Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4020 RESOLUTION NO. 4020 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) FOR THE PACIFIC CENTER EAST SPECIFIC PLAN AND SUBSEQUENT SUPPLEMENT #1 TO THE FINAL EIR IS ADEQUATE FOR TENATIVE PARCEL MAP 2006- 103, AND DESIGN REVIEW 06-002, AND THAT ALL APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That Tentative Parcel Map 2006-103 and Design Review 06-002 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); B. That a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and subsequent Supplement #1 for the Pacific Center East Specific Plan were prepared and certified, which considered the development of office uses within Planning Area 8, the site of the proposed project. A checklist was prepared that concluded that all potential impacts of the project were previously addressed by the certified FEIR and Supplement #1, and that no additional impacts have been identified; all applicable mitigation measures in the FEIR and Supplement #1 have been included as conditions of approval; C. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that Tentative Parcel Map 2006-103 is within the scope of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and was fully examined in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan FEIR and Supplement #1; no substantial changes are proposed in the Project or have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken since certification of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan FEIR and Supplement #1; no new information has become available since the certification of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan FEIR and Supplement #1, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2116 and the requirements of CEQA regulations promulgated with respect thereto including Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no additional environmental analysis, action, or document is required by CEQA, subject to the mitigation and implementation measures contained in Exhibit A attached hereto; and, Resolution No. 4020 Page 2 D. The Planning Commission finds that Design Review 06-002 is within the scope of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan and was fully examined in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan FEIR and Supplement #1; no substantial changes are proposed in the Project or have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken since certification of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan FEIR and Supplement #1; no new information has become available since the certification of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan FEIR and Supplement #1, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2116 and the requirements of CEQA regulations promulgated with respect thereto including Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no additional environmental analysis, action, or document is required by the CEQA, subject to the mitigation and implementation measures contained in Exhibit A attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 8th day of May, 2006. ~~ 7;;?~'lt ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4020 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 8th day of May, 2006. ~~ 72i:;_./.~~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ....J COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously CertiOedlApproved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplement #1 for the Pacific Center East SpeciOc Plan The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Design Review 06-002 and Tentative Parcel Map 2006-103 Lead Agency: City ofTustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Matt West Phone: (714) 573-3118 Project Location: 1412 Edinger Avenue, Tustin, Orange County, California Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Werdin-Saunders, LLC, 4100 Mac Arthur Blvd. Suite 310, Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Plan Designation: Planned Community Commercia1lBusiness Zoning Designation: Planned Community DistrictlPacific Center East Specific Plan Project Description: Construction of a total of 66,578 square feet of office uses in a two-building complex; and creation of Tentative Parcel Map 2006-103 for condominium purposes to allow for ownership of the individual building spaces. Surrounding Uses: North: Office Complex South: Light Industrial East: Office Complex West: Light Industrial Other public agencies whose approval is required: o o o o Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other o o o City of Irvine City of Santa Ana Orange County EMA B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. o Aesthetics o Air Quality o Cultural Resources o Hazards & Hazardous Materials OLand Use/Planning o Noise o Public Services o Transportationrrraffic o Mandatory Findings of Significance o Agriculture Resources o Biological Resources o Geology/Soils o HydrologylWater Quality o Mineral Resources o PopulationIHousing o Recreation o Utilities/Service Systems C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. IZI I find that although the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described in the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR OR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and no further documentation is required. Preparer: Matt West &;~d~2~-~// Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Developmcnt Director Title Associate Planner Date ADril 27. 2006 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ;------' See Attached EV ALUA TION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous (. AESTHETICS - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 181 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? 0 0 181 c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 181 d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 181 IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources ore significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland. Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuaotto the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? 0 0 181 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 181 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 181 III. AIR OUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 0 181 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 181 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 0 181 d) Expose sensitive recepton to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 181 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 0 0 181 No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effe<;t, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,. or special status speGies in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department ofFish and Game OT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 181 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies. regulations or by the California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 181 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on fe<lcrally protected wetlands as defined by Se<;tion 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh. vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling. hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 0 181 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 0 181 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 0 0 IZI t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional. or state habitat conservation plan? 0 0 181 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the proje<;t: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ~ 15064.5? 