. 9. The project should be conditioned to ensure connections to existing bike lanes and multiuse trails to facilitate walking and biking to nearby jobs,neighborhood services,and transit.Providing these connections with streets configured for alternative transportation modes will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT)by promoting usage of nearby public transit lines.Mitigation to reduce VMT should include funding the proposed bike paths identified in the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan(2009).These paths include a Class II bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from Edinger Avenue to Nisson Road,Class II bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from El Camino Real to First Street,Class II bike lane on Red Hill Avenue from First Street to Melvin Way,and Class II bike lane on Red Hill 9 Avenue from Melvin Way to North of Irvine Boulevard.The projects provided above have been identified as Regional Priority Projects in the OCTA Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan. • The Specific Plan proposes that Class II bike lanes be striped through the entirety of Red Hill Avenue in the project area,and development should adhere to this proposal.The proposal would increase connectivity in the bilce 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; 10 • Form of a Transportation Management Association(TMA)in partnership with other developments in the area; • Adopt an aggressive trip reduction target with Lead Agency monitoring and enforcement; • Reduce headway times for adjacent transit routes;and • Provide and/or subsidize transit passes for employees and residents on a continuing basis. "Provide as t.urdobablo integrate, dick*brau'orfafian system to 01471a+e CatifOntia S WORMY and ItwobilUe Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-6 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 365 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments City of Tustin March 19,2018 Page 5 Active Transportation Comments: 11.Several schools are located adjacent to the project area.Thus,multirnodal 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 I 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: httu://dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/mainstreet/main street,3rd edition.pdf 13 • In the Circulation Element,Goal 6 is to,"Increase the use of non-motorized modes of transportation,"with subsequent Policies supporting this Goal. Therefore,Complete Streets measures should be implemented to ensure that �... safety,access,mobility,and sustainability are increased for all potential users, especially since traffic volumes are expected to increase over time. Please continue to coordinate with Caltrans for any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities.If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact Julie Lugaro at 657-328-6368 or Julie.lugaro@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MARLON REGISFO Branch Chief;Regional-IGR-Transit Planning District 12 "Provide asoft,saskirabk.HWsroddand mctrat trossponattanspew io exitance Calttbnda's scaroayand!nobility' Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-7 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 366 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The recommendations of Caltrans related to electric vehicle(EV)charging stations,the use of vegetation walls, and ridesharing facilities are noted. The Program EIR Mitigation Measure (MM) 4.2-1 requires project-specific development plans and specifications to designate vehicle parking spaces to be EV ready and that electrical panels are appropriately sized to accommodate future expanded EV use. MM 4,4-2 requires future commercial uses within the Specific Plan area include Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a multi-faceted approach,such as designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride-sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and/or providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. With respect to vegetation walls associated with residential development proximate to 1-5, the Program EIR does not evaluate any project-specific developments. Should residential development be proposed in the future within 500 feet of 1-5,the City will require project review including preparing a Health Risk Assessment as set forth in MM 4.2-4. At such time, the City could consider additional development conditions of approval, such as recommended by Caltrans. Response 2 The following summarizes the projected vehicle queues for the morning and evening peak hours for the Red Hill Avenue and 1-5 northbound and southbound on-ramps and off-ramps: Projected Queue(feet) Queuing Distance Number AM Peak PM Peak Intersection Ramp Movement (feet) of Lanes Hour Hour On-Ramp NB Meter 407 2 116 a 16 a Red Hill at I-5 NB Ramps WBL 480'a 2 113/200` 131/225 Off-Ramp WBR 380'a 1 222/344 383/544` On-Ramp SB Meter 431 2 272 a 168 a Red Hill at 1-5 SB Ramps EBL 430'a 1 85/154 293/434 Off Ramp 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 I-5. As it pertains to the proposed project,the Program EIR evaluates the potential traffic effects associated with buildout of the Specific Plan Project including impacts to Caltrans facilities within the traffic study area. Per 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 367 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 4 The following provides a description of the transit and rail services available to the area via the Tustin Metrolink Station: The Tustin Metrolink Station is located on Edinger Avenue, west of Jamboree Road, approximately two to three miles from the Specific Plan area. Metrolink trains on the Orange County Line(Oceanside to LA) stop at the Tustin station. Metrolink trains run in the northbound direction from 4:21 AM to 11:46 AM and 3:46 to 9:06 PM,and from 7:51 to 10:23 AM and 2:03 to 10:33 PM in the southbound direction, Monday through Friday. Headways (the time interval between train arrivals) vary between 12 minutes and 134 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 I-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 368 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 369 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-2 South Coast Air Quality Management District Lijin Sun,J.D., Program Supervisor March 14, 2018 Comment Letter C-2 RECEIVEI:. caSouth Coast MAR 19 201$ Air Quality Management District soma,co,,, 21865 Copley Drive,Diamond Bar,CA 91 765-4 1 78 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AQMD (909)396-2000•www.aqmd.gov BY` SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: March 14,2018 edemkowicz:'i tustinca.org Erica Demkowicz,AICP,Senior Planner City of Tustin,Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIR)for the Proposed 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 43.11-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 Avenue and is generally bounded by Bryan Avenue to the northeast and Walnut Avenue to the southwest. Interstate 5(1-5)bisects the Red (till Avenue in the middle of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is expected to be developed over time with an expected buildout year of 2035'. SCAQMD 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 t because it determined that"[gluantifying 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 Plana." 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. Atter incorporating Mitigation Measures(MM)4.2-I through 42- 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(G1-1G)emissions through recommended mitigation measures for future site plans. and conduct a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) fur future residential development located Draft EIR.Section 3_2: ecilic Plan Project Ocervien. pPage g e 3-I. 2 Ibid.Section 3.5:Phasing.Page 3-35. ibid.Section 4.2.5 Environmental Impacts.Page 4.2-1 I ' (mid Page 4 2-13 !bid Page 42-I5 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-11 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 370 Section 3.0 City 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 impact6. 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. CAOMD's 2016 Air Duality Management Plan On March 3,2017,the SCAQMD's Governing Board adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP)',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) confd emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent NOx reduction beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment. General Comments • SCAQMD staff has reviewed the 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 committedto 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 further reduce NOx emissions as well as ROO,PM10,and PM2.5 emissions. Finally,the attachment --. Includes recommendations to Include a discussion on SCAQMD rules and regulations. Closing 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 Final 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 11 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. 7 Ibid.Pages 4.2-9,4.2-15,and 4.2-I6. ° South Coast Air Quality Management District. March 3, 2017. 2016 Aft 041200, Management Plan. Accessed at g ttcllwww.aamdsovlhomeAlbrarvlckean-ala-glanslair-quality-ma-plan. 2 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-12 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 371 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments EricaDcmkowicz March 14,2018 SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Ryan Baliuelos,Air Quality Specialist,CEQA Section,at(909)396-3479 eonrd if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments, t Sincerely, Stos • Lijin Sim,J.D. Program Supervisor,CEQA IGR Planning,Rule Development&Area Sources Attachment • LS;RB ORC II0202.0j Control Number 3 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-13 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 372 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 ATTACHMENT ,Air Quality Analysis—Construction lmoact A,nalvsiai — 1. 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(...J 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 Elft(CEQA Guidelines Section 15146). When quantifying air quality emissions,emissions from 2 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 EIR is prepared. As shown in Table 3-4 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 500 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 end 2035,and the maximum constnrction emissions were quantified and disclosed in the Draft EIR for that project9. Therefore,the Lead Agency should use the construction scenarios that has already been developed for the Downtown Commercial Core 11 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 Duality Analysis—interim Milestone Years 2. The Draft EIR included only one Air Quality Analysis year for modeling:20191°(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 3 implemented,and fleets have not folly 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 EIR. Downtown Commercial Core Specific Plan. February 2018. Page 5.2-17. Accessed at: hap://www.tustinca.o t°Ibid.Appendix B:Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas,Pages 3,11,20,28,37,and 48. "Ibid,Section 4.2.5.Page 4.2-12. 4 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-14 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 373 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 Air Ouality Analysis—Overlanpiaa 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 4 identify the overlapping years, combine construction emissions (including emissions from demolition) with operational emissions, and compare the combined emissions to SCAQMD's air quality CEQA operational 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'°CEQA Air Quality Handbook website'}. Air Ogglity 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 sotirces 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 EIR,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 arc discussed below. Localized Significance Thresholds Analysis To analyze and disclose a worst-case impact scenario that is reasonably foreseeable at the time the 5 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 website1b. 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 grading permitfor new development projects that are one acre or larger. the applicant/developer shall provide modeling of the localized emissions tNOx.CO.PAR0.and PM 2.5)associated with the maximum daily grading activities ter the proposed development.If the modeling shows that emissions would exceed SCAOMD's air Quality CROA localized thresholds for those emissions.the maximum daily grading activities of the proposed development shall be limited to the extent that could occur without resulting in emissions in excess of SCAQMD s significance thresholds for those emissions. • t1 Ibid Section 3.8.Page 3.35. South Coast Air Quality Management District.Accessed at: htto/I ww.aanxt,aov/home/renulatiana/ceea/air-quality-anaIvsis.handbook• u Ibid.Section 4.2.4.Page 4.2-9. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District.Localized Significance Thresholds.Accessed at: hnpdnvww.aumd,aov/hometr eulationstceua/air-oualinr-analvalrhsndhouk/localized•sienificance•thresholdq. 5 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-15 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 374 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- confd 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. Health Risk Assessment (HRAI Analysis and Additional Consideration for Existing Mitigation Measure(MTh 4.2-4 5. According to the Lead Agency,residential units could be constructed as close as 100 feet from the I- 51e. To facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure,SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency use applicable Project information that Is already available In the Draft RIR to conduct a HRA analysis"and to disclose the potential health risks in the Final E1RIs. In addition,the Lead Agency, as pan of MM 4.2-4, is committed to a project-specific HRA for future residential development proposed within 500 feet of 1-5. 