Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 GEN'L PLAN AMEND 01-16-01 GENDA NO. 01 01-16-01 MEETING DATE: TO' FROM' SUBJECT: JANUARY 16, 2001 WILLIAM A. HUSTON., CITY MANAGER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-001 SUMMARY General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00-001 is a proposal to amend all current Elements of the Tustin General Plan related to the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site and a privately owned four acre parcel in the vicinity of Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue owned by the .irvine Company. RECOMMENDATION it is recommended that the Tustin City Council take the following actions' I , , Adopt Resolution No. 00-90 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) prepared for the project as complete and adequate; and Adopt Resolution No. 00-91 approving General Plan Amendment 00-001 FISCAL IMPACT No direct impact on the General Fund at this l~ime. The Tustin General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range planning tool to guide the physical development of the City and its Sphere of Influence. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin is a former military installation that has been closed in the-manner required pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (BRAC), as amended. MCAS Tustin is comprised of 1602 acres and is located within the boundaries of two local jurisdictions (Attachment 1). The majority of the site, or approximately 1,507 acres is located within the City of Tustin. Approximately 95 acres is situated within the City of Irvine. To maximize efficiency of the reuse planning process, the City incorporated two other parcels into the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan as follows: a 17-acre site that will be transferred from the DON to the Department of Army, Army ReserVe; and a privately owned, approximate four-acre parcel located in the vicinity of Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue. William A. Huston G PA 00-001 January 16, 2001 Page 2 When the original decision was made in 1991. to close MCAS Tustin, the local community did not oppose the base's closure. Instead, the community proceeded immediately with planning for reuse. Federal law prOvides the opportunity for a responsible local authority to develop a reuse plan that will guide the disposal actions of the United States Navy (DON) at the site. The City of Tustin ("City") was approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin. The City of Irvine assigned lead agency responsibility to Tustin for the applicable environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other documents related to planning for the civilian reuse of MCAS Tustin. The base reuse planning process involved broad-based participation by affected public and private interests. The City of Tustin formed the City of Tustin Base Closure Task Force to. guide the preparation of a Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The nineteen member advisory group was comprised of representatives from the cities of Irvine, Santa Ana, Tustin, the County of Orange, the Chamber of Commerce and local business interests, local homeowner's associations, the Marine Corps, and the community-at-large. The broad-based representation ensured that issues and concerns of the local community and neighboring .areas would be addressed during the reuse planning process; Prior to identifying any reuse alternatives or scenarios, the Task Force held 20 public hearings and 20 subcommittee meetings, weekend workshops, and considered the results of 33,000 public opinion surveys mailed to the community. In reviewing draft Reuse Plan options and alternatives, the Task Force also considered several background studies and reports including a Market Demand Analysis (identifying the future market demand for different types of uses that could be supported at the base including residential, commercial office, industrial, and 'retail uses); a cultural resources inventory; and, an Environmental Setting Report (providing an inventory of the existing physical and environmental characteristics of the base and surrounding setting). Economic consultants recommended that no more than 20-25% of the project be set aside for public benefit conveyances or the economic feasibility of the project would be jeopardized. Prior to 1994, the disposal of surplus military installations was guided by federal law that placed significant authority and decision-making responsibility upon the military department to screen for possible state and local agency interest in possibly acquiring discounted property for a variety of public purposes. With the adoption of the Base Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 ("Redevelopment Act"), a new community based reuse and screening process was created wherein interested homeless providers, state and local agencies were expected to first work William A. Huston GPA 00-001 January 16, 2001 Page 3 directly with the LRA. In December 1994, the Department of Defense authorized the LRA to initiate a new notice of interest process established by the Redevelopment Act. Under the Redevelopment Act, the Base Closure Task Force again held numerous outreach workshops and meetings and conducted tours of the base. Over the course of several public hearings and a public workshop held in .1996, the Task Force reviewed and considered over 30 reuse requests that, if granted, would have committed over 300% of the MCAS Tustin property to public and homeless use. The Task Force measured each request for property against an established set of criteria and in a manner balancing the community's need for economic development and other community development. Many public agency and homeless organization applications were denied. The Reuse Plan unanimously approved by the Task Force allocates nearly one-third or 518 acres of propertY at MCAS Tustin to public and homeless property use. The participation of the Task Force members was instrumental in building a community-wide consensus and securing unanimous approval of the Reuse Plan in October 1996 which was subsequently amended by an "Errata" in September 1998. On March 2'4, 1998, Assistant Secretary Raul Ramirez of the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the community's Reuse Plan. Full realization of the Reuse Plan will require the approval of several implementing actions including the adoption of a zoning map amendment, Specific Plan, etc. However, the currently proposed action is only for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00- 001. GPA 00-001 is within the City of Tustin's portion of the closed MCAS Tustin site. The proposed action does not affect the portion of MCAS Tustin that lies within the City of Irvine. On November 28, 2000 the Tustin Planning Commission conducted the required public hearing on General Plan Amendment 00-001. During the Public Hearing, 13 speakers made comments regarding the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Repot[ (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin" (the "FElS/FEIR). At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, City staff, provided verbal responses to comments received at the public hearing.' in addition, several letters were submitted to the Planning Commission. One additional letter was received after the conclusion of the Planning Commission. At the conclusion o.f the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General .Plan Amendment 00-001 (Attachment 2). On December 18, 2000, GPA 00-001 was brought before the Tustin City Council. However, at the suggestion of the City Attorney, the item was continued to January 16, 2001 without a staff presentation or public testimony. William A. Huston G PA 00-001 January 16, 2001 Page 4 if approved by the Tustin City Council, GPA 00-001 would amend all Elements of the Tustin General Plan as summarized below: Amendment of the Land Use Element providing a narrative description of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designation for the subject property and placement/designation on the Land Use Policy Map in place of the present Military and Public/Institutional land use designations; Amendment of the Housing Element incorporating a discussion of the base closure process' and potential disposition of existing military ho,using at the former base, opportunities for new housing.provided by the MCAS Tustin project. On March 16, 2000, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the Housing Element revisions proposed in GPA 00-001, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b); Amendment of the Circulation Element, incorporating revisions to the City's Arterial ...;. :..~?.. :, Highway Plan, Master Bikeway Plan that support implementation of the Reuse Plan · .'.'".-"'-'.".......::.:...: .. for MCAS Tustin; Amendment of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element 'incorporating major landscaped roadways proposed at the former MCAS Tustin as landscape corridors, 'and 'identifies at the former base proposed parks as'part of the City's planned park and recreation facilities; Amendment of the Pub#c Safety Element describing the Navy's Base Cleanup Plan (to eliminate military contamination at MCAS Tustin) and potential amendment of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) to accommodate interim blimp flights and heliports; Amendment of the Noise Element reflecting associated with implementation of the. Reuse Plan; projected roadway traffic noise Amendment of the Growth Management Element describing new planned transportation improvements, including the extension of Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue through the site, and the addition of a new loop roadway system within the site. William A. Huston GPA 00-001 January 16, 2001 Page 5 . . in addition, minor narrative and statistical corrections are proposed within each General Plan Element to ensure consistency between the Elements and to update General Plan information. A more detailed description of the changes proposed for each Element is provided in the November 28, 2000 staff .report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3). 'The following additional information is provided for the City Council's consideration' · ,. · Attachment 4 - Minutes from the November 28, 2000 Planning Commission meeting; Attachment 5 - All letters submitted to the Planning Commission (before and after the meeting) and the City of Tustin's written responses to written comments. Please note that some of the responses contained in this document have been modified since it was previously provided to the City Council on December 18, 2000. Attachment 6 - Letter submitted by Culbertson, Adams & Associates to the Tustin City Council on December 18, 2000 and the City of TuStin's written response to that letter. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION' A FEIS/FEIR has been prepared for the proposed action, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) California Public Resources Code, Section 21,000 et. seq. and the State Guidelines, Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq. The City of Tustin and Department of Navy has completed the following actions in preparing the FElS/FEIR: ... : 1. On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released' and published for public review and comment. 2. On July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments on the NOP for the EIS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin.., 3. On January 16,' 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR was released for a 60-day public review and comment (SCH No. 94071005). The Document assessed the significant environmental impact, mitigation, measures, and alternatiVes assoCiated with the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and irvine, California and the subsequent reuse of those properties and other adjacent properties. ' 4. On February 5, 1998, a Public Hearing was held on the initial Draft EIS/EIR. William A. Huston G PA 00-001 January 16, 2001 Page 6 5. On July 8, 1999, a revised Draft EIS/EIR released for a 45-day public review and comment.. A copy was also filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Clearinghouse. The comment period on the revised Draft ElS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. 6. On August 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/FEIR) was then prepared. A 7. On December 23, 1999, the FEIS/FEIR was released for a 30-day public review and comment. The comment period on the FEIS/FEIR closed on January 24, 2000. The FEIS/FEIR provides the required written responses to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 8. Although not required by CEQA, on November .1.7, 2000, a Response to Comments document on the FEIS/FEIR was released. The Response to Comments on the FElS/FEIR has been preparbd and distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the FEIS/FEIR. ":.:-7717' It is the policy of the State of California and the City of Tustin, in accordance with CEQA and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA that 'the City shall not approve a project unless all impacts associated with the project have been avoided to the extent feasible or substantially lessened and any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are found to be acceptable based on overriding benefits. The FElS/FEIR for MCAS Tustin concludes that ali impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the FEIS/FEIR have been reviewed and analyzed, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the EIS/EIR and it is proposed.that any .remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable be found by the City Council to have been balanced against the benefitS of the Project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have' been found to be overriding on each significant impact identified in the FEIS/FEIR that has been found unavoidable. Prior to approving GPA 00-001, the Tustin City Council must certify that the FEiS/FEIR is complete and adequate through the adoption of Resolution No. 00-90 (Attachment 7). in addition, Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared and are included in Resolution No. 00-90, as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, 'respectively. William A. Huston GPA 00-001 January 16, 2001 Page 7 o o · ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 65356 of the California Government Code, the City Council "shall adopt or amend a general plan by resolution." Findings supporting City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan, are identified below: 1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that.the current Tustin General Plan be amended prior to the adoption of implementing actions that will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes. 2. That the City of Tustin has prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with Section 65302 of the California Government Code to address changes associated with planning for the reuse of MCAS Tustin. 3. That approval of General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in a General P!an that will serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan. 4. That approval of General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in the General Plan, its elements and parts thereof being integrated, internally consistent and compatible. 5. That the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. William A. Huston G PA 00-001 January 16, 2001 Page 8 Resolution No. 00-91 adopting GPA 00-001 is provided as Attachment 8. GPA 00-001 is provided as Exhibit 1 of Attachment 8. Christine A. S. hingleton~ Assistant City Manager Dana Ogdo Senior Project Manager Attachments: Attachment 1' Attachment 2' Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5' Attachment 6' Attachment 7: Attachment 8' MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries Planning Commission Resolution No. 3739 Recommending that the Tustin City Council Approve GPA 00-001. November 28, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission on GPA 00-001.' Minutes from the November 28," 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. Letters submitted to the Planning Commission and the City of Tustin's Written Responses. Letter submitted to the City Council on December 18, 2000 and the City of Tustin's written response; Letter submitted to the City Council on December 29, 2000 and the City of Tustin's written response. Resolution.No'. 00-90 certifying FEiS/FEIR for MCAS Tustin as 'adequate and complete and prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Exhibit A: Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for FEIS/FEIR Exhibit B' Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Resolution No. 00-91 approving General Plan Amendment 00-001. Exhibit A: GPA 00-001. Other documents considered' · Vols. i& !! FEIS/FEIR · Technical Appendices · Response to Comments on FEIS/FEIR S:\RDA\CCREPORT~gpa00-001 (2).doc -::.?..-. .-.-:'..-.i..;:.:..i: Atta'ch ment I MCAS .Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries , .., .¸% :, ! '...'.,-.'---'.-. ~-,...,_ ...'%, %'-'.-.-.,:-.~~;;,¢'¢'-. '... :-, ,.,. , :-. ?.:... ;.}:X. ,:-,.,...., ',-';"-¢-~-%'-,'%"--.'*"-.'=-;-"~7,.' ..... k"-' -.%"~ --. ~%':. '.,",. :.%-. .....,. _..,~,:f.,. ...... ~ ............. / . ..,,."'....- ......,..., .../.. ..... . ' ... ' . ~?'~" ., "., " .-. " ., '" -. " ,.',C - '" ... '"., :',. " :. - ... "',/,. - ., -'-,. : . ..-".-".-. ,., "-".,.'"-"- "//., %" .-. -., ".-".-. "., "'. · ...¢.,,, ............ .,,,, ....... ~( ........ -. ,...,.-., .., .... ~, ...... ,/.....,.,.-. .......... .',.~-,.~ /. :............~ .,....... ....,..., .-.. ....~. o,..,, ..-. o~ .~ ,' ...'".,."..,' .... -- o,,." ... ." ....,. -'- .,.. ~' .-... -:.~,,-,.-:.-.,:-.-,,.-.,,-.-.- :-.~_':_'-; :- -._-z:- --. ..... . .............,,, -¢,..~--,.-.,-'----,.-,-'-,.--;:-;--;::::~;--:'-,:-:EE-;---:- -:;.'-.':-..:.-~'-'::.;~?:~ i',-',-'-,'---'--.'-,'-~--x:----,.-.,"-,--,.-.,-'--.--:.-.,-'-. · . ,;, -..-,. ..... . .... . ......., ....,~.- .............. :, ...... ",.;;¢_,,-,-.:--..,"' ....,-.,-'.,.-..,-'-,.--...-..,.'-.,;L..x%..-';,---..-,:-,,--.-, ,.,...,,-..., ,.-. .--,.,; ..;.,.-._--...--.,--_--....-.,--.-,....-..,-~.-- ....,....,.,,.,.,,.-..,..._.,....,.,, , .-..,.., ,. ~: ............... ./., .., ...-¥~_- ....,-..- ,..,-'.,- ,.. .... ...¢ .................. %-,%,.. ....... ¢ ..... ~':,...,-,~ .... . ..... . ......... ,,.., ,.-~,,.., ........... · -- : ..... -"..,,. ,,.. -' ..... ,:. %,~,~"~.. ,,.- ........ ·... ,... .',.. . ,,;,,x ................ ':- -" "'-/-'- ,,,- ,,'- ¢- c'"- ' -.. ,,"- -' .... -'. ..... .,.=--._ ................ 2'.,"',"....-.,-",,-'. -- . .% ...... _...,_.v~c ......................... -.,."-,%';.,~ .......... i- '-"' - - "' % ...... " ........ "" '"" "" '" -'" '" '" ""' ""'"..~ '"'- ,,". -.', ', .-- ' -., ' · ., .~",-,~- - .... ~ .......... ,, ,...-.......... ..- .... .: .... .... .,,. .,,./...... ,... . ,..., .,t,: . :¥ ..%, .............. ,. ;,.: ........ ,..,. .............. . .... ,, .... ~ ,.,. ........ J., ..........~ .:..¢~..:~::.~.`::~:~.:.:~`.;~.:,.:.~...~.,.~:i¢.~,.~:.....~.~.~.~..,.~5...*..,...:...,.. ,,-_.:~,,~-,..,:-¢.-.,::-,::::::::~~,.~,-:-,-.:" ',---.. - · .., ..~. .......... r,~ / ........ ".,"_._-.,"'."...'~',"-.,"¢.'-..--..--. ..... .-~--_--_.~-:-- -. ...... ~-..~4 ............ .%.. ~. · ,. ~ ......... ~. ~- / ~.- ~ ._. ,-....-, ~. ~/,~_ -., .... . .... ....-.-...-./%%.. ~_--, ......... ~?- ~~;-,; .,.- ... .-...~% ...... '% ~'.~- .... "., :..,-'.~ .--..--.--,-.,-,.-- --. ......... .r~,._ . - * - ..,,~ ........ ..~:~ .............. 2':..:--::.,~:-,-.- ~. ,--;-~-:;- :-.~,.., ...... _---?...,,?-:-.--_ ~ :. . ..... . .... ;~.., . ...... ¢ ,~. %. ., ... _. _.~ ...... ~-,.--,--_-...-~ - - -~ -.- - -. ...... .~ :. - ................. .,~.,~ ...... ~ ...__ ...,r. ............. 4 ........... - .... . ........ ,. ........... . .... -, ::-:--;-.;"---- .;,~~:-,:--;t-::-:--.'.". ~ 5 .--.- :. ..... -'-.." ,. -"-"-".,-'"-.'"--...,, - .,.~.'/'~."' '"-".' '" :"~ ',,.-' :'"' '-" -::', v~, -' ."'..'". ~=,',r~- --' '" ." ' .... .:. ,* -,/.. .... /..,..,'". "'" .-~,'" 7. - . -..,.. , ' ', -- --, .:- -,. ~ ~r ai'~-'" , ~... .. ....... / ...... -/-.~_._-..-.."..."..-,,~ :..%--_.~.-..-_-. ..... .-..~ ~ ......... -, ;. ~_~." ",'"' ............................ .,/.,'.-.-..,.,,..,.... ~'-~/-,~, - .... ".,"."..--..'.' ..<~ .................. .,...%~-.-.,,.,~. .... . . . .... ~ .......... ... .... -.,-:.- ...... ,/ ~,-,,.,-. .... ..,. -. ..... . ~.~-,,.-~..,.-.-, ...... ,~..,. .... .~,,.,, ................... ,~. .,-.. :._-_-:.-.,-.,.,,.-,-._-.-..,...-.. -. . ¢.. ........ _~ .................... ,.-/., / .--'_~.. .::-:-.-:.;~,;: :. :~.::.::::~.:.-7..:~-:-.-:._-.~,-,.=,-...-.,,._-...-.,.-,...-.-.¢ -.. .... ..- .... :.: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .................. '-..*-'-~, - ~ _ ....._....~ .._ _.:...%:' 'l.~r~*.' -'-. '.* :~--_--'.'-~-:':-.-'t¢,'~~..%'"-%%/."..: .' ...%: *, ,- :- ...'~ ...... ~:~,.-~:~.`:.~.`~..~.~.-~..~?~.~....~i~.~...~.`...~.`...~..~,.~..~.`~.~,...~ .--, -, .~. ........ ,.?..~.~ .............. ,..... ......, ................................... .~....:...::::~*...~;~::::.:::~......~.~..::.:.:::.:.::`*...x...:.~::~::.:~.:..,.~...:....:..:-'-. :. --%---.-'-..-~-..'-?,.--'-- '. ............. ."/' _ _~,,"'-'~.,-",. "_"' ~ ~'~ ~ ~. ~ ~..¢ .'t_-'97.,r_~-" "' '""" ........... ~- -, ,",~.. * .'. -- -, ~.. ",,".-.'".-."o.~'.-. ...... ." ."."' .... ,,"~'~" "' '". .... .'..."' .: :..-,,.,..:::::..:~:~::.:~-:~..:.~:_~:.:........:...:,,:...... .... . ......... ... ......... : ......:, -:-'.':-7--Y'--',--':'-7--:-.:-~'.,-:--~,.:-.-:y:::..%.,::*'-'- --';"--'7 '." ::: .?.'.-,;--':' ::":"i' ::"7 '.%'~"7' i""-:' 7" '..' ." '~" '..'"7 ~ .':: ':' ::;: .':;! i ~!""-'::': Nr, ,, · Attachment 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 3739,Recommending that the Tustin City Council. Approve GPA 00-001' · .:....; ;. ;' 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOL~ION NO. 3739 I~SOLUTION OF TttE PL.kNNING COM3~SSION OF TItZ CITY OF TUSTLN, I~COM2M2END~G TI-LiT TIlE CITY COUNCIL A~PPROVE GEi~R_4.L PL.a~N AS~ND~~ 00-001, A3q2END~G TI~ TUSTIN GENERAL PL.&N FOR TI-~ REUSE .~qD DISPOSA~L OF FORMER M.~ CORPS AIR STATION (2VIC~) TUSTLN. The Planning Commission of the. City of Tustin ("City") does fi~reby resolve as follows: · I. The Tustin Planning Commission finds and detenuines as follows: A. Marine Corps Air Station (MC~) Tustin has been determined surplus to the needs of the federal government and has been approv, ed for disposal by the United States Department of the Navy (DON) in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Real/~mmaent Act (DBCtLk) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and reali~m~ment decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Reali~mm~ent Commission approved by the President and accepted by Con~ess in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and, B. The City of Tusfin has been approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (L~) for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for preparing a Reuse Plan describing the reuse of the installation and providing recommendations to the DON for disposal of the former base to' various public agencies and the homeless. The goal of base disposal and reuse is economic redevelopment and job creation to heip replace the economic stimulus previously provided by the military installation. The LRA submitted the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense'in October 1996, and an Errata amending the Reuse Plan in September 1998; and, C. The City of Tustin intends to implement the Reuse Plan throu~ the approval or adoption Of a General Plan 'Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adoption of a Specific Plan and other discretionary actions: and, D. California State law requires each City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for its own physical development and for any land outside its boundaries which bears a relationship to its planning activities. The General Plan must be periodically updated to ensure that the Plan accurately reflects City policies, conforms to State law, reflects current court decisions, and provides an integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies designed to reflect any changed characteristics or growth of the community. The closure'ofMCAS'Tustin and implementation of the Reuse Plan would necessitate amendment of the Tustin General Plan; and, Resolution Pa_~2 No. 3739 ...... '--' 10 12 13 16 17 18 19 2O 21 23. 