0 0 181 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5? 0 0 181 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 181 resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of fonnal cemeteries? 0 0 181 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: .----, a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury. or death involving: ------,,-,.,.-----,..r---y- ... .. No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis i) Rupture ofa known earthquake faull. as delineated on the most recent Alquist-PriOlo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 0 0 t8I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 ~ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 181 iv) Landslides? 0 0 ~ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 0 181 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 0 0 181 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property'l 0 0 181 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 0 0 181 VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 0 0 181 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? 0 0 181 c) Emit hazardous emissions Or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. substances, or waste within one-quarter 181 mile of an existing or proposed school? 0 0 d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment'? 0 0 181 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan IuIs not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safely hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 181 l) For a project within the vicinity of. private airstrip, would the project result in a safely hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 0 181 No Subs/an/ial New More Change From Significan/ Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impac/ tmpac/s A.nalysis adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 0 0 181 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intennixed with wildlands? 0 0 181 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALlTY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 181 b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater tableleve] (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pennits have been granted)? 0 0 181 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial eros.ion or siltation 00- or off-site? 0 0 181 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner whicb would result in flooding on- or off.site? 0 0 181 e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed tbe capacity of existing or planned stonnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted nmoff! 0 0 181 f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 181 g) Place bousing within a lOO-year flood bazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 0 0 181 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures whicb would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 181 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure ofa levee or dam? 0 0 181 j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 0 0 181 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 0 0 @ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan. policy, or Impact Impacts A.nalysls regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an enviromnental effect? 0 0 121 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 0 0 121 X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 0 0 121 b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovety site delineated on a local general plan, specifIC plan or other land use plan? 0 0 I2?J XI. NOISE- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 121 b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? 0 0 121 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 0 0 121 project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increue in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing 181 without the project? 0 0 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan hu not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive 0 0 I2?J noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private aitstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the 0 I2?J project area to excess noise levels? 0 XII. POPULI. nON AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area. either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of 0 121 roads or other infrastructure)? 0 b) Displace substantial numbets of existing housing, necessitating the constNction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 ~ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial nwnbers of people, necessitating the constJUction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 0 IZI XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the constJUction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other perfonnance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? 0 0 IZI Police protection? 0 0 ~ Schools? 0 0 IZI Parks? 0 0 ~ Other public facilities? 0 0 ~ XIV. RECREATlON- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 0 0 181 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational filcilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 0 0 181 XV. TRANSPORT A TlONrrRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads. or congestion at intersections)? 0 0 IZI b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a ievel of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 0 0 IZI c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns. including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 0 0 ~ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 0 0 IZI e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 IZI f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 ~ --~._- ._.~. - -....-.- ---..- No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0 0 IZI XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 0 0 IZI b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 IZI c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or explUlllion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 0 0 IZI d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or ~ expanded entitlements needed? 0 0 e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 0 0 C8I f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 0 0 C8I g) Comply with federal, state. and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 181 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade Ibe quality of Ibe environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict Ibe range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or 181 prehistory? 