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 HRA thresholds". Additional Consideration for Existing MM 4.2-4 a) The Lead Agency should also consider requiring the use of enhanced filtration systems with 6 maximum efficiency rating value(MERV)of 13 or better In residential units within 500 feet of I- 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. Ina study that --. SCAQMD conducted to Investigate filters",a cost burden is expected to be within the range of $120 to$240 per year to replace each filter. In addition,because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running,there may be increased energy costs to the residents. It is typically assumed that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors,and the environmental analysis does not generally account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. Moreover, these filters have no ability to filter out any toxic gases from vehicle exhaust. Therefore,the presumed effectiveness and feasibility of any filtration units should be carefully evaluated in more detail and disclosed to prospective residences prior to assuming that they will sufficiently alleviate exposures to DPM emissions. 1e Ibid.Section 4.2.5.Page 4.2-16. tr"Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risk from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis,"Accessed at: JtncJ/www,aamd.ttovlhome/reaulntians/ceaalair-uuality-unalvsis-handbookitnubik-source•wxicranoiv$lt. "SCAQMD has developed the CEQA significance threshold of 10 in one million for cancer risk. When SCAQMD acts as the Lead Agency,SCAQMD staff conducts a HRA,compares the maximum cancer risk to the threshold of 10 in one million to determine the level of significance for health risk Impacts,and identities mitigation measures if the risk la found to be significant. 19 Ibid.Section 4.2.Page 4.2-20. is This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13 or better.Accessed at: Jgto:/f ww.aurttd.aov/docs!default-scurve/cenalhondbook/aamdnitatstudvfmatr000rt.edf Also see also 2012 Peer Review Journal article by SCAQMD: bno;Nd7.ioair.cum/sites/default/fllesindt/PolWnrt-et-aI-2012.pdf 6 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-16 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 375 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 c) Because of the limitations, SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency make the following disclosures to prospective residences and include them as requirements in the Final 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; • Ongoing cost sharing strategies,if any,for replacing the enhanced filtration units; • 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; cont'd • 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 8 Project. Additional Guidance for Siting Sensitive Receptors for Existing MM 4.2-4 d) 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 Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues fn General Plans and Local Planning in 200511. 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. Additional Recommended Mitigation Measures 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 ROG,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. a) Require all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment meet or exceed Tier 4 off-road 7 emissions standards. A copy of the fleet's tier compliance documentation, and CARS 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 11 South Coast Air Quality Management District.May 2005."Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning"Accessed at: • hun://w wv.aamd.aovtdocs/defhutt-source/nlannina/air-uuatily-guidance/mmnlete•auidance•dacument.odf. 7 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-17 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 376 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments • Erica Demkowicz March 14,2018 from the Proposed Project,and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases • occurring simultaneously. Include this requirement as a bid or contract specification with contractors. Require periodic reporting and provision of written documentsby 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 repotting and provision of written documents by contractors to prove and ensure compliance, c) Maximize use of solar energy including solar panels;installing the maximum possible number of solar energy arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Project site to generate solar energy for the facility. . . cont'd 7 d) Limit parking supply and unbundle parking coats. e) Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking lots. t) Use light colored paving and roofing materials. g) Install light colored"cool"roots and cool pavements. h) Require use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. . I) Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. j) Utilize only Energy Star heating,cooling,and lighting devices,and appliances. • k) Use of water-based or low VOC cleaning products. To further reduce particulate matter from the Proposed Project,SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency include the following mitigation measures In the Final EIR. a) Suspend ail soil disturbance activities when winds exceed 25 mph as Instantaneous gusts or when visible plumes emanate from the site and stabilize all,disturbed areas. b) Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activity including resolution of issues related to PM IO 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 are carried to adjacent streets(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water). d) Apply water three times daily or non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas,unpaved road surfaces,or to areas where soil is disturbed. Reclaimed water should be used. tt Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-18 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 377 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments • Erica Demkowloz 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 42-4;however,the Lead Agency did not proposed or include the"MM 4,2-5"in the Draft B1Ru, This inconsistency I 8 makes the Air Quality Analysis difficult to follow. Therefore,the Lead Agency should correct the Inconsistency in the Final BIR. • • sz Ibid Section 4.2.5.Page 4,2-16, 9 • Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-19 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 378 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 379 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Environmental clearance and other approvals would also be required of future development projects within the Specific Plan area. The 2019 operational analysis year is considered conservative because emissions factors decrease in future years due to vehicle fleet turnover and implementation of regulatory improvements. As such,the analysis of future interim milestone years (e.g., 2020, 2025, and 2030, as suggested In the commenter) would result in lower emissions levels than what has been identified in the Draft Program EIR. The lower future emissions levels would only reflect the fleet turnover and regulatory improvements anticipated by CaIEEMod and EMFAC. Air quality related mitigation measures and policies included in the Draft Program EIR are already reflected in the emissions modeling for the Specific Plan. There are no additional quantifiable mitigation measures or policies that would be incorporated into future milestone years. Response 4 As described above and in the Draft Program 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. 6•1•1, 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 380 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 I-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 381 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-S4 is required to ensure a project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is conducted for future residential uses located within 500 feet of I-5. Implementation of MM 4.2-54 would reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations to a less than significant level. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-23 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 382 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-3 Orange County Transportation Authority Dan Phu, Manager, Environmental Programs March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-3 OCTA WARD OF DIRECTORS March 16,2018 Lisa A&anrett Chair Ms. Erica Demkowicz,AICP, Senior Planner Lm Sha:r Vioe Charman City of Tustin !June()awes Community Development Department Citimtor 300 Centennial Way ?1,1237.10t710,IhVn Tustin,CA 92780 DireCtOr Andra, Co Subject:Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report— Oried°r Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Lon Dan:"ah Ci °r Dear Ms.Demkowicz: Ncrawl Hennessey. The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the Notice of stere JOFe_s Availability of a Draft EIR for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project.The following ° `"r comments are provided for your consideration: --. Alarh A.Murphy °i"`"r Active Transportation Comments P,Lhard"'urphp • As noted on Page 3-20 of the DEIR and the City of Tustin General Plan, Dwor Figure C-5(Master Bikeway Plan),a Class II bikeway is planned on Red Hill At Murray Avenue within the project study area. The bikeway exists at 1-5 within Creca„ Caltrans managed areas at the interchange ramps. OCTA is supportive of SnarnNdor crt reror L+ cthe Specific Plan proposed"revisions to the roadway cross section for Red Pwe Hill Avenue to include a Class II striped on-street bike lane the entire length D.IE:tor of the Specific Plan area." _ Todd Spitzer — C.re ur • OCTA is preparing OC Active,the first countywide bike and pedestrian master bschete steel plan. The report and other studies under preparation by OCTA will include Proctor recommended treatments to improve infrastructure for pedestrian TomTVfunction. OCTA will continue to collaborate with the City of Tustin as a 2 D'rr'C7of resource for consideration of engineering treatments to enhance safety for GregoryT Winterpna:m people walking and biking within the community and the project area. Neck-7 _ Ryan Chanoer;am • New residential land use construction provides an opportunity to encourage `x.C;°` ''tem"" a variety of travel choices. We encourage the Specific Plan to also include short and long-term bicycle parking and bicycle facilities for residents and 3 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE guests. Short-term parking in the ratio of one bicycle parking space for each Darr„I.,,hnson four units might be considered, and inclusion of a secure ground floor indoor Cher E.recWuve Otnre, 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.Box 14194/Orange/California 92853-1584'(714)500-OCTA(6282) Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-24 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 383 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments employee access to showers,and changing rooms to encourage multi-modal transportation choices. The availability of showers is often noted as the top oont'd Item limiting bicycle commuting by employees. 4 Transit Plannira Comment • OCTA currently provides transit service near the project site. Should the project have any impacts to nearby bus stops,please coordinate with OCTA to employ measures to reduce potential transit service disruptions.We also 5 recommend the City keep OCTA informed with any potential bus stop Interruptions or street closures that may require detours. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this project.If you have any further questions or need additional information,please feel free to contact me via phone at (714)560-5907 or by email at 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 384 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. JI Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-26 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 385 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-4 City of Irvine Melissa Chao,Senior Planner February 26, 2018 Comment Letter C-4 OF sq 1. v m ,,$,. ii.. u,.: Z r 000/ February 26, 2018 Sent via USPS and email: edemkowicz(c�tustinca.orq Ms. Erica Demkowicz City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Subject: First Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report(SCH No. 2017041031)for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan(SP-13),General Plan Amendment(2017-01),and Zoning Map Amendment in Tustin Dear Ms. Demkowicz: City of Irvine staff has reviewed the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for ` the subject project The proposed project is a Specific Plan for mixed-use development on approximately 43.11-acres, including 7.32-acres of roadway rights-of-way, along Red Hill Avenue generally between Bryan and Walnut Avenue(includes Red Hill Shopping Village to the southwest)in Tustin as follows: •The Specific Plan area includes approximately 296,446 square feet of existing non- residential uses(primarily commercial)and 21 existing dwelling units. •The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that allow for vertical and horizontal mixed-use developments with retail/office and residential uses, streetscape landscaping improvements. 