24 25 26 27 28 29 25. The Tustin Planning Commission has received a reauest to considsr and make a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 that is intended to amend the follow/rig General Plan Elements in support of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin: . 'The Land Use Element which designates the proposed general disiribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, includ~g a_m-iculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scerdc beauty; education, public bu/ldings and ~ounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other cate~0fies of public and private uses of land; and o The Housing Element which consists of'an ide. nfificafion and analysis 'of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled pro.urns for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and The Circulation Element which consists of the general location and extent of exist~g and proposed major thorougkfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, al/correlated with the land ~e element of the plan; and The ConServation/Open Space/Recreation Element which describes goals and policies for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources includ/ng water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources; and, describing goals and policies to secure open space for preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation and for the public health and safety; and o The public Safety Element which describes goals" and policies for the protection of the commun/ty from any unreasonable risks associated ~fith the effects of seismically induced surface rapture, ground shak/ng, ~ound failure, tsUnami, seiche, and dam fa/lure; slope instability leading to mudsl/des and' landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards, and other geolo~c hazards; flooding; and wildland and urban fires; and o The Noise Element which identifies mad appraises noise problems in the commun/ty; and To The Growth Management Element which describes goals and policies to ensure that growth and development is based upon the City's 'ability to provide an adequate traffic circulation system; it guides Tustin's participation in interjurisdictional plann/ng efforts and establishes a goal that the provision of jobs and housing be balanced. Resolution No. 37397,.~, ~z--'~,, Page 3 ...:-..-...-::::.... '-'7. ::. :.:' '.; 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 F. On March 16, 2000 the Calk%mia Deparm~em of Housin~ and Communiv Development certified that they had reviewed and approved the Housing Element revisions proposed in this action, pursuant ~o Government Code Section 65585(b); and G. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as knplemented by the .Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR pm-ts 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. et. seq. 21000) and the State Guidelines (Title 14 'Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Depm'-unent of Navy have completed the following actions in preparing the EISfE]X: o On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. 9 On July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments orr the NOP for the EIS/EI~ for reus. e and di~osal of MCAS Tustin. On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EI~ was released'for 60-day public review and comment (SCH NO. 94071005). The Document assessed the si=onificant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with the Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and Irvine, California and.the subsequent reuse of those properties and other adjacent properties. 4. On February 5, 1998, a Public Heating was held on the initial Draft EIS/EIR. o On July 8, '1999, a revised Draft EIS/EI]~ was released for 45-day public review and comment. The comment period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. 6. On AugUst 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. 7. On December 23, 1999, a Final EIS/E~ was released for 30-day public review and comment. The comment period on the Final EIS/EIR was closed on January 24, 2000. The Final EIS/EIR provides the required written. responses to each' comment on the draft EIS/E~ pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section. 21092.5. and NEPA Council on Environmental Quality Regulatiom Section 1503.4. o On November 171 2000, Final Response to Comments on the Final EIS/EIR was released. 9. Prior to approving' the proposed action, the City Council mUSt certify that the Final EIS/EIR is complete and adequate. 10 12 13 14 15 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 '~on No. 3739 H. Thc EIS/EIR was prepared to analyze a proposed project addressing the pomntial cnvixonmcntal effects of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and a wide range of project alternatives. In general, thc EIS/EIP~ evalUates thc proposed project (.~lt. cmative 1-LRA Reuse Plan), two other build-out alternatives (Alternative 2- _~-tcfi~l Grid Pattern/No Corc,5tigh Residential and Alternative 3Mn-tcfial Loop Pattcm/Kcscrvc Arc~/Low Residential) and two no project/no development alternatives (No Action Alternative and Disposal of Navy Property Alternative). For back~ound purposes, Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 arc briefly summarized as follows' -'.. .aAternative 1 - LtL4~ Reuse Plan - Alternative 1 is the alternative submitted by the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to the DON and HUD mad the one that the City of Tustin believes would best meet the commun/%~ objectives of the reuse planning process. This alternative would result in · 4,601 dwelling units (4,049 dwelling un/ts in the City of Tustin) and 11,406,975 square feet of commercial/industrial/recreational square footage; Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Golf Village Mth hotel and ancillary retail uses; an Ufoan Re~onal Park developed around the northern bi/rap hangar; a large Community Core developed with mixed uses including reuse of the southerly blimp hangar if financially, feasible; and specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village campus. .~ternative 2- Arterial Gi-id Pattern/No Core/High Residential- Tkis alternative proposes a ~/ariety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing housing and cultural oppomm/ties for the residents of Tustin, Irvine and nearby communities. This alternative would result in 6,205 dwelling units and 9,214,583 square feet of commercial and business uses, Village Mixed- Uses, and Public Institutional/Commercial functions. A large Cultural Center would be developed 'under this alternative,' and the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated, if fin~cially feasible~ The southern blimp hangar would be demolished under tkis alternative. .Mt6rnative 3 - Arterial Loop Pattern/Reserve'Area)Low Residential-. This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancin~ employment and cultural oppomm/fies for residents of Tustin, Irvine and nearby communities. This alternative would result in 4,340 dwelling units and 10,916,575 square feet of commercial, commercial business, Village Mixed-Use and other business-related uses. A large Cultural' Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and would incorporate the northern blimp hangar, if fin~cially feasible. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished. A 179-acre Reserve Area would include residential, commercial~usiness, and institutional Uses in large-scale development. 10 12 !.3 14 15 16 19 2O 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution .No. I.' In accordance wiih Section 15132 of.the State Guidelines, and the Council on EmSronmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Final EIS;rEIR consists of' 1. The initial Draft EIS/EI~ revised Draft EIS/E~, and Final EIS,qS/X including'Comments and Responses on the revised Draft EIS/E~ and ail appendices and techrfical reports thereto; 2. Comments and Responses on the Final EIS/EIR; 3. Redevelopment Agency staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 28, 2000; . 4. Minutes of the City of Tustin Plann/ng Commission, dated November 28, 2000; J. On November 28, 2000, the Tustin Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to provide a timber opporumity for the general public to comment on and respond to the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001' and K. The T~tin Planning Commission has received, reviewed and considered tbs proposed'General Plan Amendment 00-001, the testimony, evidence and comments made at the public hearing, and the Final EIS/EIR and has made the followin~ Findings: - o That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for. MCAS Tustin necessitates that the'current Tustin General Plan be. amended prior to the adoption of implementing actions that will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes. 2. That the City 'of Tustin has prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with Secticm 65302 of the California Government Code to address changes associated with planning for the reuse ofMCAS Tustin. 3. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan .Amen~ent 00-001 will result in a General Plan that will serve as an effective guide for the orderly ~owth and development, preservation and conservation of open- space land natural resources, and the efficient expenditUre of public fimds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan. 4. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in the General Plan, its elements and parts thereof being inte~ated, internally consistent and compatible. o That the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. 10 I2 13 14 Resolution No. 3739 ....."-' Pa~e 6 The Tusrin Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Tusfi~ City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amend/rig the Tusr[n General Plan as identified in "Exhibit A" attached hereto. PASSED .&ND ADOPTED at a re~lar meeting of the Tust~ Plan~g Cormmission, held on the 28~ day of November 2000. ' -ELIZAd3E~ A. B~SACK Plann/ng Commission Secretary ,gT x x v. I<OZ. Chai~on STATE OF CAI. IF OI~NIA ). COIo~'TY OF OR_~_NGE ) CITY OF TUST[~ ) I, ELIZ.~ETH A. BENSACK, the undersi~maed, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, Califo~a; that Resolution No. 3739 was dulv passed and adopted at a re~mflar me¢ting of the Tust~ Plann/ng Commissio~ held on the 28~= day of November, 2000. p/.~A~ETH A. BINSACK. lanning Commission.Secretary 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Ccresos'3739.do¢ :..'. ':./'..:..: Attachment 3 November 28, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission on GPA 00-001 . . . · epo rt to th e Planning Commission DATE: SUBJECT' APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: NOVEMBER 28, 2000 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-001 CITY OF TUSTIN MCAS TUSTIN BASE PROPERTY GOVERNMENT UNITED'STATES ::::.-%:::!· ..:.;.~,, ,.. LOCATION' · NON-BASE PROPERTY - 4.1 (t 5015 HARVARD AVENUE) ACRE IRVINE COMPANY THE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR (TUSTIN INCORPORATED LIMITS ONLY) STATION, TUSTIN, PRESENT GENERAL PLAN & ZONING' · MILITARY, 'AND PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL; PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)ZONING " ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS' RECOMMENDATION a FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT sTATEMENT/ENVIRON- ' MENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) AND THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).' Adopt Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin citY COuncil approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan. ' ' BACKGROUND · in .accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687)'and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment' Commission approved by the President and . accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995, the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) · Tustin was closed on July 2, 1999. Federal law provides the opportunity for the responsible local authority to develop a reuse plan that will' guide the disposal actions of the United States Navy (DON) at the site. The City of Tustin ("City") was approved by the Department of Defense as the Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 2 Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin. In October 1996, the City, acting as the LRA for MCAS Tustin, submitted a Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the DON. 'Minor revisions to the Reuse Plan were identified in an "Errata" to the Reuse Plan that was forwarded to the DON in September 1998. MCAS Tustin is comprised of 1602 acres and is located within the boundaries of two local jurisdictions (Attachment 1). The majority of the site, or approximately 1,507 acres is located within the City of Tustin. Approximately 95 acres is situated within the City of irvine. To maximize efficiency of the reuse planning process, the City incorporated two other parcels into the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan as follows: a 17-acre site that will be transferred from the DON to the Depad. ment of Army, Army Reserve; and a privately owned, approximate four-acre parcel located in the vicinity of Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue. Between November 1992 and October 1996, the City of Tustin held numerous public meetings, workshops, weekend workshops and public hearings soliciting public input 'and comment on a variety of base redevelopment issues, opportunities and constraints. These efforts eventually led to the development;' consideration and rejection of a number of Reuse Plan alternatives prior to the selection of the approved Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan is intended to serve as both a policy-oriented and regulatory document. The Reuse Plan has been submitted to the Department of Defense as a policy guide outlining the intended reuse for. the site. Contingent upon future zoning, adoption of the General Plan Amendment'within the City could result in a maximum of 4,049 dwelling, units; Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; an Urban Regional Park designation around the northern blimp hangar; a large Community Core area allowing mixed uses; specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village; and a Golf Village area with hotel and ancillary retail uses. Approximately 11.4 million square feet of non-residential' uses such as commercial business, light industrial, public and recreation uses (approximately 2.2 million feet is existing floor area on the base an'd 9.2 million square feet is potential new floor area) could be'developed. Both of'the National Register of Historic Places listed blimp hangars could be reused, if financially feasible. ... Full realization of the community's Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin will require the approval of several implementing actions. These implementing'actions will offset the negative socioeconomic effects caused by Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and facilitate an economically, viable and balanced reuse plan th'at will provide housing and employment opportunities, solve existing community circulation and recreation parkland deficiencies and generate sufficient revenue (property tax, sales tax or other revenue such as .land sales proceeds, developer infrastructure payments or special assessment district financing) to support the investment in infrastructUre required to convert the site to productive .civilian purposes. Planning Commission Report. GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 3 The currently proposed action is only for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00-001. GPA 00-001 is within the City of Tustin's portion of the closed MCAS Tustin site. The proposed action does not affect a portion of MCAS Tustin that lies within the City of Irvine. -.':;; ;.'.' ..:. . DISCUSSION -- ,, Site and Surroundin~l Properties Surrounding properties are described as follows' Uses to the north (from the westerly "Red Hill Avenue" edge to the easterly "Harvard Avenue" edge)include a light industrial. business park, and indoor and outdoor storage facility, commercial uses, Edinger Avenue, the Southern California RegiOnal Rail Authority (SCRRA), two large single-family residential tracts (Tustin Meadows and Peppertree), the Santa Aha/Santa Fe Channel, a lar§e industrial park to the east of the proposed extension of Tustin Ranch Road and a light industrial/commercial/service business are located near jamboree Road and Edinger Avenue. ,. Uses to the west (from the northerly "Edinger Avenue" edge to th® south'erly "Barranca Parkway" edge)include light industrial, commercial business, business park,' and research and development uses. Properties located, south, of Warner Avenue are within the City of Santa Aha. Properties north of Warner Avenue are within the City of Tustin. Uses to the south (from the westerly "Red Hill Avenue" edge to the eastedy "Harvard Avenue" edge)include a combination of bUsiness park, light industrial, industrial and commercial uses in the City of lrvine. Adjacent to Harvard Avenue and south of Tustin's jurisdictional boundaries 'are existing residential units and vacant property within the City of irvine at the former MCAS Tustin. Uses to the east (from the southerly "Barranca Parkway" edge to the northerly SCRRA railroad tracks edge)include residential (Village 38) and recreational uses within the City of lrvine. proiect Description GPA 00-001 would amend the Tustin General Plan as summarized below: '-.7..i..?. :,,' Amendments are proposed to the general description of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, its plan development process, and associated issues, goals, and policies. ~. Amendment of the' Land Use Element of the General Plan provides a narrative description of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designation for the subject property and placement/designation on the Land Use Policy Map in place of the present Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 4 Military and Public/Institutional land use designations, and provides other minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information. GPA 00-001 would also add Goal 13 and amend Policy 7.6. Specifically, the Land Use Element revisions seek to maximize the appeal of the site as a mixed use, master planned development to create results that are very special and worthy of the site's present and historical importance. The planned land use designation for the site will accommodate a range of land uses that will provide a healthy balance of market'driven, private sector uses along with a wide range of public serving uses. A variety of housing opportunities, employment, educational and community support uses will complement surrounding uses and strengthen the economic base of the area. The Plan land use designation for the site would permit community facilities and infrastructure' necessary to support the planned uses' and provides critical links to local and regional transportation system and trails. The location and mix of uses within the future proposed Specific Plan would be intended 'to minimize noise, traffic, air quality and other potential environmental impacts. Aiso, design guidelines and development standards within the future Specific Plan would address the aesthetic integration of uses within the site and with surrounding uses. Amendment of the HoUsing Element incorporates a discussion of the base closure .process and potential disposition of existing military housing at the former base, opportunities for new housing provided by the MCAS' Tustin project, and provides other minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements' and to update General 'Plan information. GPA 00-001 proposes no'new Goals for the Housing Element, but does amend Policy 1.15. Approval of the proposed GPA 00-001 would support implementation of a future Specific Plan permitting a variety of Iow density, medium density, and medium-high density residential uses at the former base to accommodate the diverse socio- economic needs within the community. On March 16, 2000, the California Department of. Housing and Community Development (HCD) apprOved the Housing Element revisions proposed in GPA 00- 001, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). Amendment of the Circulation Element, incorporates revisions to the City's Arterial Highway' Plan, Master Bikeway Plan, and narrative discussion to be consistent with the other General Plan Element changes and the future Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin. The proposed Circulation Element amendment identifies extensions of Tustin Ranch Road from Edinger Avenue to Barranca. Parkway, Warner Avenue · from Red Hill Avenue to Jamboree Road, and the addition of a new loop system Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 5 consisting of Valencia North Loop Road and South Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, East Connector and West Connector. in addition, pedestrian and bicycle paths are shown and discussed. They would connect with nearby existing and planned local and regional facilities as well as serving as a significant mode of transportation internally within the Plan area. GPA 00-001 proposes, no new Goals for the Circulation Element but does amend Policies 3.8 and 4.1. · Amendment of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element incorporates major landscaped roaCways proposed at the former MCAS Tustin as landscape corridors, and identifies at the former base proposed parks as part of the City's planned park and recreation facilities, and other minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information: GPA 00-001 proposes no new Goals for the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element but does amend Policies 12.1, 14.4, 15.1, and 18.5. -- Approval of the proposed GPA 00-001 will support a mixture of'uses that Will enable people to live and work at the site. Numerous. public parks, private recreational facilities, and trails are discussed in the General Plan Amendment, including an opportunitY for a planned 18-hole golf course and other private recreation facilities. The former base contains two blimp hangars that are on the National Register of Historic Places, which may be preserved if financially feasible. · .. Amendment of the Public Safety Element describes the Base Cleanup Plan and potential amendment of the Airport .Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)to accommodate interim blimp flights and heliports and proposes other minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information. GPA 00-001 proposes no new Goals for the Public Safety Element but does amend policies 3.8, 4.8, 5'1, 5.6, and 7.6. MCAS Tustin has been a user of hazardous materials and there have been numerous documented spills and leaks on the site. The military is currently implementing remedial actions necessary to remediate contamination to levels that would support future redevelopment as defined in the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin. · Amendment of. the Noise Element reflects projected roadway traffic noise associated with implementa{ion of the Reuse Plan and proposes, other minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information. GPA 00-001 proposes no new Goals and Policies for the Noise Element. Planning Commission Repod GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 6 Amendment of .the Growth Management Element describes new planned transportation improvements, including the extension of Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue through the site, and the addition of a new loop roadway system within the site, and proposes other minor narrative and' statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information. GPA 00-001 proposes no new .Goals and Policies for the Growth Management Element. Approval of the proposed GPA 00-001 would support the generation of more than 20,000 jobs at the site at build-out, which will improve the jobs/housing balance within the City. The mix of uses proposed will enable people to live, work, shop recreate, and attend schools (including college level)within the Reuse Plan area. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION , , A Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been .prepared for the proposed action,, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 "'"-'"'"~..::.-.........-:...- CFR parts.1500-1508) and the California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA) California .... Public Resources Code, Section 21,000 et. seq. and the State Guidelines, Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.. The City of Tustin .and Department of Navy has completed 'the following actions in preparing the EIS/EIR: 1. On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. : 2. On July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments on'the NOP for the EiS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. 3. On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR released for 60-day public review and comment. (SCH No. 94071005). The Document assessed the significant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and lrvine, California and the subsequent reuse of those properties and other adjacent properties. 4. On February 5, 1998, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. 5. On July 8, 1999, a revised Draft EIS/EIR' released for public 45-day review and comment, A copy was also filed with.the U.S. Environmental Protection AgencY and the State Clearinghouse. The comment.period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. '::.:.'i'..::. 6. On Au:gust 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 7 7. On December 23, 1999, a Final EISIEIR released for 30-day public review and comment. The comment period on the Final EIS/EIR was closed on January 24, 2000. The Final EIS/EIR provides the required written responses to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and NEPA Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Section 1503.4. 8. On November 17, 2000, Final Response to Comments o'n the Final EIS/EIR was · released. A Response to Final Comments on the EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin has been prepared and distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the Final EIS/EIR (Attachment 2). For informational purposes, copies of the draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding ConsideratiOns and draft Mitigation Monitoring Report are provided in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, respectively. The Planning Commission is not holding a public hearing for the Final EIS/EIR nor will the Planning Commission be taking any formal action on Final EIS/EIR prior to making a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on GPA 00-001. Prior to approving GPA 00-001, the Tustin City Council must certify that the Final EiS/EIR is complete and adequate. ANALYSIS , , The City Council has the ultimate authority to adopt the General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council on the proposed . General Plan Amendment 00-001. Findings supporting the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 3739 (Attachment 5) recommending 'that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan are identified below: .., ',::_..'..: 1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin General Plan be amended prior t° the adoption of implementing actions that will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes. 2. That the City of Tustin has prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with Section 65302 of the California Government Code to. address changes associated with planning for the reuse of MCAS Tustin.. 3.. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in a General Plan that will serve as an effective' guide for the orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan. Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 8 4.. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in the General Plan, its elements and parts thereof being integrated, internally consistent and compatible. 5. That the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the Public health, safety .and welfare of the community. Christine A. Shingleto~.,/ Assistant City Manager Dana Ogd0n Senior Project Manager' Attachment: Attachment 1' Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4' Attachment 5' S:\CDD~PCREP'ORT~casgpa.doc MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries Response to' Final Comments on the Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Final EIS/EIR Draft Mitigation Monitoring Report for Final EiS/EIR Resolution 3739 and Exhibit A, General Plan Amendment 00-001 oo 'Attachment 4 Minutes from the November 28, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting ? :.'.._:...? ' MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMIvllSSION REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: NOVEMBER 28, 2000 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Kozak ROLL CALL: Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, Miller, and Pontious Present: Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, lviiller, and Pontious Staff: Lois Jeffrey, City Attomey Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager/Director, Redevelopment Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager (Redevelopment) Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager (Transportation) Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: There were no Public Concerns. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of November 1'4, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Jennings seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. .. PUBLIC HEARINGS: .. . General Plan Amendment 00-001 a proposal to amend 'all current Elements of the Tustin General Plan to support the federal disposal action and the' community actions needed to implement the Plan Within the City of Tustin portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site. ., APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN PROPER'PC OWNER: LOCATION: MCAS TUSTIN BASE PROPERTY- UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NON-BASE pROpERTY - 4.1 ACRE IRVINE. . COMPANY (15015 HARVARD AVENUE) .. THE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, TUSTIN '(TUSTIN INCORPORATED LIMITS ONLY) ·. Planning Commission 1,4inules November 28, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan.. The Public Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Dana Ogdon, Redevelopment Agency Senior Project Manager, presented the report. Chairman Kozak invited members of the public to present testimony, asking that they restrict their comments to General Plan Amendment 00-001. Karina Valenzuela, Student Trustee for Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD"), stated there has been a 45 percent increase in enrollment at Santa Aha College and Santiago Canyon College in the past five years' stated the District projects a 10 percent increase in enrollment by 2010; space is a major concern; asked if Santa Ana's largely Hispanic student population is the reason they are being denied what is'rightfully theirs while the largely white student population attending South Orange County Community College District are getting the prize' over 53,000 students enrolled at RSCCD during 1999-2000 school year; and, asked, as the representative for those students, that RSCCD be fairly treated for a portion of the acreage that lies between the district boundaries. · Fortino Rivera, representing Santa Aha residents, referred to the overcrowding in Santa Aha Unified School District; asked that justice not be distorted and Space denied to the students of Santa Aha, the parents of Santa Aha only ask for equal rights for their children; stated this proposal 'lacks truth and a portion of the land was formerly allocated to SAUSD or, RCCCD which has now been taken away; noted that Santa Aha impacts Tustin; therefore, improving Santa Aha also improves Tustin; and, discrimination against the students of Santa Aha denies them their civil fights. Cindy .Nelson, representing the City of Santa Aha, commented for the p.ublic record: 1) there is a fundamental disagreement with the environmental document in that the traffic study underestimates the impacts of the base development on the City of Santa Aha; the model used in the study assumed that all arterial improvements would be completed by the year 2020 per Santa Ana's Master Plan of Arterial Highways; this assumption is faulty as there are no current funds or'anticipated future funds necessary to complete all the improvements by 2020; the EIR should assume Worst case which 'is Santa Aha infrastructure as it is today; Santa Aha cannot fully fund all of arterial projects within 'timeframe provided; the situation is not unique to most cities who are struggling to keep up with deferred maintenance of their major'arterials; the EIR assumes that the transportation corridors will operate as free facilities and reduce traffic on surrounding roadways; recent forecasts from the Transportation Corridor Agency dispute, this assumption; a General Plan Amendment of this magnitude requires the Planning Commission and City Council consider an appropriate balance of community needs, economic realities, and impacts on surrounding communities; the EIR does not consider a reasonable range of alternatives that would accomplish this; the reuse plan attempts to maximize commercial and residential development for economic purposes .rather than providing more community amenities, lower densities of development, and less impact on Tustin's. neighboring cities' the EIR fails to determine the feasibility of implementing the recommended mitigation measures; the EIR assumes that an agreement will be reached with the City of Santa Aha and other affected jurisdictions and that future environmental review will be undertaken with subsequent phases of development and that agreements as to appropriate mitigation measures will be negotiated at that time; this approach is contrary to CEQA and eliminates future remedies for the City of Santa Aha if agreement cannot be reached; steps are being taken with the City staff to initiate discussions with Santa Aha to address these concerns; ... , · , · . Planr~in~ Commission Minutes November 28.2090 Page '-' given the serious implications of proceeding with these entitlements, the City of Santa Aha would like the item continued' until the two cities have had fudher opportunity to develop a mutually agreed upon mitigation plan' failure to do so will require pursuance by Santa Aha of all appropriate means to assure adequate steps are taken to mitigate the project on the City of Santa Aha. Chairman Kozak verified with Ms. Nelson that her statements were official comments of the City of Santa Aha. Novel James, representing James Golf Development Company, urged that the project move forward with a green area that will help pay for other development of the base. Ed Connor, representing the Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), RSCCD, the Riveras, Garcias, and Ms. Valenzuela, referred to a letter presented to the Commissioners at the meeting, which was prepared by his office and sent to staff earlier and an eadier letter on behalf of the above parties which was sent to the Department of the Navy; these letters address potential/actual violations of. Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; two additional letters have been sent to the City and the Navy Department regarding the environmental objections to the EIS/EIR; agreed with the speaker from the City of Santa Ana that this hearing was noticed to discuss the environmental document; stated his concern that a recommendation will be made to the City Council without passing on the adequacy of the environmental document; asked why the City is going forward with the Public Hearing; the City has undercounted the number of students that will be added to the public school system in Santa Aha (77,000 new jobs projecting 82 to 500 students to the SAUSD); no new school sites are planned for Santa Aha or Rancho Santiago; the City has not set forth proper mitigation measures to deal With overcrowding; suggested taking the 100 acres planned for South Orange County Community College Distdct and share it with all five school districts whose' boundaries cover that base; there is no reason to exclude .... two school districts; stated the only reason for not doing so is ethnic origins; asked why the City is excluding two districts while admitting adding 500 students to those same districts; requested a mitigation measure that would resolve dilemma for everyone. Martin N. Burton, Aivarado, Smith & Sanchez, co-counsel for SAUSD and RSCCD, stated that: the City knows the SAUSD and RSCCD have profound objections to the reuse plan; that it is an aggressive tactic to move forward to force a wholly unacceptable plan upon the City's neighbors and co-cjoveming agencies; this action is a clear violation of Governor Davis' directive to Tustin to work with Santa Aha when he vetoed legislation that Would have expedited development at the Marine Base; the SAUSD and RSCCD share jurisdiction over 160 acres at the Base with the City; the City is excluding SAUSD 'and RSCCD and ignoring the needs of Santa Ana; 40 percent of SAUSD children attend school in .portable classrooms, structures that were not meant to house students permanently--24,000 students, or one and one-half times the entire population of Tustin Unified School District;, there is no land left in Santa Ana for schools; the United States Department of Education in 1994 approved SAUSD's application to transfer 75 of the 160 acres to Santa Aha for new classrooms; the reuse plan the City has proposed rejects the Department of Education's own approval and completely shuts out SAUSD and RSCCD; the City provided in the MCAS Tustin Base Reuse Plan ("the Plan") free land to several jurisdictions in wealthier communities which have fewer needs than Santa Ana's; for Irvine '" Unified, the City has proposed 20 acres for schools;' for Tustin Unified, the. City has- proposed 60 acres; for South Orange County Community College District, 100 acres; the wealthy jurisdictions with lower needs receive 18q acres; the needy jurisdictions, SAUSD and RSCCD; get nothing; Santa Ana children deserve the same educational opportunities as wealthier neighbors; classrooms on this property would fill that need; moving forward with this action is antithetical to the compromising .posture that the Tustin City Manager has represented in the newspapers; urged that the Planning Commission not take this action, to put it on hold, and, to grant property to SAUSD and RSCCD. Plannin2 Commission l,~inutes November 28, 2000 Page 4 Peter Hersh, Assistant to the City Manager, City of lrvine, stated that: in subparagraph k, page 5, of Resolution 3739, it states that the Tustin Planning Commission "has received, reviewed and considered the proposed GPA and final EIS/EIR; stated his assumption that the Commission was considering the EISIEIR and that comments in that regard are appropriate; the City of Irvine has a nine-year history with the Base closure; they have worked with the City regarding the closure and development of the Plan; they worked with the City on the Restoration Advisory Board; the Ir'vine City Manager voted in 1996 to support the Plan; they worked with City staff and counsel negotiating a Redevelopment Cooperation' Agreement benefiting both cities regarding the development of housing along Harvard Avenue; they have written letters in support of Tustin on legislation to facilitate implementation of the Tustin Legacy; they have worked with the City drafting letters to the Departments of Defense and Navy on expediting the transfer process that has been stalled' they are looking forward to working with Tustin to get the Plan developed and the · Irvine hc~using units on line as soon as pc~ssible; reiterated comments from the past regarding the EIS/EIR: forwarded three letters to the City, March 2, 1998; August 27, 1999; and January 28, 2000; stated the remaining issues relate to traffic issues. · Chairman Kozak interrupted to verify that Mr. Hersh's comments were official, Comments of the City of lrvine. Mr. Hersh responded affirmatively and stated his desire to summarize the contents of the foregoing letters' he addressed the issues of the traffic study methodology, especially pertaining to the areas of project definition, the socioeconomic data that was used, and the interim year impacts of the build-out of the project; on these issues, the EIR has been revised; in the second revised draft, on August 27, 1999, lrvine sent another letter focusing on the mitigation measures Irvine believed would work for both the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin to define a process for cooperative study addressing phasing, funding, and implementation of roadway improvements and circulation issues; irvine prepared an lrvine Business Complex Plan in 1991; the City of Tustin took an active position address'lng concerns; going from 15,000 trips from the military to 200,000 trips requires a revisit to the traffic, and circulation system in this area involving the jurisdictions mentioned; lrvine proposed draft language to incorporate as a mitigation measure which has not been incorporated in the final EIR; a letter on January 28, '2000, reiterated the need for cooperative study and addressed the issue relative to Traffic Mitigation Measure No. 9 relating to roadway improvements on the Base assuring, the City of lrvine and other jurisdictions be involved in the traffic study preparation process to insure that the roadways identified in the plan are funded and. implemented before development proceeds again; the first comment letter dealt with the'traffic phasing, funding, and implementation on a macro basis; the comment of January 28, 2000, dealt with micro level traffic studies for the Plan itself; in discussions with the City staff these issues have not been addresSed; although he stated ~at their paramount issues have been addressed, the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin should come to terms on mitigation measures before final action is taken on the EISlEIR; based on Resolution No. 3739, the Tustin Planning Commission is considering the final EIS/EIR; for these reasons, the comments of the City of. irvine seemed appropriate. * Craig Fumiss, a resident of the local community and Senior Vice .President of 'Lowe Enterprises Commercial Group, a commercial developer selected as one of the final four' for the commercial section of the Tustin Legacy. project, spoke in support of adoption of the General Plan Amendment; stated his excitement about the possibilities the Base provides for local community and business; this is an important first step in putting, the Base back into use; it will be good for the City and good for the community. Robert L. Eiliott, an irvine resident, expressed his concern regarding the n. egative impact the development of the Base will bring, adding more roads, more traffic, more traffic signals, more buildings, and more people; the construction will create a mess affecting the residents of lrvine; Jamboree Road is already gridiocked during 'morning/evening rush Plannin~ Commission I~inutes I,,lovember 28, 2000 Page 5 · . .::-.:...-. ,' hours; adding roads does not always solve problems; he urged that planning and development of the Base proceed with caution, giving consideration to present and future residents. Laura C. Curran, Tustin resident and educator, stated her unfamiliarity with technical facets of the proposal; asked that the Commission consider joint planning and building with the Sa'nra Ana Unified School District and Tustin Unified School District; she taught overseas for many years where several districts would come together, providing different focal points benefiting the students; Santa Ana has an innovative spirit, such as bringing the Orange County Center for Performing Arts to the center of Santa Ana, making it accessible to students in Santa Ana as well as Tustin; fundamental schools such as MacArthur' Intermediate are popular with students; the recently opened second Spanish . language immersion school in Santa Aha shows that the SAUSD has innovative programs which are attractive to their students across the population; she is involved with work at Century High School and can attest that Santa Ana has demonstrated com .mitment to their students; she encouraged a dialogue between the City. of Tustin and RSCCD and SAUSD versus a contradictory approach; and, asked why not build facilities that are attractive for everyone. .. David Meivold, President of North lrvine Villages Association representing approximately 19,000 residents, expressed concern regarding adequacy/assurance of funding and 'implementation of the proposed mitigation measures of this project; lack of confidence that studies are adequate and fully detailed regarding the impact of the roadway system to North irvine; his residents are stuck between two major projects--Tustin Ranch, Lower' Peters Canyon, and the Base on one side with the development proposed on the east side of Jeffrey including the El Toro Marine Base; he is concerned that yards and greenbelts will be tom up to make asphalt for these developments; he urged that Tustin and the City of Irvine get together and reciprocate each other regarding El Toro and other development on both sides of North lrvine; the traffic on irvine Boulevard in the evening is so slow that walking is .faster;, Jamboree is like New York City in the morning and. evening; he expressed concem regarding irvine Boulevard, Cuiver. Drive, the !