0 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past proj~, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 0 0 ~ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings? either directly or indirectly? 0 0 IZI ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DESIGN REVIEW 06..002 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2006-103 BACKGROUND The proposed project includes an application by Werdin-Saunders, LLC for the following: 1. Construction of a total of 66,578 square feet of office complex; and, 2. Creation of Tentative Parcel Map 2006 on Lot 2 of Lot Line Adjustment 05-02 into a condominium subdivision to allow for ownership purposes. The project area is a 3.99-acre vacant area along the south side of Edinger Avenue, approximately 400 feet west of Red Hill Avenue adjacent to the SBC/Pacific Bell administrative office complex. The 3.99-acre area is part of a 20-acre parcel also known as a portion of Lot 66 of Block 10 of Irvine's Subdivision and described in Record of Survey 83-1189 located at 1442 Edinger Avenue. The project area is surrounded by the SBC/Pacific Bell office complex to the east and south, a parking lot and light industrial uses to the west, and office uses to the north across Edinger Avenue. The project area is identified as Office Center and is located within Planning Area 8 of the Pacific Center East Specific Plan (PCESP). The PCESP district regulations allow for the development of corporate, professional, and general offices. The proposed office development is consistent with the intent of the PCESP. The proposed development consists of two (2) 2-story tilt-up buildings with multiple spaces within each building that will be owned independently with shared common areas regulated by CC&Rs. This is an Environmental Checklist that evaluates the proposed project in light of the environmental analysis included in Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 90-1, which was previously certified on December 17, 1990, and the Supplement certified on May 5,2003, for the PCESP. In conformance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed project introduces significantly new environmental impacts that were not previously considered in the Program EIR. Staff has concluded that all related environmental impacts were previously considered in EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1, and mitigation measures have been identified and included as conditions of approval for the project. No additional environmental document is needed or will be prepared for this project. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 2 I. AESTHETICS Items a throuah d: The project includes the construction of a new 66,578 square foot office complex on a vacant lot. The site is surrounded by an office complex to the east and south, a parking lot and light industrial uses to the west, and office uses across Edinger Avenue to the north. Upon completion of the construction of the office complex, the existing visual character of the site and the surrounding area would be altered. However, approval of Design Review (DR) 06-002 would ensure that the visual character of the project would be consistent with the district regulations for the PCESP and complementary to existing buildings within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the impact on the visual character of the site would be less than significant. The project will include a new source of parking lot and building lighting that will be mitigated through the use of shielding as necessary. The lighting would not be substantial and would not affect day or nighttime views in the area. Sensitive placement of the new building and landscaping, utilization of minimal levels of lighting, correct installation of the lighting, and compliance with the City of Tustin Design Review criteria will reduce potential impacts related to the visual character of the site and area to a level of insignificance. Also, the subject property is not located on a scenic vista and would not disturb any trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings located on a State scenic highway. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Final EIR and Supplement #1 for the PCESP. Sources: Submitted Plans Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Tustin City Code Field Inspection Pacific Center East Specific Plan Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulation Is not mitigation per CEQA; consequently, no mitigation is required. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a. b. and c: The property is currently vacant and the site was part of the Pacific Bell/SBC office complex. The site is not designated by the zoning or the General Plan for agricultural use. The project would not convert any Prime or Unique Farmland, or DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 3 Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Final EIR and Supplement #1 for the PCESP. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Tustin General Plan Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Field Inspection Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Pacific Center East Specific Plan III. AIR QUALITY Items a. b. c. d. and e: The project would temporarily increase the amount of short-term emissions to the area due to grading of the property and construction activities. Since the site is relatively flat. only minor grading would be required. The project is below the thresholds of significance established by Table 6-3 of the Air Quality Management District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. In accordance with Table 6-3 (Quarterly Threshold for Construction) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the construction of fewer than 559,000 square feet of office buildings, the grading of fewer than 177.00 acres, and the operation of fewer than 96.221 square feet of offices are not considered to create significant impact. Short-term emissions associated with grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project will be mitigated through compliance with the regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the City of Tustin Grading Manual, which includes requirements for dust control. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality plan, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by any Federal or local air quality standard, nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Final EIR and Supplement #1 for the PCESP. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulation is not mitigation per CEQA; consequently, no mitigation is required. c--, . I DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 4 Sources: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules & Regulations City of Tustin Grading Manual Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Project Application Field Inspection Pacific Center East Specific Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a. b. c. d. e. and f: The property is currently vacant. The project site is surrounded by an office complex and light industrial uses. The site is not inhabited by any sensitive or special status species of animals. The proposed project would have no impacts on animal populations, diversity of species or migratory patterns. The project would include the planting of new trees and landscape materials, which would be provided in accordance with the Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species of plant or animalUfe identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations by the Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this proposed project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Field Inspection Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Pacific Center East Specific Plan V. CUL rURAL RESOURCES Items a. b, c. and d: No historical or archaeological resource was known to be on the site; however. if any archaeological remains were uncovered during excavation or construction work in the affected area is required to be suspended until a recognized specialist from an established institution conducts a survey and takes necessary actions in accordance with CEQA guidelines. As a result, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical or archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA. The project would also not directly, or indirectly, destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique DR 06.002 & TPM 2006-103 At1echment A Page 5 geologic feature, and would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Addressed per previous mitigation measures in Final EIR 90-1 Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin Zoning Code Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Tustin General Plan Tustin Historical Resources Survey Report Pacific Center East SpeCific Plan VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS Items a-e: The proposed building would be located on expansive soli per the Seismic Hazard Zone Map prepared by the Califomia Division of Mines and Geology and Table 18- 1-B of the 2001 Uniform Building Code. The site is located within an area that may subject people or structures to strong seismic ground shaking and seismic- related ground failure including liquefaction. However, prior to building permit issuance, a soils report will be submitted to the Building Division identifying any construction techniques necessary to comply with the current local, State, and Federal regulations to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The project site is not located within an area on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. The project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable and would not result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. Since all new buildings in the City operate on the existing sewer system, there would not be any building area located on soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Final EIR and Supplement #1 for the PCESP. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulation is not mitigation per CEQA; consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Tustin General Plan Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 2001 Uniform Building Code DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 6 California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001 Pacific Center East Specific Plan VII. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Items a - h: The project proposes construction of a new 66,578 square foot office complex on a vacant lot. Based upon the nature of the use as an office complex, the project is not anticipated to result In exposure to hazardous substances or interfere with emergency response or evacuation. The applicant is not proposing to transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, and future tenants of the building would be required to comply with City, State, and Federal regulations before transporting, using, or disposing of hazardous materials. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or vicinity of a private airstrip, and since all grading and construction would be subject to compliance with the all applicable Uniform Building and Fire Codes the project would not result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans, wildland fires, etc.). Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulation is not mitigation per CEQA: consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Uniform Building and Fire Codes Submitted Plans Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Tustin General Plan Pacific Center East Specific Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Items a - D: The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will remain a flat site with improved site drainage and additional landscaping. The proposed project does create a potential to impact stormwater runoff from construction and post- construction activities and stormwater pollutant from loading docks and delivery areas. There is also the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, and changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. However, the project would be required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance and most recently adopted NPDES permit (Santa DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 7 Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Order R8-2002-0010), to reduce any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The project would not create a significant increase in erosion of the site or surrounding area since an erosion control plan would be required during construction. The project would be required to comply with the City's Water Quality Ordinance, and as such, would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade water quality in the area, reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The project site is relatively flat, and the proposed project will maintain a flat site with improved site drainage and additional landscaping that would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. The project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project site is not located within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Insurance Rate Map, nor is the project located within a 100-year flood hazard area structure which would impede or redirect flood flows. The project site would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or by inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation Measures: Compliance with existing rules and regulation is not mitigation per CEQA; consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Field Verification Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Califomia Seismic Hazard Zone Map, Tustin Quadrangle, January 17, 2001 Pacific Center East Specific Plan IX. LAND USE PLANNING Items a. b. and c: The subject property is designated by the General Plan Land Use Map as Planned Commercial/Business and zoned Planned Community District under the Pacific Center East Specific Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the applicable land use and zoning regulations. The proposed project would not divide an established community since it includes construction on an existing site DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 8 completely surrounded by other similar office and industrial buildings in an urbanized area. The proposed project is not located in a conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. Mitigation Measures: None Required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Map Pacific Center East Specific Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b: No mineral resources are known to exist on the site and no mining operations exist on the site. Construction on the site would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource, and the site is not located on a mineral resource recovery site. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Tustin General Plan Pacific Center East Specific Plan XI. NOISE Items a - f: The project includes construction of a new 66,578 square foot office complex on a vacant lot. The grading and construction of the site would result in short-term construction noise impacts. However, the Tustin City Code will be enforced to require compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and construction hour limitations. Long-term noise would not significantly be increased since the property would be developed as an office complex in which the noise level generated from the project would typically be less than other light industrial uses in the vicinity. In addition, the site is not located near a residential neighborhood, thus any additional project related noise would be considered insignificant. The proposed DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 9 project would not create excessive ground vibrations, nor would it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels beyond the established standards. Any development within the City is subject to the Tustin Noise standards, thus reducing any potential impacts to a level of insignificance. The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two (2) miles of a public or private airport. The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulation is not mitigation per CEQA; consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Final EIR and Supplement #1 Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Pacific Center East Specific Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING Items a. b. and c: The proposed industrial project would not induce substantial population growth in the area and would not induce substantial population growth wherein new streets or new public services would need to be created. Since the lot is currently vacant, the construction of the new building on the existing vacant parcel would not displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Item a - No ImDact: " The proposed project is proposed within an existing urbanized area where fire and police protection are currently provided. No increase in population is anticipated. DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 10 The project would not create additional demand for an alteration of or addition to existing govemment facilities or services (i.e. fire and police protection, schools, parKs, and other public facilities). Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan XIV. RECREATION Items a and b: The project is not located in proximity to recreational facilities. The project by nature would not substantially increase the use of existing parks or contribute to a substantial deterioration of park facilities, nor would the project create recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No parkland dedication would be required as a result of this project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Pacific Center East Specific Plan XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Items a - f: The proposed project involves the construction of a new 66,578 square foot office complex on a vacant lot. The proposed office use is consistent with the zoning of the site. The project location and use was considered for consistency with uses analyzed in the Final EIR 90-1 and Supplemental #1 for the PCESP, and It was determined that the project would result in the same vehicle trip generation. Although the proposed project would generate new vehicle trips to the site; the increase is consistent with the analyses previously considered in the EIR and Supplement #1 for the PCESP. The project would comply with building thresholds established in the PCESP, and the Tustin Engineering Division has determined the proposed project would be within the traffic thresholds established by Final EIR DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 11 90-1 and Supplemental #1. Therefore, any potential impacts related to traffic would be reduced to a level of insignificance. In addition, the project would not induce substantial population or growth wherein the project would result in changes to air traffic patterns, emergency access, level of service standards, or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemative transportation. The project includes sufficient parking on-site to comply with PCESP parking requirements for the proposed use. As such, no impacts to parking are anticipated. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulation is not mitigation per CEQA: consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan Pacific Center East Specific Plan Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a - Q: The proposed project would not exceed demand requirements of the applicable utility companies serving the site or require or result in the construction of new utility facilities. The proposed project would utilize the existing utility systems and thus would not require construction of a new storm water drainage facility or solid waste facility. The project would utilize the City's existing trash hauler, thus not requiring a new trash hauler. Adequate utility supply from existing resources would be available to serve the proposed project. Mitigation Measures/Monitoring Required: None Required. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplement #1 Tustin General Plan Pacific Center East Specific Plan DR 06-002 & TPM 2006-103 Attachment A Page 12 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Items a - c: The grading, construction, and operation of the proposed project would comply with the regulations of the Community Development Department, Air Quality Management District, and Orange County Fire Authority which reduces any potential impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, traffic, and noise to a level of insignificance. Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. Sources: Submitted Plans Tustin City Code Final EIR 90-1 and Supplemental #1 Tustin General Plan Pacific Center East Specific Plan S:\Cdd\MATT\ParceI Map\PM 2006-100\TPM ~103 CEQA. AtlachmentA.doc