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 386 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms,Erica Demkowicz February 26,2018 Page 2 of 6 • Intersections of Irvine Blvd at Newport Ave.,Browning Ave.and Tustin Ranch Rd. • Intersections of Bryan Ave.at Newport Ave., Browning Ave.and Tustin Ranch Rd. cont'd The additional intensity of this proposed project warrants additional intersection evaluation beyond the limits of the proposed street improvements.These study locations are located within the City of Irvine's Irvine Business Complex(IBC)Vision Plan traffic study area and Irvine's North Irvine Transportation Mitigation(NITM) traffic study area. 2. The ICU worksheets in the Traffic Appendices indicate that in the build-out scenario the intersection of Red Hill at Walnut goes from LOS D in the No Project to LOS E (shown below)in the With Project scenario in the PM Peak hour;however,the DEIR shows this location as LOS D and no project impact. Revise accordingly. oewved Oh®® Venice s ao.00 Red FMA Conldor SP Who Pk:K:I..LTustn Red HMI PM.vbtro Scenario 4 BO WP PM • Repoli Fie:K.,...14.80 WP PM_ADJ EX.pdf MOON Intermeton Analysis Summary 2 ID lite seogon Name Control Type Method Worst Mvmt WC Delay(dveh) LOS 1 Bryan Ave/Red FMN Ave Signalize ICU I WB Thu 0163 - D 2 Seri Juan St I Re HMI Ave Signalize ICU I NB Thu 0.481 - A 3 El Camino Real/Red HIM Ave Signalized ICU I NB Thu 0.804 D 4 $-15 NB Ramps I Red Hill Ave Signalized 10.11 WB Right 0.559 - B 5 1.1588 Ramps l Red HM Ave Signalized ICU 1 NB Right 0,972 E - 6 Red FMN Ave(Nilsson Rd Signalized ICU 1 NB Thou 0.647 - 0 7 Red FMN Ave I Mikheit Ave Signalized ICU 1 918 Thu 0.747 - C 8 Red Hilt Ave/Walnut Ave Signalized 10.11 548 Thu 0.904 - S 9 Red HMI Ave I Sycamore Ave Signalized ICU 1 .540 Thu 0.665 - 8 VIC,Delay,LOS:For two-way stop,Mase values aro taken from the movement with the worst(highest)delay value.for M other canlyd types,they are taken for Mho whole intersection, • • Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-28 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 387 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms, Erica Demkowicz February 26,2018 Page 3 of 6 VWlon 6,0000 . kilere.AN01 Logi Of OarUa Ivpat OMn...tl.n U R•d ISO Ave/%fowl Are COO*Typ•: MIAOW D•14)1034/0•41* . Maly*MA* 1011 l.wlaS.*O:.: r Anslysl•Pabd 10 minu.. Volum.b Ciwdy(WO* 0.004 39•31•40r Il-up . 11.Y. OM NOM* Red HIAw Walnut Ars WandAr. cont'd ha.••h w.Aroud, DouOt o d E,rbwd wtnband 2 Lam Ccolgursdan 11th ,III 'iII 11II. funky Mo•wpal Lob Tal RIO US ..Dm 13 919 . Lot Thu fna. Loa Thty -wOw lane WYw,Ip 12.10 12.00 1200 12.00 1200 1200 12.00 *CO 0.00 17.00 1400 12.00 I Lan*inPod.t 0 0 p 0 0 - 0 0 0 P0011 L000 10 0padO0 *00 00.00 8000 *00 0o*m 00o 0.00 0.00 .00 CrowOil Ya Ya Va 'In 3. Several build-out traffic volumes appear to conflict with IBC Vision Plan P2035 turn volume assumptions. Please see the summary comparison table below of build-out with project vs. IBC Vision Plan.Provide the traffic counts in the appendices and confirm the build-out volumes utilized.Indicate why the volumes are significantly less in many cases,The traffic study states volumes have been modified when comparing ITAM vs counts.This should be further clarified. Excerpt from Kimley Horn TIA dated January 2018 BO AM WP /n...w w®® w•r.•sa 3 1•.•....1..1a.....1.•.1 1e0r00000 w 0.i•1r10IM M.00 awrM« fa+•• O.11leW0NI4 AWRYMwor leu, WW1 30100 0 00011000. Weals Nino 010000 000 0.40 e4'I.0 0 000 . .•.. 110010//0 0.11010. 0 C1A•.Y 00.0.OM A'... 9.4 4...4 ...red 0800.0 N.,.... Ra six iUI• ,Ir .1h b.,,,,........._ LA Aw 1100 LA tree 1000 Iwo. 11., w 110 •v0 tw .nr0y 0a 11J0 100 010•tiro u.1 12.0w 12111UM us. - I0.rlwwP.Yale 0 III 0 0 0 . • • - • wruwwIN 000001 Wil row Mw 110 0000 CO - La •a 0w 6.0•00 1.. Y. T. 00 Ir.M.. 1100 110110h• Mum diw06w'wO, scar.Fad r ►.W..M MM in i•fa0 i 111 10 (nM I ro ro I so I to >r I in 1 t1 • Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-29 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 388 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Dernkowicz February 26,2018 Page 4 of 6 • • BO PM WP - 4040.4440 L.*0114040.%HO 170r7420•4 k 41C•/1M1140441100 III Av. 44712417707 NI 041420••/ A MIa AMMO rt MU I tarts arm* 0 A.Wpt/rot 1624445 707044441C1444771.N1 0.144 124.2.4441042 144442 Kam 04144 Aro Awl 10Aw 0014247,.1100 IICm..Mat-- 1.7:14.44 144111.42411 4400477241 044144241 44404,4440 two 0774.24447 iilIIr 7ilih llr II. . ^.•�. 11.04.144444444 LA 1140 I!4 144 Iry NO W Tow IMM GA 1140 104 low 040.01 I15 MX 12.4 Ila 0 5 MO 000 Wok 010 1100 2200 1250 11.41.10061001.1 • 0 0 • 4 1 a 0 4047444444440 10.41.01 7401 atm 540 20.00 004000 141 UM 1100 — WM Clwu.a I40 100 1.7, Ye. Meir lMIMAw 050142,, BCwilll.I OC Ns.111K Or%Wmbo440'17 441 1701 44 A 440 110 14 is 111 177 004 27 • 02.7.10004•417.474474 144r MOM 10/0 1.501 10.420 ISM I415 4.247041540 I.X10 14000 LOOM Excerpt from IBC Vision Plan 2015 Five Year Update P2035 Cumulative Baseline word 3 36 . bad 1111 AS. as Cl Camino 1441 ...am\ 13AM 12:1 P2036 Cas01a1.1w 11067111 16801 AM PI IOU* PM PR NOM LAMRI CAPACITY VOL VAC VOL VIC 4414 2 3400 341 .12' 424 ,53 MST 3 6100 071 .13 414 .1s• SIR 1 *700 213 .11 117 .19 sUL 1 1700 44 .06 266 .15• sat 3 5100 1176 .26' 441 .14 MIR 0 0 54 64 RML 1 1700 4006 32 .02 tiff 1.6 5100 214 1.071 ' 664 .24• 55* 1.4 216 1.071 172 515. 1.5 142 1.121' 367 1.211' Mer 1.5 5100 243 .12 942 .24' lea 0 44 151 • Cl44TIAOA IAL0r4a1 .06' .960 TOTAL CAPACI1T UII4120I0I .62 .45 — Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-30 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 389 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms. Erica Demkowicz February 26,2018 Page 5 of 6 Traffic Volume Comparlsion Summary AM Peak Project Build-Out IBC Vision Plan EBR 184 285 SBR 15 59 WBR 14 46 cont'd 3 PM Peak Project Build-Out IBC Vision Plan SBL 37 255 EBT 305 958 WBT 423 963 WBR 27 151 4. Section 6,3 of the Draft Specific Plan(dated January 2018)indicates that'The Tustin General Plan was amended by Resolution concurrent with the adoption of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan to provide consistency between the two documents...' Additionally,Section 6.4 of the Draft Specific 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 4 zoning map amendment to designate the area"Red Hill Specific Plan(SP-13)."It appears the aforementioned amendments(e.g.,development intensity summary) are not contained in the Land Use Section(4.8)of the DEIR,but should be included. Please clarify the project component/implementation sequencing,as typically the DEIR would need to be certified prior to approving the proposed Specific Plan and associated General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments, Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-31 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 390 • Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Ms, Erica Demkowicz February 26,2018 Page 6 of 6 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project,Staff would appreciate the opportunity to review any further information regarding this project as the planning process proceeds.If you have any questions,I can be reached at 949-7246395, or by email at JnchaoAcitvofirvine.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 391 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 In response to the City of Irvine letter regarding the NOP,the traffic study area was expanded to include the intersections of Red Hill Avenue at Sycamore Avenue and Red Hill Avenue at Bryan Avenue. Project trips will continue to dissipate beyond these intersections, such that the project trips at the additional intersections mentioned in the letter would be nominal, and would not meet the City's criteria for inclusion in a traffic study. Response 2 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)values for City of Tustin analyses are rounded and reported to two decimals. The Vistro intersection worksheets are generated by the software,which was developed by a third-party vendor. The worksheets display the ICU values calculated to three decimals, and bases the Level of Service on the three-decimal value. This discrepancy between the City's standard and the Vistro software output was corrected by hand in the report. Response 3 The 2035 forecasts are based on the latest 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 392 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-5 Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County Kari A. Rigoni, Executive Officer March 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-5 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ORANGE COUNTY FOR ORANGE COUNTY SLUG 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 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 Subject: Notice of Availability of a DEIR 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 {J Notification Area(Airport Planning Area)for John Wayne Airport(JWA). However,portions of the proposed project fall within the Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR)Part 77 approach and --. transitional surfaces for JWA. Although the proposed development is located outside of the Airport Planning Area,please be aware that development proposals which include the construction or alteration of a structure more 1 than 200 feet aboveground leyel,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 submitted 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 DEIR. Please contact Lea Choum at (949)252-5123 or via email at Ichoum@ocair.com should you have any questions related to the Airport Land Use Commission for Orange County. Sincerely, 4'4 . ,41.4"--rt., — Kari A.Rigoni Executive Officer Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-34 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 393 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. tromor Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-35 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 394 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-6 Kevin Heydman February 4,2018 Comment Letter C-6 Detnkowicz,Erica From: Kevin Heydman<kheydman@gmaii.com> Sent: Sunday,February 04,2018 8:50 PM To: Demkowicz,Erica Subject Hello Mrs.Denikowics I have some questions about the Red Hill Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status. Completed Hello Mrs.Dernlcowics, 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 units,but what about 1 the condominiums currently here? Parking on San Juan is already difficult. Are there plans to add parking solutions?Specifically the residents of the neighborhood? Thank you for your time, Kevin Heydman Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-36 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 395 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the addition of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses to the Specific Plan area which extends from Bryan Avenue to the northeast to Walnut Avenue at the southwest. The Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect the City of Tustin General Plan policies with project-level development within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides long- and short-term goals and objectives,a land use plan,regulatory standards,Design Criteria,and administration and implementation programs. No site-specific projects are proposed as a part of the Specific Plan or are evaluated in the Program EIR.It is anticipated that further projects would occur over many years. The Specific Plan identifies parking requirements and alternative parking standards. As it relates to parking, Chapter 4, Land use and Development Standards,of the proposed Specific Plan includes off-street parking standards for residential uses and non-residential uses;see Table 4-4. The City's email response to Mr. Heydman's comment letter elaborates on this response and immediately follows this response. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-37 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 396 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Demkowicz,Erica From: Demkowicz,Erica Sent: Friday,February 09,2018 1:03 PM To: 'Kevin Heydman' Subject: RE:Hello Mrs.Demkowics I have some questions about the Red Hill Specific Plan Hello Kevin, The goals and objectives of the Red Hill Specific Plan include continuing the commercial corridor that Red Hill already is and allowing for mixed use development and improving the pedestrian experience within the area. Mixed use means a combination of either commercial retail and/or office on the ground floor with residential or office uses above(I,e, vertical)or commercial/office uses and residential uses next to each other(i.e.horizontal),on the same site or property. The 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 Hill Avenue Specific Plan area would remain"as is"and once the Red Hill area starts to develop(which is anticipated to take many years)there could be taller buildings in and around the area with additional people and cars. The Draft Environmental Impact Report(EIR),which analyzes the potential impacts of the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan on the area Is posted on the City's website at the link below. The EIR document looks at many different areas and contains a discussion of each of the areas with a summary about the potential impacts. If you have an opportunity to look at this information on-line,you will be able to better understand more about the potential impacts. The development standards for the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan would establish the requirement that any new projects within the area provide all parking on-site. This means if 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. htto://www.tustinca.ora/deats/cd/ulannlnauodate.