-5 offramps, Walnut, Harvard; he would like to see energetic effort by the cities of irvine and Tustin to provide a realistic solution and a development that does not make it impossible for existing residents. " Roger McCullough, a resident of the PePper~ree tract in Tustin, stated the tract will be impacted by the traffic noise created by the Base; it will become impossible to open windows during the summer due to noise and fumes; asked the Commission to look at the mitigating circumstances con~;erning noise and .buffer the citizens even more; the Commission should consider prohibition of trucks using roads; acknowledged that Tustin Legacy is important to the City's future but current residents should be protected. Berklee Maughan, a Tustin resident, read from the staff report "this General Plan has been found to be in the best interests of the public h~alth, safety, and welfare of the community," then asked if it is in the best interest to adopt a plan that exceeds AQMD daily standards for hazardous pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides by as much as 3,100 percent; to adopt a plan that calls for an increase in local traffic by 215,000 additional vehicle trips per day; to adopt a plan that calls for roadway improvements that require massive funds, the source of which is unidentified; the fundamental problem with this process is the City staff has hot considered or analyzed any alternative proposal that would result in 'lower density, less traffic congestion, and more acceptable impacts to our air quality which is already acknowledged to be the worst in the nation; for City staff to conclude that monumental problems in the plan are unavoidable begs the question: Why not just Change the plan?; the City of Tustin as the legally designated local redevelopment agency has the absolute authority to change the plan in any way it desires to correct the problems to a substantial degree; a plan resulting in lower density would also please the Federal government and make it easier for the City to obtain the no-cost transfer of the Planning Commissian Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 6 Base property that it seeks' he shared his agreement with the City of Santa Aha and the City of irvine that the City has not made timely responses to written concerns (referred to a letter he wrote to which he did not receive an answer for ten months); suddenly hearings are scheduled' the EIPJEIS is an integral part of the concern; the General Plan Agreement is not ready to go to the Council; the project needs work on mitigating traffic congestion, air pollution, and identifying sources to fund these mitigation measures; the. City of Santa Aha has no funds or plans far expanding Warner to six lanes; unless measures are taken to identify the funding sources, the air pollution and traffic will be much worse than stated; the City is trying to get cooperation from other cities through agreements in the future after codification of the EIR by the Council; stated his hope that the Planning Commission was.. listening to comments being presented to them and that the General Plan Agreement will not be recommended for adoption by the. City Council but continued to a later date in order to work out some of the problems. Chairman Kozak stated he had made notes and asked staff if it would be appropriate to highlight some of the issues and have staff summarize and provide input for the Commission before further discussion among the Commissioners. Doug Holland, Deputy City. Attorney, responded that the Chairman should close the Public Hearing, share concerns, and adjourn for a recess to allow staff to prepare their responses. Mr. Holland also stated that the EIPJEIS was provided as an informational document to be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission, but no formal action is to be taken by the Commission because the EIPJEIS is strictly a.legislative action being referred to the City Council for action. At that time, the Council will take formal action in regard to the EIPJEIS. Chairman Kozak stated he would share his comments. Christine Shingleton stated it was necessary to close the Public Hearing and pose any questions for staff before the recess. Chairman Kozak suggested it Would be appropriate to t'ake a recess. Lois Jeffrey, City Attomey, stated it was appropriate, since all speakers has been heard, to close the Public Hearing at which time the Commission could share questions and issues to be considered by staff, stating also that staff planned to painstakingly address issues brought forward at this Heating. Chairman Kozak closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 Commissioner Miller remarked that it was very interesting listening to the comments of the various speakers; stated his concern regarding the change.in the amount of land provided for Santa Aha Unified School Distdct and asked for more information; he asked what is being done regarding traffic congestion and air pollution; he asked how density and development of the property was decided. Chairman Kozak summarized his concerns as follows: school districts, traffic modeling from City of irvine and the City of Tustin, shared jurisdiction of the property with respect to representatives from SAUSD and RSCCD, the City's actions being contrary to CEQA, the City of irvine's statements regarding Resolution 3739 and EIR consideration, joint planning efforts, and funding mitigation measures. F~eoess. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. · · . ,. Plannirlg Commission 1,4inutes November 28, 2000 Page 7 '..-.-.: .:. ;,,' Doug Holland reiterated that the Planning Commission is sometimes asked to approve and certify environmental documents presented to the Commission before taking action; on all the items brought to the Commission, a decision is made which can be appealed to the City Council; if no appeal is made, the Planning Commission decision is final; the Planning Commission is obligated to codify the Commission has reviewed any environmental documentation before taking action to approve or disapprove a project; tonight's action is strictly a recommendation to the City Council; the Planning Commission is not required under CEQA to take any formal action on the environmental documentation; the Planning Commission is only obligated to consider the documentation, along with all other comments and testimony provided at tonight's meeting, as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Christine Shingleton stated staff would address variobs issues by category and began with the school issue: Tustin is sensitive to the overcrowding issue raised by SAUSD; approximately 120 acres at the southwest portion of the Base is located within SAUSD; no housing i¢ proposed to be built on that portion of MCAS-Tustin; it is proposed for commercial industrial development; the nearest housing occurring within the SAUSD and RSCCD would be over a mile. and a half radius away, separated by the SR 55 freeway and large industrial tracts on both sides of the freeway; other school districts cited on the record proposed to receive property, not as part of the General Plan Agreement but as part of the recommended disposal action by the Navy (not an action before the Planning Commission this evening), are recommended for receipt of property based, upon direct impacts on those school districts where school enrollment will increase due to housing actually being developed on the Base; the school generation factor tied to that impact analysis is state-of-the-art in terms of the projections indicating direct impacts; the City carefully considered the studies provided by SAUSD; hired technical experts in socio- economic demography and school issues to project a potential range of imp'actsmusing much of the methodology provided by SAUSD; as part of that analysis, the City's technical experts concluded that development within the' SAUSD portion of the site will not create direct impacts, on SAUSD; under the comprehensive legislative scheme adopted by Senate Bill 50, there is opportunity for development fees that could be realized by the SAUSD, and cities throughout the state are obligated to resolve existing over-crowding problems and to require imposition of those fees adopted by local school districts; the City has made a number of offers to SAUSD; beyond the development-fee issue and what the City is restricted to offer by Senate Bill 50., the City has publicly made an offer to provide ten acres at the Base to serve as an elementary school; any indirect impacts on school enrollment are largely 'expected. at this' level based on methodology developed by the FEIS/FEIR experts; the South Orange Community College District has also offered publicly to support attendance' by an additional 1,000 SAUSD high school students in an advanced technology center in the 100-acre learning village at the MCAS-Tustin site; in good faith the City is continuing negotiations on school issues; a week ago the City felt close to a transactional agreement with SAUSD and RSCCD; for. the record, the City is continuing in good faith to move toward resolution of this issue; as it affects the documents . this evening, the City has met all obligations under the law; for purposes of clearing up any misconception regarding representations that SAUSD and RSCCD have a valid, approved conveyance from the Federal. Department of Education: before the current Base closure legislative scheme adopted in 1994 was in place, there was a screening process under which public agencies could go directly to the Federal government to ask for decisions on former military bases without going through local redevelopment authority; that process became' null and void with adoption in 1994 of the Base Closure Redevelopment Homeless Assistance Act;, under provisions of that Act, ali new requests and old requests had to come back through the local redevelopment/reuse authority for approval; at that time the Base Closure TaSk Force and Tustin Gity Council did not recommend property for SAUSD or RSCCD because of the issues that related to direct versus indirect impact; all of the adjacent jurisdictions unanimously supported the decisions of the Base Closure Task Force, including the City of Santa Ana and the City of irvine. Planning Commission M~nutes November 28, 2000 Page 8 Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer, stated as follows: Traffic Study Methodology: There is not an issue with i.rvine with the traffic study methodology at this point. We have been able to work out the methodologies with Irvine and have a letter of acceptance from them dated the first pad of 1999 or the latter part of 1998. The traffic study for the final EIS/EIR was prepared using regionally accepted methodology consistent with the Orange County subarea modeling guidelines manual and the congestion management program and County growth management plan guidelines as appropriate for.a project of this size with regional influence. This approach insures the equitable treatment of all affected, jurisdictions and allows an objective analysis based upon accepted methodology ,in the entire traffic study area. We ali know traffic volumes throughout the region and the study area are projected to increase in the future. These are projected by demographic data as well as County traffic modeling. However, the future condition also includes various improvements to existing roadways, construction of new roadways, new land-use patterns and more travel-mode choices for commuters. The traffic model used for this project provides the latest traffic distribution patterns throughout the region. At some locations within the FEIS/EIR, traffic will increase while at other locations there is a decrease in traffic. This is based upon land-use generators and travel-distribution patterns. Traffic volumes vary throughout the region also based upon the new capacity that this project will add. Traffic Corridors' as Free Facilities: Transportation corridors were analyzed as toll facilities in the 2005 scenario. They were analyzed as toll facilities and free facilities in the 2020 scenario. They Were analyzed as totally free facilities in the post-2020 analysis scenario which was provided for informational purposes only. EIR Traffic Study Underestimates the Traffic Impacts in Various JuriSdictions: We feel that the accepted and consistent methodology the traffic study was based on does not provide for any underestimation of any traffic impacts within the study area. To date, we have not 'seen any substantial information from other jurisdictions or from any other entities that would provide us info"nation to question our methodology on this study.. Mitigation Measures and Cooperative Studies: The FEIS/EIR commits the City, and requires any development approved on the base, to pay their fair share of traffic improvements. These are triggered by traffic thresholds within the FElS/FEIR. We are not deferring mitigation. We are committing to a fair share of mitigation. We are committed to working with our neighboring jurisdictions, such as Santa Aha' and Irvine, on implementing traffic improvements within their jurisdictions where this project is obligated to pay either all or their fair share of their traffic improvements. Warner Avenue Widening Issue: Warner Avenue is included on the list of committed improvements. That list of committed improvements was based upon "probable future impacts" or improvements that are identified in documents, such as a capital improvement program, a special funding program, or conditions of approval on a specific project, in any approved EIR's, and also neighboring jurisdictions' general plans. Warner Avenue is sho~n on the City of Santa Ana's General Plan as a long- range improvement to be improved to six lanes. That was considered in' our study. However, the City is sensitive to the issue that Santa Aha may not have funds or have plans to improve Warner Avenue, and we are committed to working with Santa Aha to explore alternative methods of funding for those, such as OCTA, Measure M programs, competitive programs, and the joint-powers authority program we have with the-City of Santa Ana at this time. Chairman Kozak asked if the Commission had questions for Ms. Shingleton or Mr. Anderson. o. .:.:...?:.:' There were no questions. Planning Commission [.4inutes November 28, 2000 Page 9 ' Christine Shingleton continued the presentation and referred to these specific questions raised concerning the reasonable range of alternatives and the density issue' she stated that the planning process began as early as 1992; during this planning process representatives present at the meeting tonight had an opportunity to padicipate in identifying the alternatives that would be evaluated; the alternatives before the Commission were adopted with the support of the City of Santa Aha and the City of ir'vine who vc~ted on record at the Base Closure Task Force meetings to support the range of alternatives; in response to the initial draft EIPJEIS produced in 1998, there was a decision made to reduce the preferred project identified in the original draft EIR by over a million square feet of floor area; that decision modified alternative 1 (the preferred project) to mitigate and reduce in density the preferred project by over ten percent and was approved by those communities sitting on the Task Force; looking at comparable projects around the City, the draft EIS/EIR, final EIS/EIR provides documented responses to those issues that were raised and clearly identifies the density of this project as significantly less dense than Tustin Ranch, Peters Canyon and adjacent projects within the City of ir'vine; response to the density issues with data' is substantiated in the documents' the densities proposed in the Plan balance the needs to generate adequate market-driven uses to offset necessary infrastructure improvements that would'be permitted, not just to serve the impacts of this development but to meet regional needs including requirements imposed by regional agencies such as the extension' of regional arterial roadways not controlled by the City and not driven by project impacts. Commissioner Jen~ings asked for clarification regarding the 77,000 new jobs, bringing 82- 500 students to the SAUSD, figures mentioned by one of the speakers, and whether'that means people will move into the SAUSD to take jobs on the Base. Christine Shingleton responded that the 77,000 figure cited was initially part of the analysis completed concerning direct/indirect jobs and multiplier impacts which would result from development on the Base; approximately 23,000 direct jobs will be generated from development of the project; another approximately 15,000 direct or indirect jobs due to a "multiplier effect" on top of that, and an additonal 38,000 short4erm, temporary construction jobs during the construction period; socio-economic demography experts,, in the FEIS/FEIR, projected (based upon the employment impact of the project) what could be indirect impacts from commercial industrial development; the FEIS/FEIR assumes there would be some indirect student generation. Commission Jennings then asked, if the impact would be spread through many school districts in the area. Christine Shingleton responded that there will be direct and indirect impacts on the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) and lrvine Unified School District (IUSC); eadier comments addressed the-direct impacts of development of housing these two Districts will experience; regionally accepted figures are used in extrapolating the number of Santa Aha households that could indirectly be expected from the types of industries that are p~'ojected to occur on the Base based on a radius around the Base. Chairman Kozak asked if the preferred alternative is a reduced density from one considered previously. Christine Shingleton responded affirmatively, referencing her earlier statement regarding · the on~million-square-foot reduction. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, addressed the following issues: Wedged between de~;elopment of El Toro airPort and MCAS Tustin: in the EIPJEIS for MCAS Tustin, the impact of the development of El Toro as a 38:million passenger airport was considered; the Board of Supervisors have approved an El Toro reuse plan for that . Plannin.~ Commission Minutes November 28, 2090 Page 10 worst-case scenario; mitigation measures were developed by the City for the Base development project to pay its fair share; the same cannot be said for the environmental documentation which has been done on El Toro. Pollulion concerns' the area's natural geographic features and the numbers of cars being driven result in some of the worst air pollution in the country; if nothing were developed at the Base, this pollution would continue; the alternative proposed.is the least harmful environmentally, yet provides the funds needed from commercial development to pay for the infrastructure--the new roads, new sewers, new water systems that are needed; nothing at the Base is useable; benefits will include additional open space that cannot be used now, a large County regional park, a public golf course, ' and green space; if only one house is built in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, it is impacting on the pollution problem; the.Plan is designed to reuse the property in a way that provides housing for iow- and moderate-income people, provides housing for the homeless, provides for a regional park, addresses circulation issues, while attempting to control air emissions; the Planning Commission may recommend something less dense to the City Council, but the Plan, developed over a ten-year period, is at a density that the planners feel is necessary in order to pay for the roads and the parks that are planned; all of the issues raised by Mr. Maughan have been addressed in the report, but staff felt it necessary to provide background; it would be great to propose a project that did not have any impact; unfortunately, there .are impacts, but there are also beneficial results to the project; when this project goes forward to the City Council for all of those impacts which cannot be mitigated, staff feels there are offsetting socio,economic and recreation/circulation benefits; these findings are not before the Planning Commission tonight but are some of the things the City Council will be considering. Commissioner Pontious stated that she has been involved in this process since its inception; she was also involved in the Tustin Ranch development; the plan before the Commission involves much lower square footage numbers than envisioned when it began; what we are looking at today is a dynamic document which may change in the future, given economic and other situations; the staff has done an outstanding job as has the community and neighboring jurisdictions; this is a good basis to start from on which' the City will be building in the future and continuing to work with neighboring jurisdictions and residents to improve the plan as we move along; there are many valid rbasons to move forward with the General Plan 'Amendment and support the staff recommendation. Commissioner Jennings thanked everyone who .attended the Planning Commission and made comments; she stated that the project is .complex and 'detailed; she requested those concerns expressed to the Commission and staff's responses be shared with the City Council; she feels the Comments represent a cross-section of the community;, she supports the staff recommendation. Chairman Kozak thanked everyone in attendance for taking time to attend the meeting and prepare their comments; he thanked .staff for providing responses for clarification and understanding of issues; he. ctadfied that the recommended action does not approve entitlements or zoning matters; those matters will come later through a specffic plan heating and adoption; the Planning Commission is a review and recommend!rig body;, adoption of a motion to recommend consideration of the General Plan Amendment to the Council does not preclude any furtherance of negotiations; he referred to Commissioner Jennings' comments regarding the issues and staff responses; he asked that the comments be .summarized in the official minutes; he suggested a supplemental memorandum or staff report be articulated and addressed to the Council, in their discretionary approval of the General Plan Amendment and EIR, so that they have the benefit of these issues being explained; he stated his support of the recommended action. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Jennings seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment Planning Commission l~4inutes November 28, 2000 Pac~e 11 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan. The Commissioners requested that staff prepare supplemental information, in conjunction with the City Council staff report, on the testimony received from the public. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BusINESS: There was no Regular Business. STAFF CONCERNS: . Report on Actions taken at the November 20, 2000 City Council Meeting. Poesentation: Karen Peterson, Senior Planner:. - Continued the Tustin Ranch Estates appeal to January 15, 2001. - Established the City's preliminary assessment that the Media One franchise should not be renewed; required provision of service logs to assess level of service; gave lviedia One 60 days to submit a new proposal that addresses the City's cable needs and issues related to Media One's performance.' · . - Approved staff recommendation to approve exclusive agreement to negotiate a disposition and development agreement for the Ut'[ Juice property. - Stated that there are still no items scheduled for the second Planning Commission meeting in December. Commissioner Jennings requested further information regarding the Utt Juice proposal. Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, responded that the proposal is basically the same as the one previously recommended for a 22,000 square foot complex of ground-floor retail and setback second-floor office tenants; developer is Metropolitan Development who does joint venture projects with redevelopment agencies throughout the southern California area; g0al is to conclude development negotiations within 120- day period timeframe; will be undertaking environmental review on the site; Utt construction' could coincide with the water yard construction. Chairman Kozak asked if the Media One proposal includes or precludes other providers. Lois Jeffrey, City Attomey, responded negatively and indicated any provider may request a non-exclusive franchise to serve that area Chairman Kozak attested to lack of service provided by Media One. COMMISSION CONCERNS: COMMISSIONER JENNINGS No concerns were expressed. · COMMISSIONER BELL' · - Expressed concem regarding the weed growth at Cedar Grove Park and asked that Parks and Recreation be notified. Plannin~ Commission IZinutes November 28, 2000 Page 12 CHAIRMAN KOZAK · Noticed several nuisance signs for "Employment 911.com" and requested that code enforcement remove these signs. Asked whether, in view of recent Planning Commission requests at Tustin Lanes and Coco's, the bright yellow paint o~ the Der Wienersnitz. el roof meets City code. Staff responded that these items will be pursued through the appropriate channels. Indicated the Commission will consider at the December 11~h meeting whether or not the second meeting in December should be cancelled. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Bell moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adjourn the meeting at · 9:22 p.m. lvlotion carried 5-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on December 11, 2000, beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennia! Way, Tustin. Elizabeth A. Bin~'ack . Planning Commission Secretary ~,!~'tep~~. K0zak Chairman ;. . :. ..'.o ;.-. ,. :. .-.. o. .:.' .. .. i-' ' Attachment 5 Letters submitted to the Planning Commission and the City of Tustin's Written Responses '(Amended) . :-.:.:.?..:, ' :....; -.'.-...',..-' CONN()R. BLAKE & GRIFFIN l.. 2600 MIC)lr.i_~o,w Dmvr St:rm. 1450 IRVIh:lr. CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEI'IION'E t~l~) 622.2600 TELEFACSIMIL~ (o4o) 622.2626 ~MAIL' cconnm~busincssliLcom Letter November 28, 2000 Mr. Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin. California 92780 VIA MESSENGER Re: Objections to Adequacy of FEIS/FEIR for General Plan Amendment 00-001 Re Disposal and Reuse of Marine ,,.Corns, Air S,.ta~ion - Tustin. California Dear Mr. Oadon' We are the attorneys for Santa Ana Unified School District (the "SAUSD"), the Rancho Santiago Community College District. (the "RSCCD"), Victor and Susan Garcia (the "Garcias"), Founino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karina Valenzuela [hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall · collectively be referred to as the "Districts") and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall collectively be referred to as the "Concerned Parties"]. We understand that, in conjunction with the U.S. Deparanent of the Navy (the '~Navy"), the CiD' of Tustin (the "City") is currently reviewing the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter, "FEIS/FEIR") for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin"). We further understand that the City intends to use the FEIS/FEIR as the environmental documentation to support its proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment 00-001 .(hereinafter referred tO as the "Project"). On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we submit the following objections to the adequacy of the FEIS/FEIR: (1) in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "CEQA Guidelines" or the "Guidelines"), including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately ad&ess the significant environmental effects and ~0wth-indueing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, so¢ioe¢onomics and public sen, ices and facilities in the City of Santa Aha; ' .. RSCCDgVlCA..~Land'rms~\Ogdomdo: Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 2 CC)NNC)R. t~,I,AKI; & CiRIF~.:IN l.l.l' (2) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to describe all feasible mitigation measures to minimize the significant environmental effects and growth-inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Aha; (3) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15126.6 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to discuss all reasonable project alternatives which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects and growth-inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public sen, ices and facilities in the City of Santa Aha; (4) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15130 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to discuss the cumulative impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public sen, ices and facilities in the City of Santo Ana; ..-~ " :. '.. '-.~. {.:.-7 (5) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to; .... section 15131 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately identify and analyze the economic and social effects with the Project will have on persons residing in the City of Santa Ana, particularly with respect to public services and facilities;. · . . (6) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the Guidelines, the proposed Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project and the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequate ' address the significant impacts, reasonable project alternatives, and feasible mitigation measures for the Project, as more particularly described in the preceding subparag'raphs; (7) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,' including, 'but not limited to, section 15097 of the Guidelines, the Mitigation Monitoring Program with the City proposes to adopt in connection with the Project fails to inc°rporate adequate mitigation measures and is legally deficient for the reasons set for in the preceding subparagraphs. In addition to the foregoing objections, each of the Concerned Parties also incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each of the comments and . RSCCD2vlCAS-LandTmsfrXEngagement Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 3 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLI' objections set forth in the three letters which SAUSD previously submitted to the City of Tustin (the "City") relating to the FEIS/FEIR (or to the Draft EIS/EIR), dated March 2,' 1998, Au~st 23, ] 999, and May 19, 2000. Likewise, each of the Concerned Parties incorporates by reference, as though set forth in fall hereat, each of the oral or.written comments, objections, or contentions regarding the FEI S/FEIR (or the Draft EIS/EIS) which have been, or will be, submitted to your Department, or to the CID', bv any other persons or en. tities, prior to or at the time of any of the public hearings which the City conducts before approving the Project. To be placed in the proper context, this letter must be read in conjunction with (1) the letter, dated November 24, 20~0 (the '~ovember 24 Letter"), which I sent to Mr. William Cassidy, Jr. of the Navy on beh~tlf of each of the Concerned Parties and (2) the letter, dated November 28, 2000 (the "November 28 Letter"), which I transmitted to Mr. Cassidy earlier today. Copies of both these letters are attached hereto for your reference and each of them is incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat. · In the November 24 Letter, a number of objections to the City's Reuse Plan (i.e., the Project) were raised under (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of.1964 ("Title VI") and (2) the regulations of the Department of Defense regarding "Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted .Pro.ams." The November 24 Letter and the November 28 Letter both contained a _o-teat deal of statistical information relevant to the matters discussed in those letters, but, to avoid unnecessary duplication, that information will not be restated in full here. The basic thrust of this letter is that the FEIS/FEIR has failed to adequately analyze--and to attempt to lessen or avoid--the impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana. In general, it is the position of the"Concemed Parties that the FEIS/FEIR has grossly underestimated these impacts as a result of, among other things, (I) the flawed analysis in the FEIS/FE~ as to the number of students that will be added to the already- overcrowded'public schools in the SAUSD when the Proiect is developed and (2) the lack of any anlvsis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of credit and non-credit students that will be added to the community colleze facilities operated bv the RSCCD as a result of the City's Reuse Plan. Of course, not only does the FEIS/FEIR i'ail to adequately address the impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana, particularly the public schools and community college facilities, 'but it also fails to provide adequate mitigation measures to minimize those impacts, including, but not limited to, the most obvious mitigation measure of tmnsfe~g an adequate amount of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to SAUSD Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 4 CONNOR. BLAKE & GRI?FIN LI.I' · .. · .. .. . . · · . . .. and RSCCD so that those Districts could construct new facilities to help ease the overcrowding problems which they currently face. In addition to failing to specify adequate mitigation measures to alleviate the Project's impacts on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana, the FEIS/FEIR also fails to discuss any reasonable project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these impacts by allowing SAUSD and RSCCD to obtain surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to-build new facilities. Not a single one of the reuse alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR contemplates the conveyance of surplus land to all five educational .districts whose boundaries cover portions of MCAS-Tustin, i.e., SAUSD, RSCCD, the I~,ine Unified School District ("IUSD"), the Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD"), and the South Orange Count), Community College District ("SOCCCD"). .. Regrettably, the alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR only contemplate surplus' land transfers to IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD. The City's decision to exclude SAUSD and RSCCD from receiving any land transfers at MCAS-Tusrin not only raises Title VI concerns as explained in the November~:::....:.!.;:~'~"~ Letter, but it also has environmental implications to the extent that the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequate'~(!~.'i.:.:.ili explore ways to avoid Project. imPacts on ~ocioeconbmics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana. On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we respectfully request that the City withhold its approval of the FEIS/FEIR until each of the serious legal deficiencies noted above has been corrected and a new environmental document has been recirculated for public review and comment in accordance wi,th section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. · .. Very truly yours, Edmond M. Connor RSCCDNCAS-LandTrnsfi'~ngagem ent Edmond M. Connor Laura Lee Blake Craig L. Griffin David J. Hesseltine Matthew J. Fletcher CONNOR} BLAKE & GRIFFI?x ~I' ATIORN'EY$ AT L/~' 2600 Michelson Drive Suite 1450 lrvine, California 92612 TELEPHONE (949) 622-2600 TELEFACSIMILE (949) 6~-2626 E-Mail econnor~businesslit, com November 28, 2000 Letter #2 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Nax~' (C&R) Department of Navy 1777 North Kent Street, Suite 9000 Rossl~vn, Virginia 22209 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Objections to Adequacy of EI'S/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corvs Air Station - Tustin. California Dear Mr. Cassidy: We are the attorneys for Santa Ana Unified School District (the "SAUSD"), the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the "RSCCD"), Victor and Susan Garcia (the "Garcias"), Fourtino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karlna Valen~ela [hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD Shall collectively be referred to as the "Districts") and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall collectively be referred to as the "Concerned Parties"]. We understand that your Department is currently reviewing the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter, "FEIS/FEIR") for the di. sposal and'reuse of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin, California C'MCAS-Tustin"). On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we submit the following objections to the adequacy of the FEIS/FEIR: First, by failing .to adequately consider whether the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin (hereinafter, the "Project~) would result in disproportionate negative effects on minority populations in the areas, surrounding MCAS-Tustin, the FEIS/FEIR fails to comply with the dictates of the Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (the 'EnVironmental Justice Guidance") which was promulgated to enforce the provisions of Executive Order 12898, entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in . .j_..,.;/ Honorable William Cassidy, Jr.. November 28, 2000 Pa,_,e 2 CONNOR, BLAKE& GRIFFIN LLI' Minoriva, Populations and LOw-income Populations" (the "Environmental Justice Executive Order"); and ~econd, by failing to adequately address the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public sen, ices and facilities in the City of 5antaAna, and by failing to adequately consider all reasonable project alternatives and feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate such impacts, the FEIS/FEIR fails to comply with requirements of the '~National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) ["NEPA") and the Council on Environmental QualiD' Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 C.F.K. Part 1500 et seq.). In addition to the foregoing objections, each of the Concerned Parties also incorporates by reference, as thou~ set forth in :full hereof, each of the comments and objections set forth in the three letters which SAUSD previously submitted to the City o£Tustin (the "City") relating to the FEIS/FEIR (or to the Draft EIS~IR), dated March 2, 1998, Au__mast 23, 1999, and May 19, 2000. Likewise, each o£ the Concerned Parties incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each o£ the oral or written comments or objections regarding the FEIS/FEIR (or the Draft ElS/ElS) which have been, or will be, submitted to your Department, or to the City, by any other persons or entities. This letter must be read in conjunction with the earlier letter, dated November 24, 2000 (the "November 3.4 Letter"), which I sent to you last week on behalf of each of the Concerned Parries. In the November 24 Letter, which is incorporated herein as though set forth in full hereat, I raised a number of objecti0ns under (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI") and (2) the'regulations of the Department of Defense regarding '2qondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs" (hereinafter, the "DOD Title VI Regulations"). The November 24 Letter contained a great deal of statistical information which is . relevant to the mauers discussed in this letter, but, to avoid unnecessary duplication, I will not restate that information here, other than to incorporate it by reference. Indeed, the purpose of this letter is not to repeat all of the Title VI objections asserted in the prior letter; rather, its purpose is to articulate objections to the adequacy of the FEIS/FEIR based on the facts set forth in the November 24 Letter. The basic thrust of this letter is that the FEIS/FEIR has failed to adequately analyze--and to attempt to lessen or avoid--the impacts which the Project will have on the public elementary, intermediate, high school, and community college facilities in the City of Santa Aha. o RSCCD.tMCAS-LandT~fer/Cassidy4 } lonorablc Wilila~ .4sid,v..ir. November 28, 2000 Pa~e 3 As explained bt:Iow in greater dstail, it is the position of the Concerned Panics that the FEIS/FEIR has grossly underestimated these impacts as a result of, among other things, (1) the flawed analysis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of students that will be added to the already-overcrowded schools in the SAUSD when the Project is developed and (2) the lack of any analysis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of credit and non-credit students that will be added to the community college facilities operated by the RSCCD as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. Of course, not only does the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequately address the impact5 which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Aha, particularly the public schools and community college facilities, but it also fails to provide adequate mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts, including, but not .limited to, the most obvious mitigation measure of transferring an adequate amount of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to SAUSD and RSCCD to aflow them to construct new facilities to help.ease the overcrowding problems which these Districts currently face. In addition to failing to specify adequate mitigation measures to alleviate the Project's impacts on socioeconomics and public sen, ices and facilities in Santa Aha, but the FEIS/FEIR also fails'to discuss any reasonable project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these impacts by allowing SAUSD and RSCCD to obtain surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to build new facilities. Not one of the reuse alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR contemplates the conveyance of surplus land to all five educational districts whose boundaries cover portions of MCAS-Tustin, i.e., SAUSD, RSCCD, the Irvine Unified School District ("IUSD"), .the Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD"), and the South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD"). Regrettably, the alternatives, discussed in the FEIS/FEIR only contemplate sm'plus land transfers to IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD. The City's decision to exclude SAUSD and RSCCD from receiving any land transfers at MCAS-Tustin not only raises Title VI concerns as explained 'in the November 24 Letter, but it also has environmental implications to the extent that the FEISffrEIR fails to adequately explore ways to avoid Project impacts on Socioeconomics and public services and facilities'in Santa Ana. -. Hopefully, your Department will withhold its approval of the FEIS/FEIR until the serious legal deficiencies noted above have been corrected and a new environmental document has been recirculated. To this end, the Concerned Parties offer the additional comments set forth below in the hopes that your Department will take heed of these defects and will require the FEIS/FEIR to be revised accordingly. · :' 2; .2'.:: :2.'_ RSCCD/M CAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 · l.lonc)r~bic William CassiO','..Ir. No',)cmb:r 28, 2000 C()NNOR.BLAKE & (;P,' ...... 'N, l.l..l' . · Page 4 ..'1:7i'.'!.:. · .. ..... · . I. Environmental Justice Executive Order The Environmental Justice Executive Order was issued by President Clinton on February l l, 1994 for the dual purpose of (I) promoting nondiscrimination in all Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment and (2) ensuring that all Federal agencies identify and address the environmental and human health effects oftheir actions on minority and Iow-income populations. (Feb. 11,199'4 Memorandum by President Clinton accompanying the Environmental Justice Executive Order.) In much the same way that Title VI and the DOD Title VI regulations prohibit any program or activity, that receives federal financial assistance from being conducted in a manner that has a discriminatory effect, .this first component of the Environmental Justice Executive Order requires each federal agency to "[C]onduct its pro~arns, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health and the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do .not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, denying person5 (including populations) the benefits of, or sub coting persons (including populations) to discrimination under, such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin." (Executive Order 12898 ~ 2-2.) Clearly, the disposal and reuse process relating to MCAS-Tustin is a pro,am, policy, or activity of a federal agency that has a substantial effect on human health and the environment. This is demonstrated by the fact that your Deparn'nent and the City have jointly prepared the FEIS.qC'EIR to analyze the "sig'nificant environmental . ...-~-.... impacts" associated with the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin, and have concluded that certain environmental .:-:.!i::::i'.:!~ impacts could not be mitigated to a' level of insignificance. (See e g FEIS/FEIR at ES-6, ES-'>0 - ES-27 ) This p6~::'::':!:'~' fmther underscored by the fact that NEPA only requires an environmental imp~ict statement for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." (42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).) The Concem'~d Parties believe that your Department would be in violation of the Environmental 'Justice Executive Order if it were to dispose of the surplus federal property at MCAS-Tustin in the manner proposed by the City in its current Reuse Plan. This violation would occur because your Department would be conducting its disposal " RS CCD;M CA S-Lan dTr'ans fedC assi d.v4 ] tc~nc~ruble Wi]ii~, ,~.