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,A1CP • Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 (714)573-3127 edembowicattustinea.org Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-38 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 397 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-7 Kathy Hall February 16, 2018 Comment Letter C-7 Demkowicz,Erica From: Kathy Hall<khallestartmail,com> Sent: Friday,February 16,2018 10:34 AM To: Demkowk2,Erica Subject: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status; Completed Hi Erica, The online material about the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan is very well done and informative, Please let me add a point about the area which I did not see covered-shopping cart blight. Everyone working on this project should be aware that the current shopping cart ordinance is not working,It is very difficult for residents to arrange for removal of a single stray cart.It takes time making calls,persistence and determination to have a cart identified for pickup.Then it takes days for the cart to actually be removed.Multiply that by new carts being released into the Red Hill area neighborhoods every day,and cart eradication by residents is futile. The worst offender appears to be the Stater Brothers Market at the corner of Red Hill and Mitchell. A polite conversation with the manager there was unproductive.He gave the impression that once a 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 398 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 CEQA to which a response must be provided. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-40 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 399 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-8 Peter Kim February 16,2018 Comment Letter C-8 Demkowiu,Erica From: Demkowicz,Erica Sent Wednesday,February 21,2018 10:53 AM To: 'peter888' Subject RE:red hill draft plan comments Hello Peter, The City is in receipt of 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. btta://www.tustinca.orgideats/cdhlanninstuadate.asp Regards, Erica H.Demkowicz,AICP Senior Planner City of Tustin-Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 82780 (714)673-3127 sdemkowlczztetustinca.org From:Petel Sent:Friday,February 16,2018 5:44 PM To;Demkowicz,Erica Subject:red hill draft plan comments Hello Erica _ I would like to add my comments to the red hill draft plan. We are the tenants for the business at 13871 Red Hill Ave, We would like to request a review of the proposed median and Impact of traffic patterns. We would like to request unhindered access to our property from the north bound lanes that currently t exist. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Regards, Peter Kim 350 N Glendale Ave Ste 8231 Glendale, CA 91206 310-500-0316(C) wt. • satyr Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-41 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 400 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/planningupdate.asp. The commenter's request to remove a potential median from consideration is noted and will be forwarded to City decision-makers for consideration. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-42 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 401 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-9 Howard 1.Abel March 15, 2018 Comment Letter C-9 RAVED. March 15, 2018 Via Email, US Mall First Class Mail and Hand Delivery MAR 1,2016 To: Erica Demkowicz, Senior Planner, City of Tustin cOMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 E-mail: edemkowicz©tustinca.orq 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: Iuckvhwrdaiaol.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 Hil!Avenue Specific Plan. As our two firms represent the ownership of the entire city block between San taw Juan and El 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 402 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 fail to our properties. Also, many of the Specific Plan design goals conrd would be of no economic value to any tenant that we have either in these properties or in our other commercial projects we own and operate here in the West. Of special concern are the excessive amounts of landscape contemplated (not just as to cost to install but also to maintain)that will also reduce our parking counts and other design criteria that are not typical for these kind of properties as in very low light poles and extensive use of street furniture. #4 Practically speaking, we have to be able to back fill and re-tenant our coming vacancies or we will not be able to pay for any pass through costs of a Specific Plan. If we cannot economically keep our spaces full, the net result will be additional blight to the area as maintenance and upgrades require cash flow, #5 We applaud the use of public set aside funds for the capital improvements in the currently dedicated public right of way. We understand that at times we will have to also participate In part for some of these improvements based on our increasing our density of use or impact on public in fracture. Where there are no budgeted amounts we would suggest delaying costly improvements. - #6 While we fully understand the demands and requirements of the Housing Element of the General Plan, we have concerns about the massive residential project proposed for the East side of Red Hill adjacent to our properties.The impact on the community of these housing types is not always known until 2 after they are in operation. We would welcome more business for our tenants but would not want to become a free parking lot for that project nor do we believe we should pay for infrastructure costs that their impacts bring about in short order. -_ #7 Mixed use is not viable for our properties without some very significant density allowances as we simply do not have the land area net of the established corner uses to design a residential element that Is large enough 3 in unit size and count including parking to attract a developer with the necessary expertise to do a credible job of delivering an economic produce that has existing resident support. - 2 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-44 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 403 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments T i 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, 4 and by charged over time as we re-develop. It may well be that only a very limited Specific Plan will bear fruit at this point in time. While we cannot speak for the entire Project Area, especially • for those parcels that are at considerable distance from our location and have little or not relationship to our site, we do believe that the private sector can meet most if not all of the typical public goals and objectives if we �.... are given the time to work together on a phased plan to re-develop the sites under our control. We appreciate this opportunity to share with you some of our thoughts, concerns, and suggestions. We would appreciate that our input be made available to those who are going to be in the decision making process on the Specific Plan. Public hearing time is precious and we certainly do not want to continually address the same issues in the public forum. 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. Weare 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. AkS Howard L. Abel 3 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-45 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 404 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter is addressing the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. However,the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. Response 2 The concerns of the commenter are noted. The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental effects associated with the addition of 500 dwelling units and 325,000 square feet of non-residential uses to the Specific Plan area which extends from Bryan Avenue to the northeast to Walnut Avenue at the southwest. As addressed in the Program EIR, the EIR does not evaluate in site-specific development proposals, including potential residential development of the vacant parcel on the west side of Red Hill Avenue north of I-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 405 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-10 Jerry Marcil February 5, 2018 Comment Letter C-10 Demkowia,Erica From: Gerald Marcil<jernwrd@aol.com> Sent: Monday,February 05,2018 1:51 PM To: Demkowia,Erica Cc tarahelang@Yahoo.com;David Delgado Subject: CEQA Red Hill Avenue To:Tustin Planning Dept. From:Jerry Marcil Re:CEQA Red Hill Avenue Dear City Planner, I own the property at 14445 Red Hill Ave(Waterston Garden Apts)and 14251-351 Browning Ave (Rancho Sierra Vista) a total of 117 apt.units.I am stunned you want to put another 500 units into this neighborhood.This is already a densely populated corridor with plenty of traffic.Five hundred more units next door means 1,800 more people(500x 3.6 people per unit assuming 2 BDM units). There is no way that adding that many people to this neighborhood is going to increase the quality of life of the people already living there.It just means more cars,more noise,more pollution,more people in the schools and parks.I am speaking on behalf of myself and my 400 tenants. Best,Jerry Mardi 310-791-2000 cc:Tarah Lang,David Delgado Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-47 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 406 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 As addressed in Section 4.10, Population and Housing, of the Program EIR, the City has an average household size of 3.04 persons(Department of Finance,2017). Assuming 3.04 persons per dwelling unit, the Specific Plan has the potential to generate 1,520 residents at buildout. The estimated population increase of 1,520 new residents is within the forecasted population increase by the Southern California Association of Governments for the City of Tustin of 5,700 residents between 2012 and 2040(see Program EIR Table 4.10-1) and would represent approximately 26.6 percent of the expected growth. It is anticipated that the implementation of the Specific Plan would occur over a multi-year timeframe based upon market conditions. For analysis purposes,the Program EIR assumes a buildout year of 2035. The Program EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the introduction of additional residential and non-residential development to the Specific Plan area, including the issues noted by the commenter:traffic,air quality,schools,and parks. With respect to these issues, mitigation is provided to mitigate impacts to the degree feasible. The Program EIR finds that traffic and air quality impacts would have significant unavoidable impacts. Impacts to schools and parks would be less than significant. • Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-48 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 407 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-11 Tim Mcc February 23, 2018 Comment Letter C-11 From:Tim Mcc I�ilto:timarteffectCelamail.com] Sent Thursday,February 22,2018 7:24 PM To:Demkowlcz,Erica Cc:Reekstln,Scott Subject;Re:RE;Public Comment-Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Yes,t 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 best! 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 1 V 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 learned and will pass on,to survive canrid 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 408 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The opinions of the commenter are noted. However,the comments do not raise any environmental issues and thus do not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. No further response is required. Ii Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-50 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 409 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-12 Qantas Corman March 7,2018 Comment Letter C-12 From;Qantas Corman[mailto:gantastorman@hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,March 07,2018 10:40 AM To:Demkowia,Erica Subject:Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Ms.Demkowicz, I was at the Red Hill Specific Plan workshop a couple weeks ago,I don't know if you are still taking comments but,if so, mine Is as follows: I live close to Red Hill,not in the plan area but I drive through there a few times a day and shop at a variety of stores within the plan area.I'm excited to see effort being made to Improve the area,it has great potential for Tustin.I'm In 1 real-estate development and I've seen the benefit of allowing greater density on a site.The increased density gives a property owner a financial Incentive to Improve their site through some form of redevelopment.Adding residential as an option for mixed-use is excellent at complimenting the retail.If the vacant site at 13841 Red Hill and the large,older shopping center across the street are developed then that will be a catalyst for additional improvements within the area.Keep up the great workI Qantas Corman 4340 Von Karmen,Suite 110 Newport Beach CA 92660 949-325-3025 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-51 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 410 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 411 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Letter C-13 Susan Ellenberg February 6, 2018 Comment Letter C-13 From:Susan Eilenberg[mailto:susan_ei@pacbell.net] Sent:Tuesday,February 06,2018 6:54 PM To:Demkowicz,Erica Subject:RE:RE;Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Update Hi Erica, It was a pleasure talking with you today at the City Hall when I popped in! Thank you so much for taking the time to share the very good intentions of Tustin to plan and help make our ugly Red Hill corridor more attractive. You clearly know your subject and make me feel better that the intentionality of this plan is to encourage investment and improve the area. 1 If the city is able to show some of the developers proposed designs,I'd sure like to see some at the Feb 20' workshop. A picture is worth a 1000 words. Regards, Susan Eilenberg 14102 Woodlawn Ave Tustin,CA 92780 From:Demkowicz,Erica(mailto:EDemkowicz@tustinca.orel Sent:Thursday,February 1,2018 3:55 PM To:Demkowicz,Erica<EDemkowicz@tustinca.org.