~idy: .Jr. Nov~mb:r 2g. 2000 Paue 5 and reuse program for MCAS-Tustin in a manner that would fail to ensure that the program would not have the effect of (1) clsnying the predominantly-Hispanic students of the Districts the benefits of the program or (2) otherwise discriminating against such students on the basis of their race, color, or national origin. - As explained in greater detail in the November 24 Letter, if your Department were to approve the land transfers currently being proposed by the City, the predominantly-Hispanic students of the Districts would be denied the valuable benefits that are expected to flow from the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin, and would be the victims of racial discrimination because the City's proposed Reuse Plan allocates no less than five school sites to the three other districts with boundaries that cover a Portion of MCAS-Tustin for the purpose of s~rving the new predominantly-white students that would be generated for these districts by the build-out of the Pro ect. These three districts - TUSD, IUSD, and SOCCCD - have predominantly non-Hispanic student populations and experience only minor overcrowding problems which pale in comparison to those confronting the Districts. As discussed in the November 24 Letter, the Districts, with their predominantly-Hispanic student populations, will be forced to incorporate the significant number of new students that will be generated by the City's proposed reuse of MCASTustin into the Districts' already severely overcrowded schools because the City's proposed Reuse Plan fails to allocate a single school site to the Districts. More importantly, by ignoring the Districts' need for new school sites, and recommending that all property at MCAS-Tustin within the Districts' boundaries be used for commercial development, the City's proposed Reuse Plan prevents the Districts from utilizing available prope~' not only within, but also contiguous to, their curTent boundaries for the purpose of addressing the severe overcrowding problems that the Districts' students are currently experiencing. In addition to the possible violation of the Environmental Justice Executive Order by failing to ensure that the disposal and reuse process for MCAS-Tustin does not have racially discriminatory effects, another possible violation of that Executive Order could occur if your Department were to issue a ROD approving the FEIS/FEI~ Specifically, your Department would be in violation of the second component of the Environmental Justice Executive Order because the FEIS/FEIR fails to properly identify and address the impacts that the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would have on minority and low-income populations. The FEIS/FEIR ac'knowledges that the Environmental Justice Executive Order "requires that the relative impacts of federal actions on minority populations and RSCCDf7%4CAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 C()NNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL'I' Honorablc William Cassidy, Jr. Now. mbcr 28, 2000 '._.':'.':i ... Pa f_, c 6 low-income populations be addressed to avoid/he placement of a disproportionate share of adverse impacts of these actions on these groups." (FEIS/FEIR at p.6-g.) However, despite this acknowledgment, the analysis of environmental justice concerns in the FEIS/FEIR is woefully inadequate because (I) it is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the analysis required by the Environmental Justice Executive Order, and (2) it is improperly restricted to focusing on "socioeconomic impacts" only. The FE1S/FEIR spends approximately two pages of text making a variety, of comparisons between the demographics of the census tractS that surround MCASTustin and the demographics of the adjacent cities of Santa Aha, Tustin, and Irvine, the County of Orange, and the State of Califomia. (FEIS/FEIR at pp. 6-8 - 6-11.) Based on these comparisons, the FEISWEIR concludes that the area encompassing these census tractS is not a "disproportionately high minority population area" in comparison to adjacent communities or the county. (Id. at pp. 6-11 -6-12.) The FEIS/FEIR then reaches the ultimate conclusion that, because the area covered by these census tractS is not a "disproportionately high minority population area," the proposed reuse of MCASTustin is "not likely to have a disproportionate impact on minorit), populations." (id.) This conclusion, however, is a complete non sequizur because an area that is not a "disproportionately high minority population area" could nonetheless be home to one or more minori~, populations that disproportionatel~:-:.~.?. suffer the negative impacts of a proposed action. More importantly, the analysis leading to this conclusion clearly ".'::'-']-"-'.~'-'i employs the ,,~'ong test under the Environmental.Justice Executive Order. -'.::-'::-" As th] FEIS/FEIR ac'knowledges in its Own definition regarding ,,'hat is a significant environmental impact relative to environmental justice, the proper inquiry under the Environmental Justice Executive Order is whether the proposed action "would result in disproportionaie neg~itive eft%cts on minority ... populations" regardless',of the size of the effected minority population in comparison to other populations in the area. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 6-8.) However, after properly stating the mst, the FEIS/FEIK proceeds to ignore it. By focusing its analysis on whether the.census tracts surrounding MCASTustin can collectively be considered a "disproportionately hi~ minority population area," the FEIS/FEIR misconstrues, and fails to satisfy, the mandate of the Environmental Justice Executive Order to identify and address disproportionately high environmental effects, on minorit), populations. [Environmental Justice Executive Order at § I KSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfcr/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 25,.2000 Page 7 C()NNOR, BLAKE & GRI} LLI" - In addition, the FEIS/FEIR inexplicably and improperly limits the environmental justice analysis it does conduct to the "socioeconomic impacts" discussed in section 4.2 of the FEIS/FEIR- i.e., "[p]otential direct and indirect impacts on population, housing, and employment resulting from the'proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin." (FEISFFEIR at pp. 6-12, 4-14.) Not only does the FEIS/FEIR fail to provide any basis for limiting its environmental justice analysis in this fashion, but this limitation is'also in conflict with the requirements of the Environmental Justice Executive Order. In the "Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act" (the "Environmental Justice Guidance"), the Council on Environmental Quality, which has oversight.of the Federal government's compliance with ' the Environmental'Justice Executive Order and NEPA, makes it exceedingly clear that environmental justice analyses are to consider all impacts considered under NEPA. (Environmental Justice Guidance at pp. I, 8.) o Specifically, the Environmental Justice Guidance states "[e]nviromnental justice issues encompass a broad range of impacts covered by NEPA, including impacts on the natural or physical environment and interrelated social, cultural and economic effects. In preparing an EIS or an EA, agencies must consider both impacts on the natural or physical environment and related social, cultural and economic impacts." (Id. at p.8.) The Guidance goes on to note that the potential effects to be considered under N~PA, and, therefore, under the Environmental Justice Executive Order, "include 'ecological ... aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect or cumulative."' (Id. quoting 40 C.F.1L § 1508.8.) Accordingly, due to the fact that the environmental, justice analysis in the FEIS/FEIR is limited to . . "socioeconomic impacts" only, and thereby fails to even consider whether any of the 0thor 13 cmegories of potential impacts identified in Chapter 4:0 of the FEIS/FEIR would disproportionately affect minority populations, your Department wOuld violate the Environmental Justice Executive Order.if it were to issue a ROD approving the FEIS/FEIR.' This }ailure to even consider whether a wide range of potential impacts associated with the proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would disproportionately affect minority populations is particularly troubling to the Concerned (1) The' 14 categories ofp0tential impacts associated With the proPOSed reuse of MCAS-Tustin that are identified and discussed in Chapter 4.0 of the FEIS/FEM entitled 'Environmental Consequences,' are (1) land use, (2) socioeconomic, (3) utilities, (4)'Public services and facilities, (5) aesthetics, (6) cultural and paleontological resources,.(7) biological resources, (8) a~cultural'resources, (9) soils and geology, (10) water resources, (I 1) hazardous.wastes, substances, and materials, (12) h-affic/circulation, (13) air quality, and (14) noise. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 ' C().'x'NOR. I:;L& K£ & GRIt::'FI.N' LI.I' t-lon'orabie William Cassidy, Jr. November '~$, 2000 ...:..::....x., Pa,2e 8 ,.. Parties because it'ignores the very analysis which would show that the Project's impacts on public services and facilities in Santa Aha would have a disproportionately adverse effect on minority parents and students residing in that city o As discussed at length in the November 24 Letter, the proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin has disproportionate negative effects on the Hispanic student populations of the Districts! This is so because it provides the predominantly white districts of IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD with school sites to address furore growth associated with the development of upscale homes at MCAS-Tustin. However, at the'same time, the proposed disposal and reuse bars the Districts from utilizing available space within, as well as contiguous to, their current boundaries to address (1) the overcrowding problems their students must currently endure and (2) the furore ~owth in its student population that will be caused by the proposed disposal and reuse ofMCASTustin. ' II'. NEPA As noted above, the FEIS/FEIR is legally deficient under NEPA and its implementing regulations because it fails to adequately address the significant environmental effects, growth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, feasible mitigation measures, and reasonable project alternatives associated with the development of the Project. In particular, the environmental analysis set fo~w.h in the FEIS/FEIR regarding the impacts which the proposed reuse 0fMCAS-Tustin would have on the Districts is inaccurate and incomplete, and leads to the errone..~7~'.':'i-h and unsubstantiated conclusion that the reuse would not have an)' si_maificant elS~¢t on the Concerned Parties. (Se~.!!'i.':::"::;:!.'! e.g., ]0 C.F.R. § 15 02.16 (an environmental impact statement must fully and completely analyze all direct and indi~:¢ct effects associated With the proposed project, as well as ~e si-maificance of each direct and indirect effect).) In the first place, the conclusion that the Project would have no significant impact on SAUSD is based on estimates that significantly understate the number of students that would be generated for SAUSD by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. " The FEIS/FEIR relies on the "Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS-Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana The Environmental Justice Guidance.makes very clear that Hispanics are a minority population p~:otected by the Envirom-nental Justice Executive Order. (Environmental Justice Guidance, Appendix "A" at p.25.) RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy. Jr. November 28, 2000 Pa,2e l! C()NNOR., BLAKE& C;RIf-. 1.I.1' 12 13 Report at pp. 3-4.) A mere seven businesses, however, falls far short of being a large enough sample to support any reliable conclusions, especially in light' of the fact that the identity of these businesses, their precise location, and the industries in which they operate are not disclosed. Nonetheless, even using the survey's 4.8% figure, the range of students generated for SAUSD by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin jumps to between 98 and 610 students? ]n light of the 'foregoi.ng, it is evident that many of the assumptions and conclusions the FEIS/FEIR and the Updated Household Growth Report relied on are highly questionable and entireb' unsupported. As a result, these assumptions and conclusions have caused the FEIS/FEIR and the Updated Household Growth Report's estimate regarding the number of students that would be generated for SAUSD by the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin to be understated. As such, these same questionable and unfounded assumptions and conclusions have also caused the significance of the impact the reuse would have on SAUSD to be understated4. On a related topic, ~e FEIS/FEIR's conclusion that the proposed reuse of MCAS-/ustin would not have any significant effect on SAUSD flatly contradicts the definition set forth in the FEIS/FEIR as to what constitutes a significant effectpanicularly when that def'mition is applied to the facts ac 'knoa. l~a_.~d in the FEIS/FEIR regarding SAUSD's overcrowded schools and the students the reuse would generate for SAUSD. The FEIS/FEIR states that an effect on school districts and other public sen, ices and facilities will be deemed significant "when the demand for public sen, ices or facilities [that would be caused by the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin] would exceed the available or planned capacity of those services [or facilities]." (FEIS/FEIR at p. 456.) ' In describing the "affected environment" - L e., the current conditions at and around MCAS-Tustin - the FEIS/FEIR aclmowledges that "[a]ll but two" of the schools in SAUSD are presently overcrowded and that the District as a whole is "overcapacity." (FEIS/FEIR at p. 3-50.) In discussing the potential effects of the City's proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustirt on SAUSD, the FEIS/FEIR goes on to aclmowledge that This range is calculated as follows: 2,197 l~ousehold x 4.8% = 105 household x 0.93 student generation rote = 98 students; 13,668.households x 4.8% = 656 household x 0.93 student generation rate = 610 students. (See Updated Household Growth RePort 'at pp. 3-8; FEIS/I'FE1R at p. 4-62.) See also the letter submitted to the City'on behalf of SAUSD on August 23, 1999, by Bowie, Arneson, Wiles & Giaxmone, explaining additional deficiencies in, inter alia, the Updated Household Growth Report. · RS CCD/MCA S-Lan dTransfer/Cassi dy4 . - ,, . .. CONNOR. BLAKE & GRI~r~N LLI' }-tonorable William Cassidy, .Ir. .:,.::..._?.:.:...,, November 28, 2000 ".-. .... ' .. Pa,_, e 12 ': :'...-. 13 such reuse will generate as many as 509 new students for SAUSD. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 462,4-63.) Accordingly, based on the definition' of significance provided in the FEIS/FEIR, it is clear that the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin in accordance with the City's Reuse Plan would, in fact, have a significant effect on SAUSD because it would cause the District and certain of its schools to further exceed their available or planned capacity. In the face of these facts, the FEIS/FEIR nonetheless concludes that the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would not significantly affect SAUSD and, therefore, no mitigation measures would be required.' It bears emphasis that the FE1S/FEIR does not conclude that there is a significant effect that would be mitigated to a level of insignificance..Rather, it simply concludes there would be "no capacity impacts; therefore no mitigation would be required." (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-66.)- Tuming to another point, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that the new students that would be generated for SAUSD by the Project would not have a significant effect on SAUSD because it is assumed that funds from school impact fees, a proposed redevelopment project, possible bonds and special taxes, and "other state revenue sources .... could be available" to SAUSD, and together ma5, provide sufficient funding for SAUSD to construct a new school(s) to serve the new students that would be generated 'by the proposed reuse. (FEIS,rFEIR at pp.4-63, 4-66; emphasis added.)' The FEIS/FEIR, however, fails to provide any basis or explanation for this assumption. The FEIS/FEIR ac'knowledges that SAUSD's shm-e of any school impact fees associated with a.".'.'.'.':':.? new construction generated by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin would not be enough to support the construction of new' :"~::: schools to serve the new students that would be generated for SAUSD by'such reuse. (See FEIS/FEIR at pp. 4-63, Table 4.4-1; 4-66.) Moreover, the "redevelopment project" that the FEIS/FEIR and supporting studies rely upon as the largest source of potential funds for SAUSD is simply a "proposed" redevelopment plan, which the City will seek to get approved at some undetermined point in the furore. The FEIS/FEIR contains alSsolutely no details regarding this plan and it further "assumes" that this questionable source of frmding will be au_m'nented by funds from bonds, special taxes, and "other state revenue sources" to provide SAUSD with sufficient ffinds for the construction of any new schools that would be required. The FEIS/FEIR makes this assumption based on nothing more than the fact that SAUSD has been able to obtain funding from these sources at certain points in the past. (FEIS/FEIR at pp. 4-63, · 4-66.) However, the FEIS/FEIR contains absolutely no .. · '.'..:. :-: .2; · '.'.: '; 5. .... RSCCD/M CAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 t-ttmorablc William Czssidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Pa,.ze 13 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFt ... L, LI' 13 14 15 discussion regarding whether thc situation relating to the new students that will be generated by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin is analogous to the situations in which SAUSD has obtained funds from these sources in the past, or whether these sources will cvcn have funds available for SAUSD when thefands arc needed. Interestingly, all of the sources of fimds that the FEIS/FEIR identifies as being available to SAUSD are also identified as being available to TUSD and IUSD. With respect to TUSD and IUSD, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that these fending sources "togeth~ with" the provision of $chooi5 sites at no or greatly reduced costs are anticipated to provide TUSD and IUSD with adequate resources to construct new schools to serve the new students to be generated by . the reuse of MCAS-Tustin. (See FEIS/FEIR at pp. 4-60, 4-61.) However, for some unexplained reason, the provision of a new school site(s) is not required to provide SAUSD with. adequate resources to construct a new school(s) to serve the new students to be generated by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin. Clearly, the FEIS/FEIR's failure to provide an)' reasoned ex. planation or basis for its assumption that sufficient fimding would be available for SAUSD to construct an>, needed new schools greatly undermines its conclusion that the proposed reuse would not have any significant effect on SAUSD due to the' availabiliB, of such funding. This is especially tree given the FEIS/FEIR's conclusion that these fariding sources and the provision of school sites at no or greatly reduced cost were required for the proposed reuse not to have a significant effect on TUSD and ISUD.~ As discussed above, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately identify, and address the impacts that the proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would have on minority populations, such as the Hispanic student populations of the Districts, as required by the Environmental Justice Executive Order. The Department of Defense "Strategy on Environmental Justice." referenced in the FEIS/FEIR at p.6-8, provides that the NEPA process will be the mechanism for implementing the Environmental Justice Executive Order and evaluating the environmental effects of Federal action on minority and low-income populations. (DOD Strategy on Environmental Justice at §§ 1, 3.) Finally, the FEISff'EIR fails to conduct any analysis whatsoever regarding the impact the Proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would have on RSCCD. As explained throu~out this letteri RSCCD would suffer the same adverse impacts under the City's proposed Reuse Plan that SAUSD would suffer - ie., RSCCD would have to incorporate s See also the letter submitted to the City on behalf of SAUSD on August 23, 19.99, by Bowie, Ameson, Wiles & Giannone, outlining additional shortcomings of the FEIS/FEIR's assumption that SAUSD would be able to obtain sufficient funding for the construction of a new school(s) to serve the new students that would be generated by the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin. CONNC)R, BLAKE & C;RIt LLI' r. Honorable William C~.:,sidy, Jr. November 2g, 2000 :':2'..-:.:.z. Pag: ]4....': :.:....'... . .. . .- .. the significant numb.'cr of new students that would be generated by the proposed reuse of the Base into RSCCD's already overcrowded campuses because ~e CiD' refused to provide RSCCD with a school site to serve its current and future students. Although the FEIS/FEIR at ]east attempts to analyze the impact ofthe proposed Reuse Plan on SAUSD, it fails to even acknowledge the existence of RSCCD, let alone the impact the proposed reuse would have on KSCCD. In light of the numerous legal deficiencies noted above, the Concerned Parties sincerely hope that your Department will withhold its approval o£ the FEIS/FEIR until these deficiencies have been corrected and a new environmental document has been circulated for public review and comment. Very truly yours, CC: Honorable Randall Yim. Under Secrem,D, of the Naxx.,, Installations Edm nd M. Connor -.:.:..'.:.- - RSCCD/M CAS-Lan dTransfer/Cassir~v4 o CONNOR, BLAKE & GP,/FFIN LLP ATTOtLNEYS AT LAW 2600 MICHELSON DRIVE SUITE1450 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEPHONE (949) 622-2600 TELEFACSIMILE (949) 622-2626' E-MAIL: econnor~businesslit, com November 28, 2000 L~rr~ #3 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (C&R) Department of Naxs' 1777 North Kent Su'eet, Suite 9000 Rossl)m, Virginia 22209 XrIA FEDERAL EXI'~SS Title VI Objections to Application of City of Tustin for Approval of Proposed Real Property Conveyances to Dispose of Surplus Federal Land at Mar/ne Corps Air Station- Tustin, California ("MCAS -Tustin") Dear .Mr. Cassidy: Althouah discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin has been outlawed by federal law since thee passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,'the.sad troth is that, despite all oft. he efforts which have been made over the. past 35 years to eradicate such discrimination, it is still an underfiable reality/n America today. Indeed, in deciding who should enjoy the benefits afforded by proxdding government resources to construct new public facilities (such as schools, parks, libraries, roads, etc.) the unforumate tendency on behalf of certain local agencies in our country is to make recommendations w.hich have either the purpose or the effect of unfakly excluding certain minority ~oups from sharing equally in those benefits. Usually, such discrimination is not identified or remedied Until long after its damag~g effects have been felt bY the minority ~oups in question. Fortunately, your D~artment is in the unique position of being able to take immediate steps to avoid what a'ill otheradse evolve into a clear-cut case of racial discr/m/nation against tens of thousands of ethni'c-minority parents and students residing in Santa Aha, California.