> Cc:Binsack,Elizabeth<EBinsack@tustinca.ore>;Willkom,Justina<JWillkom@tustinca.org>;Reekstin,Scott �-- <SReekstin(6@tustinca.org> 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.org Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-53 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 412 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response 1 The commenter notes that it is the intent of the Specific Plan to improve the attractiveness of the Specific Plan area to encourage investment and improve the area. The opinions of the commenter are noted. No further response is required. �{ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-54 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 413 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 1J TA N M.Katherine Jenson Direct Dial:1714)641-3413 RUTAN&TUCKER.LLP t:-❑lull:kje115onf:C.rutan.coltl 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: CityCouncil@tustinca.org E-mail: cityclerk ;tustinca.org Erica Demkowiez,Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin,CA 92780 E-mail:edcmkowicz@tustinca.org Re: Red Hill Avenue Snecitic Plan Dear Mayor Murray,Chairman Smith,Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners and Ms.Demkowicz: Rutan& Tucker, LLP represents WTM Tustin Investors, LP,and Lake Union Investors, LP, with regard to their property interests located at 13852 Red Hill Avenue, in Tustin. Specifically, Rutan has been requested to submit these comments and questions regarding the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan("Specific Plan")and its potential effects on our clients' property interests. The owners of the adjacent properties located at 13742, 13802, 13822, 13872 Red Hill Avenue and 1571 El Camino Real, Mayflower Properties, L.P., and Howard L. Abel, Trustee of the Howard L.Abel Family Trust,have asked to join in the comments contained in this letter. Together,the property owners are referred to in this letter as the"Property Owners"or the "Owners." In a nutshell,while the Property Owners applaud the City's effort to enhance the Red Hill Avenue corridor's aesthetics and accessibility,the Owners are greatly concerned that the Specific Plan will (I) 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 arc 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 Ru-an & Tueker. LLP 1511 Anton Bw Sul'e 14011 Costa Mesa CA 92026 PO Box 1950 Costa Mesa. CA 92628-1950 1714-641-5100 I Fax 714-5.16-9035 11901xa;x-non Orange County I Maio Alto e.vo r,.tan corn l'w,mltt,,u1ir..IN Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-55 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 414 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN iu1+W[Tunt9.W Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 2 that goal and are concerned that approval of the Specific Plan,as drafted,will trigger burdensome and infeasible on-site and off-site improvements. The following are the Owners'primary concerns,questions,and comments at this juncture. 1. What Level of improvements/Upgrades to Existing Structures Will Trigger Application Of The Specific Plan Requirements? The Specific Plan attempts to describe what will trigger its application in several sections. The descriptions are unclear and inconsistent. On page 4-1,it states that the new standards"shall apply to all new development, including additions to buildings,and changes in use...." "New development"and"changes of use"are not defined in the document. On page 5-1,the Specific Plan states that the new Design Criteria will be utilized during the City's design review process, and that the Design Criteria apply to all parcels within the Specific Plan area. The following page(page 5-2)attempts to define projects that are subject to design review. It states that"at a minimum"this includes new construction,zoning applications that"affect"existing exterior elevations,"exterior remodels,""new signage,"any"change in use and/or classification of use of'an existing tenant space,"or"any change in the intensification of use of an existing tenant space." Again,no definitions are provided. Additionally,this description of design review differs from the scope of design review described in Section 9272 of the City's Code,which applies to"the issuance of any building permit,including new structures or major exterior alterations or enlargement of existing structures." (Emph.add.) in the section on "Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Parcels" on page 4291, the Specific Plan provides yet another different description of when the new standards would apply to existing structures. It lists the triggering requirements as"new construction,"a"zoning application that affects the exterior elevation,"a"change in use,"and an"expansion or new development." it then references Section 9273 of the City's Code for"specific standards and provisions." However, the description does not track the.City Code,which allows for certain changes in use,provided the new use is in the same or a more restrictive classification. The City Code also provides certain exemptions when nonconformity is the result of right-of-way acquisitions. How will that affect properties that must provide additional road right-of-way under the terms of the Specific Plan? Chapter 6 has an additional description of what will trigger the application of the new Specific Plan standards. Page 6-i says that existing uses"shall be permitted to continue and need not comply with the new standards"subject to compliance with City Code Section 9273. It goes on to say that,when "land uses intensify or change,existing structures are modified,additional This paragraph also contains a typographical error. The reference to 5.3.1 should be 5.1.3. I I9loJn3R-0631 120607483,03/16118 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-56 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 415 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN +uraw a ruga+w ' 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: (t)that there be a single,consistent description of what type of development project will trigger the application of the new requirements;and(2)that the City make it clear that tenant improvements and minor building modifications necessary for re- tenanting an existing building for a permitted use do not trigger application of the new standards. in such situations,the building is not being enlarged, and the uses are within the scope of the existing entitlements. Without this clarification, re-tenanting existing buildings will be cost prohibitive. This will lead to buildings remaining vacant,attracting vandalism and resulting in disrepair and blight. Vacant buildings produce nothing for the City,its residents or the Owners. If,when tenants vacate,buildings cannot be efficiently reoccupied with simple over-the-counter building permits for exterior and interior tenant improvements,the effect will be the direct opposite of what the City is trying to achieve with this Specific Plan. 2. Excessive Landscape Coverage Requirements Currently,the City's Zoning Code requires that 5%of the parking area be landscaped. This is typical. The Specific Plan requires that 10% of the gross lot size be landscaped. If new development were proposed on my clients'site,or even a simple facade remodel of the existing building,this requirement would translate into more than 10,008 sq. ft.of landscaping(10%of the 100,088 gross lot sq. ft.). Applying the City's current requirements to that same property results in a requirement of only 3,158 sq. ft.of landscaping(5%of the 63,174 sq. ft.of parking area). As proposed, this is well over a 300% increase in landscape coverage requirements. Additionally, the Specific Plan calculation must also be based upon the gross lot size, and landscape within the required 18 foot parkway is not to be counted towards meeting the 10% requirement. My clients have extensive experience with development and ownership of shopping centers within California,and have never been subject to landscape requirements as high as what is proposed here. Given the drought and ongoing maintenance costs,such a drastic increase in the landscaping coverage requirement is excessive. Moreover,given the numerous additional space- consuming requirements of the Specific Plan,the proposed increase is clearly unreasonable. The Property Owners request that the percentage requirement be dropped,and that the calculation be based upon the size of the parking area rather than the gross lot size. 3. Drive-Thru Restaurants The proposed treatment of drive-thru restaurants and drive-thru uses is incomplete and the policies are internally inconsistent. The policies do not reflect the desires of Tustin's residents. Table 4-I on page 4-5 has no letter in column two,next to the Drive-Thru category of land uses. 11960748.1 0407l16/I8 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-57 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 416 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 10,a.(i),which would limit the height of such poles to 16 feet. Currently,the poles throughout the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center are 30 feet in height. Three times as many poles would be required if the height were limited to l 6 feet. This would be both expensive and unsightly, We are assuming that the lower heights were intended just for true Mixed Use projects, but would like that confirmed. S. Undergrounding Overhead Utility Lines On page 3-35,there is a reference to the overhead utility lines along Red Hill Avenue being undergrounded "as part of future development." Unlike several of the other requirements,the Specific Plan 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. 1 1910188384031 12060748.3 803/16118 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-58 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 417 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments RUTAN Mayor Al Murray and Honorable City Council Members Chairman Ryder Smith and Honorable Planning Commissioners Erica Demkowicz,Senior Planner March 16,2018 Page 5 • 6. Parking The Specific Plan indicates that each parcel must be self-parked. For larger shopping centers with multiple parcels,such as those that exist on the east side of Red Hill Avenue,parking requirements are typically satisfied through the use of Reciprocal Easement Agreements ("REAs"). This makes sense since the goal is to encourage customers to visit as many businesses as possible during a single stop. We request that the text of the Specific Plan expressly acknowledge and permit the use of REAs to bridge parcels together for reciprocal parking. In addition,it must be remembered that space is finite,and imposing requirement upon requirement is a zero-sum game. Land used for landscaping and right-of-way cannot be used for parking. Given that the City would like to acquire an additional 10 feet along Red Hill Avenue at some point in the future,my clients would like assurances that,pursuant to Tustin Municipal Code Section 9273(1), if parking spaces are lost, the resulting parking condition will be considered exempt from the City's nonconforming use regulations. 7. Permitted Land Uses As noted above,because"Mixed Use"is used to describe all the private property within the specific plan,my clients would like assurance that freestanding retail will remain a permitted land use in this area,and the buildings within the shopping center on the east side of Red Hill Avenue will not become non-conforming uses. We note that grocery stores are not expressly identified in Table 4-1. We request that you make them a permitted use. 8. Public Improvements and Dedications On page 3-7,there is a reference to"dedications"as"development projects are processed to obtain the full I20-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. 119/01U838-003I I2O60748.J 141/16/1tl Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-59 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 418 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. 9. Existing Shopping Center Agreements and Long Term Leases When the Owners of the Red Hill Plaza shopping center purchased their interests,they acquired the property subject to the existing shopping center CC&Rs,easements and leases. These documents are legal instruments which are recorded on the property and dictate how the property can be used,where development can occur and what types of tenant uses can take place. The recorded CC&Rs on this shopping center are perpetual in nature and all of the benefits,rights and restrictions called for in the documents have been conveyed to the neighboring Owners and the shopping center tenants though guarantees in their leases,all of which are staggered and long term in nature. The new Specific Plan requires all property within the plan to become Mixed Use; however,the recorded CC&Rs and long term leases on this property prohibit any kind of mixed use development from occurring. This puts the Owners in a bind. On one hand,they are not permitted to develop mixed use on site due to the long term recorded CC&R documents. On the other hand, the Specific Plan renders their existing buildings as legally non-conforming and triggers exactions and cost burdens that make it infeasible for the Owners to simply remodel a storefront or re-tenant an empty unit, It does not appear that any of the recorded CC&R burdens upon the land or the long term nature of the tenant leases were taken into account in the drafting of this Specific Plan. This Specific Plan,rather than promoting investment in the community,is so restrictive with the existing uses that it will prevent the Owners from investing in their assert and actually,to the contrary,promote vacancies and additional blight. This is not just an issue for the Red Hill Plaza Shopping Center. These underlying issues are pertinent to all of the shopping centers included within the Specific Plan area. 10.Concerns Regarding Residential 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? I IWOIn3R.00)I 12O6O748.3 sONIR/I8 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-60 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 419 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 7 I1. Miscellaneous Clarifications • • Please confirm that the General Development Standards starting mid-way down on page 4-15 and through page 4-19 are for mixed use projects only. • The heading and land use type descriptions on Table 4-4 on page 4-21 are unclear. Can you confirm whether the "Non-Residential" is intended to include Commercial development that is not part of a.mixed-use project? We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Specific Plan and we thank staff for taking the time to meet to discuss this matter. If possible,we would like to schedule a further meeting to discuss the concerns expressed in this letter. Please notify both me and my clients of all upcoming hearings and actions regarding the Specific Plan. Very truly yours, RUTAN&TUCKER,LLP /11. 141 M.Katherine Jenson 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) 119/1138114031 130507483 NW/16/18 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan . • 3-61 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 420 Section 3.0 City of Tustin Responses to Comments Response The commenter asks for clarification and consideration of modifications of proposed development standards set forth in the proposed Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan. These comments and questions are forwarded to the City's decision-makers for their consideration. However,the comment letter does not raise any environmental issues and thus does not constitute a comment under CEQA to which a response must be provided. • Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 3-62 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 421 Section 4.0 City of Tustin Native American Tribal Consultation 4 NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL CONSULTATION On February 6, 2018, Andrew Salas, Chairman, of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation, requested consultation with the City of Tustin on the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Project, in accordance with both Senate Bill (SB) 18(California Government Code§ 65352.3)and Assembly Bill(AB) 52 (Chapter 532,Statutes of 2014).The City of Tustin entered into consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation and participated in a conference call on March 7, 2018. The following individuals participated in the call: Andrew Salas,Chairman,Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation Dana Ogden,City of Tustin Erica Demkowicz,City of Tustin Scott Reekstin,City of Tustin Dana C. Privitt,AICP,Consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates No tribal cultural places or tribal cultural resources were identified by Mr.Salas during the consultation. However, Mr.Salas noted the importance of Red Hill,a village or gathering place, located in the hillsides northeast of the Specific Plan area. Following the conference call, Mr. Salas provided the City with additional documentation including a map showing the location of the Specific Plan area in relationship to tribal cultural resources:traditional trading routes,the Kizh Gabrieleno village of Katuktu,and the red hills known by the Spanish as Cerrito de las Ranas. It is noted that these tribal cultural resources are outside of the Specific Plan area. The nearest resource, a segment of a trading route is south of Edinger Avenue and generally traverses from east-to-west. Mr. Salas requested that Native American monitoring be required. In response to this request,the City has proposed a modification to MM 4.3-1. MM 4.3-1 The State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15126.4[b][3]) direct public agencies, wherever feasible,to avoid damaging historical resources of an archaeological nature, preferably by preserving the resource(s) in place. Preservation in place options suggested by the State CEQA Guidelines include (1) planning construction to avoid an archaeological site; (2)incorporating the site into open space;(3)capping the site with a chemically stable soil; and/or(4)deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 4-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 422 Section 4.0 City of Tustin Native American Tribal Consultation .. . . -• - - - -. - - -- 44 4 4 .. .• - - - - ' . - Code EPRC]§2.1083 2(g)) Specific Plan implementation. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for grading of 7 feet or more in depth_helow the 1. . • . '1• • .•. . .. ' •- - •.- 1. . • '• •1 - '• 1 - 1 1 City Planning Division that a w alp ifie archaeologist has been r -tain -d by th a. .lican develo•a t. - 4/ 10 01 . 1 -s- eeded ba ' • ...re 1. 1 ' i•a -• Archaeological discQyerjes_and any archaeological requirements (e.g., conditions of approval) that are applicable to the project. The an apt/developerjs encouraged to III K . " • a-- ••'_• •• •_ 1' .. •.i_• 91 '1 - - - A . • • 61 - .11 4-1. • • .•1 . 1 • '• - 1 1 •• .1 . . 1.-• ••• . - • - 1 1 . - -1. 1. 1.-0 •• . 11. . - 1 1 1 - -• 1 1• • • 11-1 • 1• . - , • . 1 1' immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist has assessed the discoyg v and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Section 15064.5 is determined, determine.in consultation with the City and any local Native American erouos expressing interest following not(fjgatiofby the City, appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. Per CEOA Guidelines Section 15126.4 bl(31.preservation in •lace 1. 4- 1- • - - -• 11 - .1 • . ••• •1111. historical resources__Consistent with CEOA.,Gjjjdelines Section 15126,4(b)(3)(C), If it is • - u.1 . -• 1. •1 ' 11 •9 - . . 111 •- . • .-. 1 • • . 4 . 1.-0 •••_ 1 . • - 06 .44"01. . 11-1 u -. 1 .. . �_ . . '•1 . -4. • . 11 • u 1. . • 4 1 - • - . • 1- . •• •• - u -. - '1 .1 '•1 , • 1 1 • •u • -11-1 I. - 1 - 16 - 1 . - ► . au - 1 site does not qualify as an historical resource but rneets the criteria for a unique . 1. -• •• - • - I - '1 -. , - '• , I: 1 - 1 1 - - 1. .- -. '1 . • O. - 1 1 . . • •1 • -•1'.1 I: Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 4-2 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 423 Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions 5 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined. Section 4.2,Air Quality A typographical error in the numbering of the mitigation referenced on page 4.2-16 of the Draft Program EIR. Page 4.2-16 is revised and incorporated into the Final EIR as follows: Therefore, implementation of MM 4.2-54 is required to ensure a project-specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) is conducted for future residential uses located within 500 feet of I-S. 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. Prior to ice••zinc^of arc discovered. The archeologist shall be present at the pFe grading conference to Code [Poria 21083 2(g)) • n „ Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-1 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 424 Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions Specific Plan implementation prior to issuaf) a of a grassing permit farirading of 2 feet_amore in del&below the natural or existing grade._th- . •• . • •- - .. ,. • . -• . •. , . , - • ,. ,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 upervisors 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 Xhesiiscovery and appropriate treatment pursuant to CEQA Guidelineslaction 15054.5 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 other . • . •• •. - „ '•1 '- •d '• I- • '•, • 4 . • -a . '. , , . . - 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 14 demonstrated that confirmed resources cannot be avoided. the qualified archaeologist I. . - • • • .••. '•,- . 111-1 „-. , . •. . I "IL - . - . ••, deposit at a local museum that accepts such resources or other appropriate measures,in consultation with the implementing agency and any local Native American rreoresentatives expressing interest in prehistoric or tribal resources. If an archa ological site does not qualify as an historical resource but meets the criteria fQr-, 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. 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 425 Section 5.0 City of Tustin Clarifications and Revisions Table 4.8-1-General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Tustin General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element COSR Policy 1.7:Create the maximum possible opportunities for Consistent:See response)to COSR-CJI Policy 6.1 and CIR Policy 6.434.As previously addressed,the bicycles as an alternative transportation mode and recreational use. Specific Plan comolies with the City of Tustin's Master Bikeway Plan.which shows the entire extent of Red Hill Avenue within the City 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,MRM E4.4-1 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•Measuro 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 • 426 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, Part 3, Section 9331 of the Tustin City Code), prior to the issuance of building permits, applicants shall =• -- ' - - • -• . •• . • - - ••• • -- - - • • • -- - value of land required for park purposes. 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,,,apcprding to the following standards anditnmula. Standards and Formulajjr LandDedication; The public interest,convenience,health,welfare,and safetyiequire5 that three(31ages of usable park land oer one thousand (1,000) potential populatjpbbe devated to locaj park and recreational purposes, The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall .- 1111 -• • II 'I 1. 1 - Ill .• . • ..• -• • , '•• I' • • • '. , .I. 1 - •• 1 , - I• l• •1 • •.I - , ' 1 I- . •. .. • • I'S . .,l '• • following table; 'Dwelling Units per Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Q 2 aas ,0102 7,1.15. 2.1ta .0086 15.1-25 2.24 .0067 25.1&Above As delermined by CDD To be cakarlatad to based unon proposed achieve three(3)acres/ product type 1.000 population Mobile Home Parks 2.24 ,0067 These density ranges, average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three (3) acres of •. .511- .,- .• . 11 111 •- as • Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan 5-4 Responses to Comments and Tribal Consultation 427 Exhibit 428 • 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 I-5 freeway. 429 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 I-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 I-5 freeway and as such, lacks a sense of identity,cohesive theme or character. Gateway monumentation signage at the corners of El Camino Real&Red Hill Avenue,at San Juan Avenue& Red Hill Avenue and within the landscaped median north of El Camino Real are all sign entry gateways for the area. Public art beneath the I-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 430 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. • 431 Exhibit D 432 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 433 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area extends along Red Hill Avenue to Bryan Avenue to the northeast, and Walnut Avenue to the southwest.Interstate 5(1-5)bisects the Specific Plan area creating the northern and southern portions of the Specific Plan. The Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan provides planning policies and regulations that connect General Plan policies with future project-level development within the Specific Plan area.The purpose of the Specific Plan is to guide future change,promote high-quality development,and implement the community's vision for the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan provides goals and objectives, a land use plan, regulatory standards, Design Criteria, and administration and implementation programs to encourage high-quality development. The Specific Plan would allow for an additional 325,000 square feet of non-residential development and 500 additional dwelling units. The total development in the Specific Plan area anticipated with the buildout potential of the Specific Plan is 521 dwelling units and 621,446 square feet of non-residential development, inclusive of existing and proposed uses. Red Hill Avenue would be restriped within the paved width of the street to include on-street bike lanes, reduced lane widths, turn pockets, and landscaped medians where feasible. 1.2 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts.This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor Standard Conditions (SCs) and mitigation measures (MMs)outlined in the Red Hill Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR),State Clearinghouse No. SCH NO. 2017041031. The Red Hill Specific Plan MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code and City of Tustin Monitoring Requirements. Specifically, Section 21081.6 states: (a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a)of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision(c)of Section 21080,the following requirements shall apply: (1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program. 1 434 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. CEA 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 El R.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. 2 435 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Retponsibiity for (signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation s cms-0i;"ga i t•,?.::,?3-7_,Ai 4 Tw Y i,� Measu (MM) implementation Timing RResponsibility for Monitoring compliance) t!li t5): t i,,tretWor r. y, 4. . r�i c y7h fall ttor jg fwp40, 00 n iiP h r4"` a seat# t ._f� < :T K .9a: ,at �1k. i;zM,T,Pt octt.tw0 A fi 'C 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 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulates. Contractor SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off Monitor during grading site.SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best and construction 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 Jill:Pre-water soils prior to cut and fill activities and stabilize soli 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 3 436 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for • (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) implementation Timing • Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. • Traffic areas for construction activities:Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas;stabilize all haul routes;and direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more acres of grading or with a daily earth-moving volume of 5,000 cubic yards at least 3 times in 1 year. Future development within the Specific Plan would potentially be considered a large operation. Large operations are required to implement additional dust-control measures(as specified in Tables 2 and 3 of Rule 403); provide additional notifications,signage,and reporting;and appoint a Dust Control Supervisor.The Dust Control Supervisor is required to: • Be employed by or contracted with the Property Owner or Developer; • Be on the site or available on site within 30 minutes during working hours; • Have the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403 requirements;and • Have completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and have been Issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class. SC 4.2-2:Architectural Coatings.Architectural coatings shall be selected so Applicant Identify in contractor Community Development that the VOC content of the coatings is compliant with SCAQMD Rule 1113. specifications Department—Building This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Construction Division Manager During building plan check and construction MM 4.2-1:Electric Vehlde(EV)Charging Stations. Prior to the issuance of Applicant Prior to Issuance of Community Development building permits,the City's Building Official shall confirm that project plans Building Permits Department—Building and specifications designate that vehicle parking spaces developed within the Division Specific Plan area shall be EV ready to encourage EV use and appropriately size electrical panels to accommodate future expanded EV use. 4 437 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) MM 4.2-2:Vanpool/Rideshare Programs. Prior to the issuance of occupancy Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development permits,the City's Building Official shall confirm that future commercial uses Occupancy Permits Department—Building within the Specific Plan area Include Codes,Covenants,and Restrictions Division (CC&Rs)that provide for a voluntary vanpool/shuttle and employee ridesharing programs for which all employees shall be eligible to participate. The voluntary ride sharing program could be achieved through a mufti-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. 5 438 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 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 1' maximum individual cancer risk of 10 in one million. • Non-Cancer Risk:Emit toxic contaminants that exceed the maximum hazard quotient of one In one million. The SCAQMD has also established non-carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a"hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level(REL). An REL is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur.A hazard Index less than one (1.0)means that adverse health effects are not expected. If projects are found 6 439 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibility for : (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) implementation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) to exceed the SCAQMD's Health Risk Assessment thresholds,mitigation shall be incorporated to reduce impacts to below SCAQMD thresholds. y .rrl�� j�i, r.= ♦ r +: 2 ,, t5:. :.G4tik � '1.1 i'r.�+.,. `'i.,..t k„4 i`5rm: !n°i1, .:i�'y�y,4 F r f�4:,�t'�4 let V��i z 64-A.ii: t Ks Vis'?#l",rF.Flt:' $'V�i..s'ti4'3 „ - u� "*4 ry t'' 73n'f� ... d.' k�6 .��,;{i!.iF.YAtZfi y1F.i„.t ''" Ar.. ,.�.�..,afs i�.» ''R. f. �ti.4.J�'H. r' .fis!9,J n �;Y;'; 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 Commission Department—Building within the Specific Plan area,disturbance of the site shall be halted until the (NAHC)(as Division coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances,manner and cause of death,and the recommendations concerning the treatment and necessary) disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation,or to his or her authorized representative,in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and If the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American,he or she shall contact,by telephone within 24 hours,the Native American Heritage Commission. MM 4.3-1:The State CEQA Guidelines(14 CCR§15126.4(b)(31)direct public Applicant Retention of Community Development agencies,wherever feasible,to avoid damaging historical resources of an Qualified archaeologist:Prior to Department—Planning& archaeological nature,preferably by preserving the resource(s)in place. Archaeologist Issuance of Grading Zoning Division Preservation in place options suggested by the State 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 7 440 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 liming 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 11 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. a 441 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 far 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. "Linvtnimtw .,...-. n r.. VAM J' z 'y[ek �.} i aid Y.,.a �;�§yam � ,•��" 7ae� w x rn�4s.�, ti 7xx atii >.-� :a Zr:n ,�1.,.+'Y`�o.d,. ::�rr�lAc�,Fi=tn��a,.�.. .:,�e� .le•AY.,>rae 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 plans shall indicate all areas of grading. Grading plans shall provide for Engineer grading and temporary erosion control on all graded sites scheduled to remain construction plans unimproved for more than 30 days. 9 442 • Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements • Monitor Responsibility for (Signature;Date of Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) implementation • Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) . SC 4.4-2:A specific geotechnical survey shall be prepared by a certified Applicant Prior to the issuance of Community Development geotechnical engineer to confirm/refine engineering design parameters Grading and Building Department—Building Registered 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 EngineerIdentified 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 recommendations shall be noted on Individual site development plans and construction plans implemented prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. Project-specific geotechnical measures shall be developed,as needed,based on the design-level geotechnical report and depicted on plans prepared by the geotechnical engineer of record or on plan sheets Included within final grading plans,and subject to the approval by the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Public Works Department. SC 4.4-3:Future developments shall limit grading to the minimum area Applicant Prior to Issuance of Community Development necessary for construction. Final grading plans shall Include best Grading and Building Department—Building Registered 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 Works Department plans shall be submitted to the City of Tustin Building Division and/or the Engineer Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit. J eY .r. , J 7 i..'t+" Z 5t A.rs" Si fit k U .p .2 h :-0C 1 ifi ' ! d. rk M f, A'. t 9 s1i A„r..t T�, � � yj+' a F 7 tfl�?i'&i?ttl Iv. a rS ,.a.i� �.�vM} .d�'mi�` A '.:t'3Tat � y.zt:. n,'1 MM 4.6-1:Prior to issuance of grading permits,a human health risk evaluation Applicant Prior to issuance of Community Development shall be prepared by a qualified environmental professional in consultation with Qualified Grading and Building Department—Building Orange County Health Care Agency,Environmental Health Division(OCHCA-EH) 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. 10 443 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) 5Y..5 ry/��E �. W 1 :5 � d• `�tE�: ^'R f 1 {,"�a "{ ti t, :T irr>t ' M b, �,�{i `Y r1;Cu I - �"�" r ':,: $ S. ' rryb yp�� A` .}.:1 �' EFH,:P a tt'r,.�K le iiih td�Jac.r;m �ft;V 5;?.li r is , 6w kVaV +.�^I a .. 12USI�,�RyR aY1,Cx1) V :ti 'LN'R i 7s{ „�`+ `✓ �',`,!!��. ..+a- '� .t } 3 '�� '�: f�e 't�rs� Cr s.+, L,,, ae5�.� iti "� '�o. :`� 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. 11 444 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 Construction Grading and Building Department—Building Tustin General Plan Noise Element,and the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level Manager Permits Division standard of the City of Tustin General Plan Noise Element,and by Title 24, Part 2,of the California Building Code. MM 4.9-1:Construction Noise. Prior to approval of grading plans,the City of Applicant Prior to Issuance of Community Development Tustin Building Division shall ensure that plans include Best Management Construction Grading and Building Department—Planning and Practices to minimize construction noise. Construction noise Best Manager Permits Building Divisions Management Practices may include the following: Identify In approved • Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment,fixed grading and or mobile,with properly operating and maintained mufflers,consistent construction plans with manufacturers'standards,and all stationary construction 12 445 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implementation Responsibility (Signature;Date of IrnenrontaTiming 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 leg.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. 13 446 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) 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 Grading and Building Department—Building Specific Plan area to reduce construction vibration at nearby receptors: Construction Permits Division Manager 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. 14 447 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table 1-1.Mitigation Monitoring Requirements Monitor Responsibi ty for (Signature;Date of standard Condition(SC)and Mitigation Measure(MM) Implememation Timing Responsibility for Monitoring Compliance) • Conduct a post-survey on any structures where either monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage has been made. Make appropriate repairs or compensation where damage has occurred as a result of vibration. ��,.. : ..� ...,v,,.y, Cs��sir r�'e�r 9dw'w � v 5.,.,�i�N.a�,gah''(��?t ��'�, 'N '* x � n �-.1:,. '.�. ��J4 rr�t,,..,'�,'` ,::r+ .r, 9 4£2 u l# ✓0, ��5,,.. �,., n�.Pt�t4.�.i ... gi �i. �. i:^.5.' .i:A:.� i t [h 5${J,.at y �r��,x�{iSaK W Ss J` }c x� M-a? t�j y� y�➢:r r 1�1 ,.,., n§.ih�;.$`r�.�,t,r.�..,:��.r.r�J«��';��r�t�;6 W.��w r � til ��5 ���� ;.,�?�A.�7: ..t,,,�Ai,'','P�.(r't�^.�� t�.s��� �l,Y`.:vt i�i��.t,4f r�,�«.,�l:s,,:..;�...a, 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 Plan,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. ,too1S tiF.�i i i4 ..p ,.,,,j,�M xr P S',h",r `�Si'+x1 Jf�yyii" �1j a , ,- > .- !zr r4 i- wyx n ti pM1i �,' i n Lx k- �t J s 4 ''i ....,r Orr z rr, fi..a.d.+..,._ v.4f.,n1s ea nF '?7,5. #' , x +iii k3 7V::rt.lteir r�1fi MSF i; r�aI t. ,#..�...�dk i.a�i:,u,:r SC 4.12-1:Prior to the approval of the final map for subdivisions under the Applicant Condition of approval Community Development Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan,applicants shall comply with the City of Tustin of Tentative Tract Map Department–Planning& Subdivision Code(Article 9,Chapter 3,Part 3,Section 9331 of the Zoning Division Tustin City Code). Developers may dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu or a Land dedication at final combination of both. The value of the amount of such fee shall be based map recordation upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be In lieu fees prior to required for dedication. Dedication of land may be required by the City for a issuance of Building condominium,stock cooperative,or community apartment project which Permits exceeds 50 dwelling units. 15 448 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 liming 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 whkh would otherwise be required for dedication, according to the following standards and formula. Standards and Formula for Land Dedication: The public interest,convenience,health,welfare,and safety requires that three(3)acres of usable park land per one thousand(1,000)potential population be devoted to local park and recreational purposes. The minimum amount of land that would be otherwise be required for dedication shall be computed by multiplying the number of proposed dwelling units by the Parkland Acres per Dwelling Unit in accordance with the appropriate density classification in the following table: Dwelling Units per Average Persons per Parkland Acres per Gross Acre Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0-7 3.39 .0102 7.1 15 2.85 .0086 15.1-25 2.24 .0067 25.1&Above As determined by CDD To be calculated to based upon proposed achieve three(3)acres/ product type 1,000 population Mobile Home Parks 2.24 .0067 These density ranges,average persons per dwelling unit and/or parkland acreage per dwelling unit shall be used to achieve a parkland dedication rate of three(3)acres of parkland per one thousand(1,000)persons. 16 449 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) • y /y�6 it r : ,,8+}-� +,`F�, u-�«a t y} tt r• " ' Yh /t ie s',,,, f wrN{f Y ,k' c 1"930 a! '� a r -:tom?, 1'S�:�R��"�S�`si.'!' � d�.,;�I�i�k�ntc,Fs. , "4.4 "i�c;y:.i� wL.�,.. ,..�.:..k,i..;::r, _ •_s;,. �' ,� dltrn.sc.15F.iFs�� tri_ �' M.� j !"{�•�y,.,Y3. i�i(r:a; � 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. .�t�$'i,..r.. r'+.vC..�'.�.^Yc+r''i,•,x....>I.r,4•l�.�i. t�..3z}.,.1.. 3�P_�T•c.+�`h�S�. e^u.�,.,..���k..�...i �..J�1".i�:rx.e.•...4� u�,...r..,.�. .....�..5.., .�1,.5u'�vl'�.t.d.,..��fP,L-•�+'+M.r(.LA`-e39;•vu'l'ro u�.`J!:�)H,P:�kl�sd�\;:N J 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 11{ 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 indude 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). 17 450 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 451 Exhibit E Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations EXHIBIT E FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RED HILL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2017041031 1. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions,agreements,or other measures. 1 Exhibit E 453 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 454 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 455 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 456 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations --FA • 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 457 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, Iftoomr entry statements, and other visual amenities compatible with the character of Tustin to achieve a distinct identity for the area. 6 Exhibit E 458 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 459 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 460 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 461 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 462 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts In Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 0) 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 463 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (j) Population, Housing, and Employment: The Specific Plan's forecasted population, housing, and employment growth are within SCAG's overall projections for the City of Tustin. (k) Public Services: The Project can be served by the Tustin Police Department without adverse effects on police services. New residents would nominally increase the demand on library services. The Tustin Library would continue to meet the County's standard for library size with buildout of the Specific Plan. (I) Transportation and Traffic: Road segments within the traffic study area would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. No Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities would be impacted. No impacts related to air traffic patterns are associated with the Project. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not result in any significant impacts related to design features or incompatible uses with compliance with applicable Tustin City Code standards and the design review process for individual development projects under the Specific Plan nor would circulation through the Specific Plan area adversely affect emergency access. Lastly, the Specific Plan encourages public transit, and would provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (m) Utilities: Wastewater flows would not exceed the established wastewater treatment requirements. Utility service providers can serve buildout of the Specific Plan without adversely affecting their ability to continue serving the area. There would be less than significant impacts to additional demand for electric and natural gas services and ._ infrastructure with implementation of the Specific Plan. 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the Program EIR, and the effects of the Project were considered in the Program EIR. Where as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and the identification of feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), the following potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, the City has found in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1)and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1)that"Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment," which is referred to herein as "Finding 1". Where the potential impact can be reduced to less than significant solely through adherence to and implementation of standard conditions,these measures are considered "incorporated into the project" which mitigate or avoid the potentially significant effect, and in these situations, the City also will make"Finding 1"even though no mitigation measures are required. Where the City has determined pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2) that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's findings is referred to herein as"Finding 2". Where, as a result of the environmental analysis of the Project, the City has determined that either: (a) even with compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, and/or the identification of feasible mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level; or 12 Exhibit E 464 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 465 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts In Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations Exceeding these thresholds has the potential to hinder the region's compliance with the AQMP. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. SC 4.2-1 Dust Control. During construction of future development within the Specific Plan area, project applicants shall require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules 402 and 403 in order to minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulates. SCAQMD Rule 402 requires that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with Best Available Control Measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. This requirement shall be included as notes on the contractor specifications. Table 1 of Rule 403 lists the Best Available Control Measures that are applicable to all construction projects. The measures include,but are not limited to,the following: • Clearing and grubbing: Apply water in sufficient quantity to prevent generation of dust plumes. • Cut and fill: Pre-water soils prior to cut and.fill activities and stabilize soil during and after cut and fill activities. • Earth-moving activities: Pre-apply water to depth of proposed cuts; re- apply water as necessary to maintain soils in a damp condition and to ensure that visible emissions do not exceed 100 feet in any direction; and stabilize soils once earth-moving activities are complete. • Importing/exporting of bulk materials: Stabilize material while loading to reduce fugitive dust emissions; maintain at least six inches of freeboard on haul vehicles; and stabilize material while transporting to reduce fugitive dust emissions. • Stockpiles/bulk material handling: Stabilize stockpiled materials; stockpiles within 100 yards of off-site occupied buildings must not be greater than 8 feet in height, must have a road bladed to the tops to allow water truck access, or must have an operational water irrigation system that is capable of complete stockpile coverage. • Traffic areas for construction activities:Stabilize all off-road traffic and parking areas; stabilize all haul routes; and direct construction traffic over established haul routes. Rule 403 defines large operations as projects with 50 or more acres of grading or with a daily earth-moving volume of 5,000 cubic yards at least 3 Refers to a road to the top of the pile. 14 Exhibit E 466 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 467 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 468 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 NOR. 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(CMOS). 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 PMlo 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 469 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 M M 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 I-5. The proximity of potential future development to 1-5 poses a concern for toxic air contaminants(TAC)exposure. MM 4.2-5 requires a project- specific Health Risk Assessment (HRA) be conducted for future residential uses proposed within 500 feet of I-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 470 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 471 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 472 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 Gabrielefio 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 473 Red Hili 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 474 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 475 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 its 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 476 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 (CO2e) 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 CO2e per service population. Under a worst-case scenario, these emissions would exceed the 4.1 MT CO2e per year threshold. Despite consistency with the policies and initiatives of State GHG reduction programs as well as the regional RTP/SCS strategies, implementation of the Specific Plan would exceed growth projections for the area in the RTP/SCS and result in an increase of GHG emissions that would exceed the SCAQMD's significance criteria. 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 477 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 (DISC, 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 478 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 479 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 480 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 481 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations • Construction activity within 50 feet of occupied noise sensitive uses shall reduce construction noise levels exceeding 85 dBA Leq at nearby sensitive land uses by one or more of the following methods to reduce noise to below 85 dBA Leq: 1. Install temporary construction noise barriers within the line of site of occupied sensitive uses for the duration of construction activities that could generate noise exceeding 85 dBA Leq. The noise control barrier(s)must provide a solid face from top to bottom and shall: a. Provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA and be constructed with an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts; b. Be maintained and any damage promptly repaired.Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired;and c. Be removed and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. 2. Install sound dampening mats or blankets to the engine compartments of heavy mobile equipment (e.g. graders, dozers, heavy trucks).The dampening materials must be capable of a 5-dBA minimum noise reduction, must be installed prior to the use of heavy mobile construction equipment, and must remain installed for the duration of the equipment use. (2) Potential Impact: Construction of individual projects within the Specific Plan area could generate vibration impacts at nearby sensitive receptors. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is Less Than Significant as a result of the implementation of mitigation. Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activity associated with implementation of the Specific Plan would be a temporary source of groundborne vibration. Buildings near a construction site respond to vibration to varying degrees ranging from imperceptible effects at the lowest levels,to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, and up to minor damage at the highest vibration levels. Vibration levels attenuate quickly over distance,so vibration would not be noticeable at receptors outside of the immediate vicinity of construction. MM 4.9-2 would minimize and avoid vibration impacts should pile-driving be required associated with a future development project. CEQA requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: MM 4.9-2 Construction Vibration. The following measures shall be implemented by applicants for development within the Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan area to reduce construction vibration at nearby receptors: 30 Exhibit E 482 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. CEC1A requires that all feasible and reasonable mitigation be applied to reduce the AM NI\ environmental impacts of the Project. The following Mitigation Program is applicable: 31 Exhibit E 483 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 484 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 2 The California Department of Finance,Table 2:E-5,2017,identifies a citywide average of 3.04 persons per household which includes single-family,multi-family,and mobile home dwelling units. 33 Exhibit E 485 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 486 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 487 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 488 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 489 Red Hill Avenue Specific Plan Findings and Facts in Support of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations divert from landfill disposal, nonhazardous materials for reuse or recycling by a minimum of 65 percent of total weight or volume (or requirements in place at the time of project entitlement). 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Considered and Rejected During the Scoping/Proiect 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 490 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 491 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 3 Population projections were developed based on a generation factor of 3.04 persons per household,as determined in the ,....— California Department of Finance 2017 estimates. Employment projections assumes 450 square feet of retail per employee,per SCAG's Employment Density Summary Report. 40 Exhibit E 492 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 493 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 494 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 495