~ For purposes of this letter, the term "ethnic- minority" shall refer to the foll0x~dng ethnic ~oups: .American Ind/an or Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander,.Fflipino, Hispanic or Latino, and African American. ""-'.:2;; :' CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 2 A. Statement Of The Problem. By adhering to the strict prohibitions against racial discrimination which are set forth in the Title VI regulations of the Department of Defense and bi5' deciding not to dispose of some 1,606 acres of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin in the discriminatory manner presently being proposed by the City of Tustin, California (the "City.,'), your Department could effectively prevent the City from carrying out its plan to unlawfully exclude over 56,000 minoriD' students attending elementary, intermediate, or high schools in the Santa Aha Unified School District (the "SAUSD") from sharing in the valuable benefits which will flow from the conveyances of surplus land which are being proposed for MCAS-Tustin. As discussed in greater detail at the conclusion of this letter, we respectfully submit that the best course for your Department to follow at this point would be to support the earlier decisions of the United States Department of Education (the "DOE") regarding the public benefit conveyances of surplus' land at MCAS-Tustin to be made for educational purposes. If those earlier approvals by the DOE were to be endorsed by your Department, then both the SAUSD and the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the "RSCCD")--which itself has over 33.000 minority students enrolled in its courses--would receive sufficient land at MCAS-Tustin to meet their critical needs for new space. to educate their students. If that were to happen, the predominantly-Hispanic student population2 served by these two districts (collectively, the "Districts") would (I) be directly benefited because new school facilities would b.e built for them to attend and (2) be indirectly benefited because these new facilities would help to ease the severely overcrowded conditions which' presently plague the two Districts. Unfortunately, the City is adamantly opposed to any proposal which would allow the two Districts to acquire any land at MCAS-Tustin. Although.some 150 acres ofundevelopei:t, vacant land located in the southwest comer, of MCAS-Tustin falls directly within the boundaries of the two Districts3, the City is proposing to zone all ofth/s land for commercial business uses and is presently seeking an economic.development conveyance ("EDC") from your Department to acquire title to this property free of charge so that it can sell it at a 100% profit to real estate developers or other commercial business interests, such as large chain-store operators. · For purposes of this letter, the term."Hispanic" shall collectively refer to persons of Hispanic or Latino descent. The district boundaries of RSCCD are coterminus with those of SAUSD. Attached as E 'xhibit "A" hereto is a diagram depicting that portion of MCAS-Tustin which lies within the boundaries of the SAUSD. The SAUSD boundaries sho~m on the di~oram would be the same for RSCCD. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransf/Cassidy2.Doc CON,'NOR, BLA ,r K,.. & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 3 While offering no justification other than the need to generate land sale profits and sales tax revenues to protect the "economic viability" of its master'plan to develop large retail stores, upscale residential projects, and a g01f resort, the City is aggressively opposing any public benefit conveyances of any surplus land at MCAS-Tustin which would allow the Districts to acquire any new school sites an)re,here on that base. Even though California law would allow the two Districts to operate new facilities and programs outside of their district boundaries by forming a Joint Powers Authority with other qualified agencies, the City is attempting to bar. the Districts from participating in any way, shape, or form in any of the land transfers at MCAS-Tustin. What is so alarming about this is that, in the Final EIS/EIR which has been submitted to ),our Department in connection with the "MCAS Tustin Specific/Reuse Plan" (the "Reuse Plan") which the Ciw has prepared in its capaciW as the Local Redevelopment Authority ("the LRA") for MCAS-Tustin, the' CiW clearly recognizes that the commercial development which it is proposing for MCAS-Tustin will generate new jobs which will increase the number of medium to low-income families residing in Santa Ana and will add hundreds and hund. reds of additional students to the horribly overcrowded schools in that city without affording any relief to the beleaguered Districts in the form of any new school sites at MCAS-Tustin. (See, Final EIS/EIR, pp. 4-61 to 463.) · B. pro. posed Land Transfers To Other School Districts. .. · Of course, not only is the City planning on using the surplus federal land it hopes to obtain from your Department to develop commercial business uses that will clearly worsen the overcrowded conditions currently facing the Districts, but the City is also requesting.that your Department transfer 180 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tusfin to the United States Department of Education (the "DOE") so that it, in mm, can convey the property-'-free of charge--to three other districts, the Irvine Unified School District (the "IUSD), the Tustin Unified School District (the "TUSD?'), and the South Orange Co{mW Community College District (the "SOCCCD"), to use as new school sites. , Specifically, on th~ basis of the City's Reuse Plan which your Department is currently reviewing, the City is asking that: (1) 100 acres be conveyed to S OCCCD to develop a new "Learning · O' Village/Jr.'College; (2) 60 acres be conveyed to TUSD to build two new K-6 schools and one new high school; and (3) 20 acres be conveyed to IUSD to construct a new K-8 school. The critically-important fact to note here is that.these other three districts do not face the same de~ee of overcrowding problems currently being experienced by SAUSD.and RSCCD, but, more importantly, each of these other districts has a white student population that accounts for Some 40% to 60% of its total student enrollment. In contrast, SAUSD has a white student population of 0nty 3% of its total student enrollment and white students comprise only 23% of the total credit/non-credit students enrolled at RSCCD. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransf/Cassidy2.Do¢ Honorabl~ William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Pa~e 4 CON~OR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP According to enrollment fi~res provided by the Califomia Department of Education for 1999-2000 school year~ when the total enrollment of white and nonwhite students attending schools in the I USD (23,392) is added together with the total number of white and non-white students attending schools in the TUSD'(16,192), the combined total (39,584) does not come close to matching the total number of Hispanic students attending schools in the SAUSD (53,112). While SAUSD sen, es over 53,000 Hispanic students--repressnting 91.5% of its total student enrollment--IUSD has a total of only 1.623 Hispanic students enrolled in its schools and TUSD has a total of only 7.047 Hispanic students attending its schools. Despite this ox'em,helming mismatch in the number of Hispanic students served.by the SAUSD, as compared to the combined totaI of Hispanic students sen, ed by IUSD and TUSD, the Cits' is nevertheless proposing that the latter two districts receive a total of 80 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin for four new school sites, but no land is to be conveyed to SAUSD. Likewise, even though RSCCD sen'es almost 25,000 credit/non-credit Hispanic students, as compared to only 3.800 crediv'non-credit Hispanic students served by S OCCCD, the CiD' is currently recommending that almost 100 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed to SOCCCD for the construction of a V~llao* fafiilitv-without an.)., land being conveyed to RSCCD.5 new "Leamin~ ' " To its surprise and dismay, RSCCD has recently learned that, when the City revised the original ·. version of its Reuse Plan for the supposed purpose of making only simple "corrections" to the Plan in the form of an "Errata" sheet~ the City quietly took steps to change that part' of the Reuse Plan (p. 2-30) which provided that,, as a condition for the CiLy's approving SOCCCD's application to be recommended gor a public benefit conveyance of 100 acres of surplus land for the development.of a Learning Village, SOCCCD was expressly required to enter into an "a~eement" with RSCCD to form a "coalition" to operate joint pr0~m'ams and facilities within the proposed Learning Village. For some reason, the City chose not to provide RSCCD with any notice or oppo .rmnity to be heard before deleting this condition of approval from its Reuse Plan, and this shocking revelation only came to light when our office recently obtained a copy 0fthe so-called "Errata' document which was submitted to your Department. Aua~hed coll~"fiveb' as E 'xhibit 'B" hereto are spreadsheets obtained from the Intemet website maintained by the Educational Demo~m'aphics Unit of the California De. pamnent of Education setting forth enrollment data by ethnic ~oup for SAUSD, TUSD, and IUSD for the 1999-2000 school ),ear. Attached collectively as Exhi'bi~ ~C~ hereto are spreadsheets obtained from the Interact website maintained by SOCCCD setting forth statistics regarding the credittnon-credit studmts enrolled annually at its facilities during the period from fall 1992 through fall 2000. Attached coll~fively as Exhibit ~D" hereto are spreadsheets of data maintained by RSCCD showing the ethnic ba:kground of credit/noncredit students enrolled as of fall 1999. RSCCD/NlCAS-LandTran~Cassidv2.Do, o '::.:.? CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 5 The. City's decision lo relieve SOCCCD of the obligation to work out an agreement with RSCCD to share programs and facilities at the 100-acre site to be transferred to SOCCCD is quite disturbing because it. will mean that the blatant inequity in land holdings between SOCCCD and RSCCD will only be exacerbated. Indeed, although SOCCCD now has some 300 acres of land available at its two campuses to meet the needs of some 33,000 students (63.5% which are white), SOCCCD is to be gifted with an additional '100 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin. In sharp contrast to that generous gift, RSCCD--which has only 110 acres at its two campuses to served the needs of some 52,000 students (only 23% of which are white and 49% are Hispanic)--is to be prevented from receiving any land at MCAS-Tustin or from even jointly using the land to be conveyed to SOCCCD.6 · In the absence of any logical explanation for why the Ci~, has changed its mind and is now proposing that RSCCD be excluded from sharing in the benefits of the 1 00-acre land transfer being proposed for SOCCCD, the question which must necessarily be asked at this point is whether the City's actions in this regard have been minted by racial discrimination--whether by desig'n or by effect. Clearly, that same question must be asked when one straggles to understand why the City is recommending that your Department transfer surplus land at MCAS-Tu~in to provide a new school site to a predominantly-white school district, IUSD (58.7% white), without providing arty land whatsoever to SAUSD which is ovem,helmingly Hispanic (91.5%). · C. The Districts' Critical Need For New School Facilities. Putting aside the troubling question of racial discrimination for a moment, the irrefutable fact of the matter is that the need for hew schools in SAUSD and RSCCD has reached a crisis level. SAUSD has ~own 23% in the past ten years and is expected tO ~ow another 33% in the next ten years. Almost 2,000 new students enrolled at SAUSD's schools this year as compared to last year. Moreover, enrollments at RSCCD have increased 45% in the past five years and, as a result, RSCCD has been forced to lease scores of off-site facilities at churches, hospitals, schools, and commercial buildings to accommodate the huge influx of predominantly-minority students. " At both of the Districts, relocating students to "portables" (otherWise 'known as "relocatable ' : trailers") has become an absolute necessity to deal with the severe overcrowding problems. For example, at its 54 schools, SAUSD has been forced to relocate approximately 24,000 students to some 912 portables. As such, there are now more students attending classes in portables at schools in the SAUSD than the total number of students enrolled at all schools in the 11TJSD (23,392). 6 .~ reported to thc State. Chancellor's Office which sup~wvises all community colleges in Califomia, SOCCCD has 625:020 assignable square feet axmilable to serve its .33,000 students, but RSCCD has only 429,276 assignable square f~t to meet the n~ds of its 52,000 students. · 7 Although TUSD presently uses a number of portable classrooms at some of its schools, the total number of mudents ho. used in these portables is only 3..750, which does not even begin to ,~pproach the total number of students in portables in the SAUSD, i.e., 24.000 students. RSCCD/M CAS-LandTram. ff./Cassi dy2.Doe CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, .Ir. November 24, 2000 Pa~," 6 This comparison becomes even more dramatic when one realizes that the number of students in portable classrooms in SAUSD (24,000) is Well over 1-1/2 times the total number of students attending all schools in the TUSD (16,192). Unbelievably, however, with 24,000 students crowded into portables in the SAUSD, the City is recommending that TUSD receive land for three new school sites, IUSD receive one new school site, and SAUSD receive no new school sites. As discussed in the enclosed article from the Los Angeles Times (see, Exhibit "E"), the shortage of classroom space az the public schools i.n Santa Ana is truly acute. The one example cited in the L.A.' Times article is particularly disturbing: at Valley High School in Santa Ana, "40 portable classrooms consume the school's blacktop because of severe overcrowding." This same theme is repeated throughout the SAUSD which has a total enrollment of over 58,000 students, but only has the capacity to house 3 5.000 students withom the use of portables. As a direct result of these horrendous overcrowding problems, SAUSD has been forced to go to a "year-round" calendar at 25 of its elementary schools and four of its intermediate schools. However, as indicated from an artic.le published just this week in the Los .dngeles Times (see Exhibit "F"), there is a growing concern in California that 12-month "multitrak" schedules'in poor and minority communities "present students with hurdles that do not exist at other schools" and may "take a cumulative toll On learning, spawning what many call a two-tiered system of education." Unformnatel); despite' its efforts to remedy the problem of overcrowding, SAUSD has been unable to make any si~ificant headway in fighting this problem. The reason for this is really quite simple, but it is also quite disheartening: with the city of Santh Aha almost 98% built out, there is virtually no vacant land left in the city for SAUSD to acquire for building new.schools. Ironically, property mx assessments generated by a general obligation bond issue have. provided SAUSD with sufficient money to build new schools to ease what many consider to be some of the worst overcrowding conditions in the state of California, but there is simply no land available to use for new school sites. That is why the vacant land at MCAS-Tustin which lies within SAUSD's boundaries is so precious and irreplaceable. Since the land presently consists of agricultural fields and asphalt parking aprons, no businesses or residences would have to be moved off of the property and no toxic clean-up would have to be done before Construction of new school facilities to serve the students of SAUSD and RSCCD could cormnence. Of course, if the two Districu are prevented from obtaining this 'land, the rampant overcrowding which' exists now will continue unabated and, as noted above, it will get even worse if new commercial businesses are developed as the City is presently propo.sing. The adverse effects of continued overcr®wding are obvious and need no · RSCCD&{CAS-LandTranff/~sicly2.Doc ., Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 7 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP explanation. Students in the two Districts who are crammed together due to a severe shortage of space are not being provided with an adequate environment in which to learn and, as such, they are clearly being disadvantaged when compared to students attending schools in the IUSD, the TUSD, and the SOCCCD which do' not face overcrowding problems of a similar magnitude.7 De Request To Withhold Approva! Of Proposed Land Transfers.. Obviously, the City cannot be blamed for the overcrowded school conditions which presently exist in Santa Ana, but it can clearly be faulted for having presented your Department with a proposed list of surplus land transfers at MCAS-Tustin which, if approved and allowed to be implemented, would have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority, parents and students residing in Santa Ana by unjustifiably depriving them of federal property benefits which might otherwise might be extended to them if everyone were treated fairly. Some of the parents who, along with their minor children, would be prejudiced if the City were to be allowed to proceed with its plan to exclude the two Districts from receiving any surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin would include (1) Victor and Susan Garcia and (2) Fourtino and Bertha Rivera. Both the Garcias and the Riveras have children who presently attend Century High School in Santa Ana where some 2,600 students are jammed into a campus built for 1,800 students. Mrs. Gm'cia present, ly serves as president oft he School Site Council at Century High and Mr. Rivera formerly served on the Parks Commission for the City of Santa Aha. As concerned citizens' and parents, the Garcias and the Riveras would like to ensure that they and their children are given an equal opportunity to share in the obvious benefits associated with the surplus land transfers at MCAS-Tustin. Likewise, Karina Valenzuela, the student representative on the Board of Trustees at RSCCD, would like to make sure that ail credit and non-credit students at KSCCD are treated fairly and equally with respect to the benefits associated with those land transfers: Accordingly, on behalf of the two Districts, and also on behalf of the Garcias, the Riveras, their minor children, Ms. Valenzuela, and all persons similarly situated in the city of Santa Aha, we implore your Department to Mthhold its approval of the'surplus federal land transfers at MCAS-Tustin currently being recommended by the City until such time as your Department is satisfied that such transfers would not have the purpose or effect of violating the provisions of (1) Title VI of the CiviI Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq.) [hereinafter, "Title VI"] and (2) the re~lations of the Department of Defense (the "DOD") regarding '~qon-Discrimination in Federally . · 7 Although TUSD presmfly uses a number of portable classrooms at some of its schools,, the'xotal numbzr of students housed in these portables is only 3.750 which does no~ even begin to approach the total number of students in portables, in the SAUSD, i.e., 24.000 students. RSCCD/M CAS-LandTran.~Cassi dy2:Do¢ CONNOR, BLAKE.& GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page g · Assisted Programs" (32 C.F.R. Part 195 et seq.) [hereinafter, the "DOD Title VI Regulations"]. As you are aware, on the basis of its Reuse Plan, the City is asking that your Department issue a Record of Decision ("ROD") to allow certaifl economic development conveyances and public benefit conveyances to be made to a number of recipients recommended by the City--including the City, itself. However, our clients are gravely concerned that, if your Department issues a'ROD authorizing the conveyances proposed in the Reuse Plan to take place, the City. will be handed the vehicle necessao, to block the Districts from obtaining title to the land which they des~verately need to serve the manifest needs of their students. Once the su¢luS land is transferred in the discriminatory manner being proposed by the City, what will occur will be the very type of "disparate impact" on minority groups which is expressly prohibited by Title VI and the DOD Title VI Regulations. E. The Clear Mandate OfTitle V1. Title \q provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation under any program or activity receMng Federal financial .. assistance." '(42 U.S.C. § 2000d,) The statute aisc directs each federal department and agency to issue roles, regulations, Or orders that effectuate the objective and purpose of Title V1. (42 U.S.C. §. 2000d-1.) The Title VI Regulations adopted 'by the DOD apply to, inter alia, all pro.ams administered by any department or branch of the DOD regarding the disposal of surplus federal property, including the disposal of closed or realigned military bases that have been designated as surplus federal' property. (See 32 C.F.R. {} 195.3; 32 C.F.R. {} 195 Appendix A.) Section. 195.4 of the DOD Title VI Regulations provides, in relevant part, as follows: · . , .. (b)(I) "A recipient' under any pro.am to which this part applies may not, directly or. through contractual or other arrangements, on the ~ound of race, color, oi' national original: . (i) Deny any indMdual any sen, ice, financial aid, or other ben'fit provided under the pro=m-am; (ii) Provide any service, f'man¢ial aid, or other benefit' to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided' to others under the pro_m-am; RSCCD/MCAS-LandTran_~Cassidy2.D0: BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 9 (iii) In dete .nn. ining the site or location o.f facilities, recipient may not make selections with the rmmose of excludin~ individuals from, den._.ving them the benefits o£ or' subjecting them to discrimination underanv nro~ram to which this r~art apr~lies, on the ground of race, color, or national origin; or with the l~Umose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the Act or this part." (32 C.F.R. § 195.4(b)(l)(iii).) (2) "A recipient, in determinina the t~q~es of se~,ices, financial aid. or other benefits, or facilities which will be provided under any such pro,am, or the class of individuals to whom. or the situations in which, such sen, ices. financial aid. other , benefits, or facilities will be r>rovided under any such program, or class of indMduals to be afforded an opr>ormnil v to.participate in any such proaram, ma5' not directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their rice, color, or national origins, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the ot:;jectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.." (32 C.F.R. § 195.4(b)(2), emphasis added.) As the above-quoted provisions indicate, a recipient of federal financial assistance or other b~nefits, such as free federal land conveyed by 5'our Depamnent,.can violate the DOD Title VI Regulations by either (1) conducting or administering the pro.am for which its receives such assistance or benefits in a manner that intenti'onally dis. criminates against a person or ~oup on .the basis of' race, color, or national offg/n, or (2) conducting or administering the. prog'ram in a manner that has the effect of discriminating against a person or _.group on the basis of race, color, or national origin. In other words, as is the case with all other Title VI regulations which have been adopted by the other departments of the federal government, the DOD Tide V1 Regulations prohibit actions that have a · "disparate impact" on ~oups protected by Title Vl-such as Hispanics--even in the absence of. discriminatory intent. (See; e.g., Cruardians ~4~s'n ~,. Civil Serv. Commn., 463 U.S. 58:2, 584, (1983); ViIlanueva ~,. Carere, 85 F.3d 481,486 (10th. Cir. 1996); Elston ~. Tatladega County Bd. o.f_Educ., 997 F.2d 1394, 1407 (1 Itla Cir. 1993); Georgia State Conference ofBranches ofNAACt~ ~. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1417 (1 Ith. Cir. 1985).) . :, · RSCCD,~{CAS-LandTran~C.~sidy2.Doe' CONNOR. BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Pa~,e 10 F~ Disparate Impact On Hispanic Parents And Students. If your Department issues a ROD based on the City's Reuse Plan and surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin is allowed to be conveyed to the City 'and to the recipients recommended by the City ( .=., IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD), it is exceedingly clear that the City will use the land conveyed to it in a manner which will have a "disparate impact" on the predominantly-Hispanic student populations of SAUSD and RSCCD because, although these students clearly have the greatest need for new school facilities, they and their districts will receive not one square inch of surplus federal land under the City's Plan. In contrast, IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD, each with laree white student populations, will receive up tO 180 acres of free land for new school sites. In addition, as discussed above, when the City proceeds to adopt its Specific' Plan upon the issuance of the ROD and zones the real property it acquires in the southwest comer of MCAS-Tustin as "commercial business," thus making it unavailable for educational uses, this will impose a disproportionate adverse 'impact on the minority students attending schools in the SAUSD and the RSCCD because it will only serve to perpetuate the terribly overcrowded conditions which presently exist in Santa Ana. in this regard, the Final EIS/EIR for the City's Reuse Plan states that,' although the City's reuse of MCAS-Tustin would not "directly" generate any new students.for the Districts because it does not propose any residential development within the Districts' boundaries, it would "indirectly" generate a substantial number of new students for the Districts due to the fact that. many of the workers who fill the jobs that would be generated by the City's pr?posed reuse Would find housing within the Districts' boundaries. (Final EIS/EIR at p.4-61.) Indeed, in the Final EIS/EIR, the City concedes that its proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin will generate as many as 509 new students for SAUSD. (Final EIS/EIR at p. 4-63.) . Of course, it should be noted that the figure of 509 new students is ~ossly understated because it is based on the patently unreasonable assumptions set forth in the Final EIS/EIR regarding how many of the workers who would fill the 77,400 new jobs that would be generated by the development oft he City's Specific Plan would end up residing in S~ta Ana~ For example, the "Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS-Tustin Site Upon Household Groa.xh in the Santa .trna Unified School District" which is set forth in the Final EIS/EI~ it is estimated tha~ only four pei-cent (4%) of the households associated with the new jobs by the impl,mentation of the City's Specific Plan would be located in Santa Aha. That is a ridiculously low fi~o~are because far more than a mere 4% of the tens of thousands of unskilled workers that would be called upo.n to fill the ne,,, jobs in question would, of necessiB,, end up 1Mng in the closest- available affordable housing which would principally, if not exclusively, be found in Santa Aha. ! RSCCD,%{CAS-LandIr~.sflCassidy2.Doc · . . .. '.2..:: .'...' , CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cass;dy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 11 However, even assuming for the sake of argument that the City's estimate of 509 new students is correct, what it demonstrates is that the City's proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would unmistakably exacerbate the Districts' overcrowding problems and this impact would be disproportionately felt by the · predominantly-Hispanic parents and students residing in the two Districts in comparison to the predominantly-white parents and students of the IT. lSD, the TUSD, and the SOCCCD. For example, in the Final ElS/ElK, the City estimates that its proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would generate 1,I43 new students for TUSD. To accommodate these new students, the City recommends that three school sites be set aside for TUSD. As for IUSD, the Ci~, est;re.aris that its proposed reuse would generate 302 new students. To accommodate these new students, the City. recommends that IUSD receive one s~hool site. What is crucial to note here, however,'is that the new students that will be generated by the build-out of the Cit)."s redevelopmen{ plan will be the children of parents who are sufficiently affluent to be able to afford the expensive new homes to be built in the upscale neighborhoods that are slated for development around the proposed new "Golf Village" at MCAS-Tustin. In oth=r words, the new school sites to be transferred to TUSD and IUSD at MCAS-Tustin are not being allocated to serve the needs of minority students, rather, it would appear that just the opposite is true. As far as minority students are' concerned, the City estimates that its reuse plan would generate between 82 and 509 new students for SAUSD. However, it recommends that S.~USD receive not a single school site to accommodate these new students. What the City is saying, in effect, is that the predominately-white student population that will be generated on-site at MCAS-Tustin when the City's Specific Plan is developed and expensive homes are built should be accommodated with four new school sites, but SAUSD should receive no new school sites to serve the needs of the 509 p}edominately-minority students' that are expected to be added to the schools in Santa Aha by the development of the Specific Plan. '. As stated above,.th~ Districts believe that the City's estimate of between 82 and 509 new students for sAUSD is unreasonably Iow. However; even if the median of this range were to be used for the sake of comparison - i.e., 295.5 - the difference bet..eon the number of new students to be generated for IUSD and those to be generated for SAUSD would be only 6.5 students, which would hardly justify awarding IUSD a new school site and giving SAUSD nothing to meet its far more extensive needs. Likewise, the three school sites proposed for TUSD would work out to one site for every 381 new students generated by the development of the City's Specific Plan, but, again, when compared 'to the 509 student figure, or even the median fi=m~re of 295.5 for SAUSD, the 381 figure for TUSD cannot possibly justify the City's proposal to generously bestow three school sites on TUSD while sending the Hispanic parents and students' in Santa Aha away empty-handed. . . · RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransf/Ca~idy2.Doe CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William CaSsidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 12 G. The Preferred Solution. Our clients are aware that the DOD Title VI Regulations establish a complaint procedure whereby "any person'who believes himself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination Prohibited by [the regulations]" may request an investigation of such discrimination. (32 C.F.R. § 195.8(b).) However, our clients sincerely hope that this matter will not proceed to the point where a formal "investigation" will have to be undertaken. Fortunately, the discrimination our clients are complaining about will not occur unless and until your Department approves the land transfers being proposed by the City and allows the requested economic development/public benefit conveyances to take place. Once that is allowed to happen, however, our clients will be irreparably injured because they will be left with no recourse, other than going to court, to enjoin or undo the real property transfers. Unfortunately, however, once title to the MCAS-Tustin parcels passes to third parties, it may be too late o to remedy the situation by filing lawsuits to set aside grant deeds and to unwind complicated real estate transactions. · The more prudent and la;~ul approach, therefore, would be for your Department to rake steps to avoid what will otherwise mm into a serious violation of the DOD Title VI Re~lations. How can this be done? By simply supporting the earlier decisions of the DOE to convey surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to meet the needs of the two Distri.cts. ' In 1993 and 1994, the Districts submitted applications to the DOE and the City requesting that · two parcels of property at MCAS-Tustin - one parcel that falls entirely within the Districts' current boundaries and one parcel that is contiguous with the Districts' current boundaries - be transferred to the Districts by means of public benefit conveyances for use aS new school sites. On July 25, 1994, the · DOE approved the application of SAUSD for a public benefit conveyance of 75 of the 150 acres at MCAS-Tustin that falI within the Districts' boundaries for the construction of a new high school. In so doing, the DOE requested that your Department assign such property to the DOE for conveyance to SAUSD at.a 100% discount. Similarly, on February 3, 1995, the DOE also approved the application of the Orange County Education Coalition (the "Coalition") for the public benefit conveyance of approximately 116 acres of land at'MCAS-Tustin that is conti~ous with the Districts' current boundaries. The Coalition was comprised of the two Districts, SOCCCD, and the Orange County Department of Education, and sought · to develop a "Learning Village" on such property. As the Reuse Plan and the Errata thereto aclmowledge, "[RSCCD] was the originator of the 'Learning Village' concept and was instmmental in its being included in the approved [Reuse] Plan." (Reuse Plan at p.6-20; Errata at p.6-20.) Again, in approving this application: the DOE requested that your RSCCD/MCAS-LanclTmnsff~sidy2.Doe CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 13 Department assign such property to the DOE for conveyance to the Coalition at a 100% discount. Without question, the best solution for the two Districts .and the' parents and students which the5, serve would be for your Department lo Support the DOE's earlier decisions to approve the above-described land transfers to the Districts. Those land transfers would, if implemented by your ' Department, serve the _m'eatest educational needs of the greatest number of people residing in the areas immediately surrounding MCASTustin. Hopefully, your Department will 'take a long, hard look at this situation and will decide that, in good conscience, it should serve the needs of all, and not just some, of the students who could potentially be benefited by the conveyances of surplus land to be made at. MCAS- Tustin. H. A Possible Com~)romise. '-'.5:-? To assist your Department in resolving this difficult problem, the 'Districts would be willing to discuss a reasonable compromise to accommodate all of the competing interest involved in this matter. One proposal which the Districts would be willing to consider would be to reapportion the 100 acres of surplus at MCAS-Tustin which the City is currently recommending be transferred to SOCCCD. Specifically, instead °fbeing used exclusively by SOCCCD (which Was never the intent of the original Base Reuse Task Force), the 100 acres would be divided as follows: (1) 80 acres would be conveyed to a Joint Powers Authority which would include the Districts and (2) the remaining 20 acres would be · conveyed, to SOCCCD. ' Under this proposal--which would clearly not be the Districts' first choice--the Districts would be provided with sufficient acreage to jointly develop a state-of-the-art K-14 facility to serves the needs of their burgeoning student populations. Such a proposal would allow 'the City's master plan to remain intact and it would likewise provide SOCCCD with sufficient land commensurate with its acmaI needs. In addition, the proposal would not affect the proposed land transfers to IUSD and TUSD and they'would go fom'ard as planned. Re~ettably, the City has refused tb discuss such a compromise proposal with the Districts to date, even though it would appear to be a "win-win" situation for everyone involved. The City's refusal to participate in good-faith negotiations regarding such a proposal-which would appear to do no harm to the economic viabili~, of its Specific Plan for the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin--again raises the ugly spectre of racial discrimination as being the true motivating factor behind the City's staunch opposition to allowing development of any new school facilities at MCAS-Tustin which would be attended by predominantly-Hispanic students from S~ta Ana. The simple truth of the matter is that no one who looks at this problem objectively can fail to see the racial implieafions of the CiB,~s proposed actions in RS CCDlMCAS-LandTran~Cassi'dy2.D or. CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William 'Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 14 attempting to shut the Districts and their students off the base. The City is apparently afraid that, if/he Districts are allowed to build a K- 14 facility at MCAS -Tustin to be attended by predominantly-Hispanic students from Santa Ana, this might be viewed as a negative factor by prospective owners and operators of the brand new homes and businesses to be developed on the base. However, the DOD Title VI Regulations do not allow such a racially-bas.ed concern to influence the City's proposals as to which school districts should receive surplus land at MCAS-Tustin. In conclusion, whether by design or simply by effect, the City's proposal to exclude the Districts from the list of recipients of surplus federal land transfers at MCAS-Tustin will clearly result in untawf'ul racial discrimination against Hispanic parents and students residing in Santa Ana. However, by exercising its leadership in this matter, your Department can avoid any potential discrimination by ensuring that the Districts are not foreclosed from participating in the surplus land conveyances at MCASTusrin.' If all five educational districts whose boundaries cover portions of MCASTustin are treatedfairly in how the surplus land is to be apportioned, then there will be no discrimination and no violation of the DOD Title VI Regulations. As such, your Department holds the key to solving the present dispute and to upholding the letter in the spirit of the'DOD's policies prohibiting discrimination in the selection Sf persons to receive federal surplus land. On behalf of our clients, we sincerely hope that your Department will use its best efforts to effectuate a just and honorable solution to this difficult' problem so as to prevent it from escalating into an even bigger controversy. If our office can be of any assistance to your Department in trying to craft a workable solution to bring this matter to an end, please do not hesitate to contact us.- cc: (via Federal Express) Hon. William S. Cohen Hon. Richard Danzig Hon. Richard W. Riley Hon. John Podes~a Hon. Randall Yim. Sen. Barbara Boxer Sen.. Dianne Feinstein ' '. Rep. Loretta Sanchez RSCCD/MCAS'LandTransf/Cassidy2.Doc Very truly yours, Edmond M. Cormor 3.4 TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL. o . · ... ... ,~: [RV[NE "' UNIFIED DISTRICT ::. ... ;ANTA ANA UNIFIED . SCHOOU- DISTRICT -' I,;LTON PI..,'W't' . · .. · · · . o REUSE PL&N BOUNDARY .. · ~;CHOOL bISTRICT BOUNDARIES . SAmA '~" U.~neD'SCHO~L b~ST~C? TU~;TIN UNIFIED',~2;HOOL DISTRICT - · · . o .. · . · · MC~S Tdsda. .. .. . . · · · · · o , · · - - : · . : . . Figure 3.4.-1 " Boundaries ~f School.Districts · · · . · . · · . . · o ......._ P~ge ~--~9 EXHIBIT "A" " . · · . . . · o 0 .. i · . . ... Th e Aim an ac · ...?. · '~tudent Char 2000 A.sian, HNpa~c, and White catego~l .. ~--Click on links to s~ detail for USA Foreio~n tVisa Visa [StudeatVisa · EXHIBIT "C" Page 1 of 4 Pages , ' ~c/dcmo ~ora hics/diststudcharf h~ http ://~x~.so cccd. cc. ca-us/ref/alman ~. P ' 11/17/00 lvenbngl',v th RESIDENCE iDistrict Residence 1 'O~er CC D/s~icts OD.{) % 84.5% 8.6% [ACE DISTRIBUTION ~.~%11 ~.~%1[ *'~%1I .... ~.o~lL._ Il tl i[ 1I Il I!under 18 [~ge 22-29 3049 7ge 50-69 ?over 69 NIT R_A.N G E [[0-5.99 mu/ts 12 or more ![ '2-i'%1[-- 2'3%1 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% II 26.~ll" 26.~1i 27.5% 28.3% 28.9% [ ~.0%' 21.7%21;6% 20.4% 19.2% l[27'°kll 26-6%1[ .~.s~ll. 24.6~ 24.7% 1i il 1I .... 9.8 9.5°, ,o 9.2% 8.9°' ,, ~.N~O~L~~S~~S 11 ~oo.o~1I ~oo.o~1t ~oo.o~1[.~oo.o%1t ~oo.o% · :s~tr~,~. '1I ~o:~1I -:~6-~%1["~o-7~1I ~o.~ Continuing 69.9% ;Unknown 0.5% First Transfer 8.7% 9.2% 8~8%1 9.0% 8.7% _ _ Retm-~g Transfer [[-3.5%!I 33%1I 3.7%11 3.S%JJ 3.7% l~emm/ng [[ .zx%ll_"7.1%11 6.6~1I 7.2~ i[ ,.s~ [STUDLEVEL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.1% 0.1% " 0.1% 0.3% 03% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0,o: 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 'BA Deom-ee+ ,Unkno~m EXHIBIT '"Q". Page 2 of 4 Pages · . http :1/~~. s o c c cd. c c. ca.us/ref/alm an ac/d em o graphi cs/d i stsm d charl2.h~ 11/17/00 The Almanac '~tudent Characteristics: Fall 1992-Fall 2000 ] EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 of 4 Pag.es · ht~p ://~,w.s occcd.cc, ca.us/ref/almanac/dem%m'aphi cs/diststudcharf2-htm 11/17/00 iDi:y = ~ Credit Day-Eve Non-credit ,Day-Eve Both Evening Credit Non-Credit Both RESIDENCE District Residence CC Districm Out of State/Foreign 50-69 2 or more ENROLLMENT STA.TUS' Time :First Tra~fer- --'-~~~~ Return/rig Transfer Retuming · ., 5,247 EXHEBZ~ ~C".?age 4 o~ 4 Pages http:/i~~v-soccc&cz-cams/regalmanaz/d~m°~aP~CS/aistsmclch~'htm 11/17/00 The Aln an ac '.':.'.::.'.-..: · .;_.._.:.:/ GENDER I1 District Stu'~len{' charact'ei-istjcs-:' Fall 1992-FaI1 2000 1996 1997 Fail 1998 Fail 1999 2000 "' .... 11 uoo.o~[[ ~oO.°~lj' '/'o°io%ij"~°°~O~l ~oo..o~ .. i[._~°o.o~!1 ~o0.o~11 ~oo.o~ =oo.o~ ~oo.o~ [Male ETHNICITY ,~~~z~ai~ ~ I1 o-7%11 LT~il d.6~'ll o.~% o.~ ,~~ I1 ~z~%lt~ ~.~1" ~7%1I ~.o~11 ~.~' II *.s~ll 7:J~:'li' 7.7%1i ~-2~1[ 8.0% - , . ~ite(not H~p~c) ti_ 6g.4~;1l '~:2~11 .... 6~>%11 63.5%il 62.9 II-aoo.o~li' ~s.s%ll aoo.o~ll ~oo.o~ll os. 1I ~~~v~ tl' '~ 1[ JI Ot.h~ Visa 0.8% STUDENT . 100.0% II. 55 2g 1~.2~ 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 1_00~0% 100:0% 100.0% 24.a~ll- ao.o~i -6o.9~1l ss.x%li - 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Part-time 85.6% 9.5% 1.9% 0.9% 100.0% 30.4% 53.8,% 15.8% 100.0,% Day Credit [Day Non-are&it Day Both '. '. jDay-Eve Non-credit Jj ,lD~y-m,e ~'om-11, 22.7% 23.7% 22_1% 13.9% 13.6% 13.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.5%I 32.5% ..30.2% . 32.3% . ~;4~11,, O~ll" 28.9% 23.2%~ 21.5% 13.6% ~°' 2.0% 1.9% 31.4% ~.6 ~ EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 Of 4 Pag.es http ://~vw.s o c c cd. cc. ca.us/ref/almanac/demo =m-apb i cs/diststu dch ~.hm 11/17/00 jDay ~v. Czedi! · y-Eve:Non-credit tDay-Eve Both fEverfingCredit Evening Non-Credit : IEvening Both ~istrict Residence Other CC Districts --- , '~t o'~ Sli~te;F°rkign 1I~.~---1!' ,'1I ".11-, 1I ~7[Jl 31 ,- 1~i~2,i~211~3:~6~l~)~,ll~;b~ojl,:~:<lI 27,~3~ 28,102 '~;'76 ~,~ 27,939 l::oql -: 78 %1 ,, 11.~'2,569]1~'2,~01~127331~1 -Tsl1-2.s6 ~J ,,, .. [ge22-29 J[~e 30~9 UNIT RANGE 6-8.99 units 9-11..c~) units or more F_MROLLMENT STATUS :First Time Transfex .g Trknsfer Rehzming . Continuing Il : i -..-'. .... 11': ::::11. ":-:Il ::: :1I:: ~:: I1:~:: :11:: 31,651 32,41_ 0,,168 ~,094 ~,080 -o14 -0 94 Yo im~ ~oo~ .... ':: "" '__l_l o4l: s~-I, s~.ll_-" 291_11 ' ~1 ~phomore .. , ~xb%~- ' .... 1~~t_~=~!_ ~,70sl~l EXHIBIT "C".Page 4 of 4 Pages http :/twww.socccd. ce. cams/tel/aim aaa cid em ograptfi esldisTMd chaff. Nm o 11/17/00 '.'.,...../' .o i ., -... - ..:. .... - · ,. ....... . . .v -. ' " .. ' .-'." .'..': . '. . ~ ....:.:'. -" · (~.-.... .... . . ~. . . ... . .. . ., . , ... · .:~.. ". -: ' ~- '. .... ..... ;..g..,.-' : :-~ .... .Z.'--.'. ''. ..' ,". .... · . · °, . - · ----':--- .... ---- .... ...,:':.- :- .... '-.:.-.r:,:'..'" :.::: ._5 :' :: ':." (::5" . · .. ' ' .;:' '~: ' .;' ' "' ' . . ' ' · ' ' t ; ' ' - .'-:'--'-'-. .............. ' ....-..- '---- "-- = ~-;~--~.~_:.--,;~,:-~-'~ ~:;-~sof~;.~f:~ :'-'...._.. _ _:in.W~~o,..~o- "- -- "h-~-~=~]~,;':~h~. i~m~ .. · - ..':- '..= _..._ '.-::,,z~....~?...,'. ,'-.. : ::..'. .... ',.-.' .'..p.u-'-,~ ~.~,c.u~F~.r--u,-.~.'~..-t---..': ..... -- · ...... ..-..- .. ~ .... ', -'~--.. '.'. ' 7. ;' '. . ,: '-" =~San~ .Asa ,.o.m.c!_..a. ks.:no, pe_}.,.;.to..., - ' .' "~cti6ol.:i'i{t~:'o'n th~'basi, w~ch-'fn~3iJded .-' ':i' believe (hit. t.h.e;f.ederal..g.ovemmen, t.- '..'..' '..'.."'.5-;~;'z~'-:-:'='.?':;?.~:'.Z=-/'_.7:5'..Z(.'".~2';.'~,.' '.~'~'.:,.5-.;'~7':~'-:")-::'.-',, ..' '- :-: .... "" '-' "~,-i' f ~; ~o-;'i~di.~ci'to'r~'linaui'h 'control. -.: rsuaae:me.eaucauon:secl=~ty .... :=.~. =-~.~: .... . ....,,. =.:...., ...... ,.. :.. .,L . .,r: . :-:-.- .: .- ~..... ~-~ . . -. · .-~...-'... :-.e.,-:-'. ,...--- ~ ..-.--:e.- :: '.-:..'.' -.-'5-:; .--...._.' '-' :: ::'..:?i'r'-:2,~..~/t;;~Tg~.,.,; ;~. ;,'. =:-'r~ r;'a:dv f6i'''~ Of'~' l£'~d ;J it is'use~ to aadre.~ fi-i<press- .' . .. ' :. ~" -.' ".'~ . · - '. ' : ' ': - :- ' '- :: .~:-jYy [ /C;;'~CI&I:,.~. GIL,~.i l~-f -r~ ..... ,, . . '" . .. . - ' t"- , . '. : ,to help tHem'~:f.or_ce.:T.~.-:to, han'd. ,~2 ,~,<,. ;~ '4/,,,'ra'~bin~: to"~'in "-v6wed '-gig ~=,~d 6[ prm'iding a quaii.t:y io.ucat.',on, ' · --, '--,':" ff."-:';:::-'. ?--.:!:. :'~ .-"" ~.~:'. .:- -i:.;; '. -:~. ' · -~:"- 'I~ .... ~.~ ...... .,- ~.. c, ..... :, -.. - :"'. · - · · .' over-.]0Oacr, es -~:;..- :;.:'.-=: -;.--'.l... ' ':.. 'Briaz{:'-~.6hle=}-~r~'sident--of'P~aricho San:. '-£o~:'oufkid's,';'~'fi~2 said: - -'- :: ..- "'..' :"" . .'- !'z-':' '.:'::-:..'~"-~-e..:~.::',"" : ,~,.~2-;kf,'i;~.~'~'tr~i~es.a,.aorosi=con£~r~": :~,oast'v~e~[~'.:l~'st'-ditc.'t/effgrtto~and.'~t~ J . ... . .:.:,.:....::...:: ....,.z....,.-............ .......... ,:,.,,,5,.:_.o...,~,,,,iu. _,:.,. ..... , .: ,. ~.... . ... .. ..... .-- , . ._ , . · :-~.' '-.z [;"'.-'~'¢,..g~' '..':: --'"'- -. -?-'-..c;...' ' -..' ~nce.'.-iit'_-5;';illi~.: Hig't/.:SctiooI-.in.Santa Ana;....hhe:tand-tr~.hsfer. thr. o.ugn..state ~a,w p..asseg-' .BvJE~.'.O:.' ~o>~..:..'.-.q:--.~:: ~: :....~' ~' .i. =., :'..' .aa~'& ~'~":,L,~;':,l,;~ ;:,:,;-i .... ~ ~,,mrr/e'tfie ~'h',,5~ihbl¢ ~v.,~h'~s' supr}ort'~rx:I[n~d up':., ...h~,iigmr~;g, trr~.,.....-~:~.:....x.. :-..........: :,.. -,,~==.=~..W_.,,~o,=.~ .................. . .. ...... . .... = .... __ ...- .. ...".' :: '2..'::_'.5 '2..'r.:i:'.~'~.'.;.-:~;".:~:.J.:}:;;5/.. ,.".- - l'.:~:~.~kt{~.f'~:--~l.~.I.f.t6.'lS;f~}ih...s,'e g~ver'~,cr.9.wd.f?* ~'.a}6ri0..-ot~vgt~ in the ?.e.~a. t~.-,B, u..t....t.h,e.' 'O[L. iC;'_,L.LC~,,?- 'bIJ. I&~.ZU~.,G'UV.a.L""~'*"~:~'__.~. :,"_'.' )? ~-: [ . ,- I'I'.J,I~.,~.C,,.~O ,G4..j~ ,s, ~,,:nld~&. - "" · '- ;. -":". : ' . '.. · ...- o -: . _-.-_.. ' - --,..,-, ,r' - ,L-., -_~_"J- -' :'-'-' .: : "'- '.'-"' r ~: - .. --_%L~ '-',.'.;,:. ~.-'~.,.i~.-.%-,- "":' · "' '" ' '" ----'-',"~'Z .' - ':r ..'; ,....,-,.r -... s..-.-. '. :'. ' '.'" "' ' " ' C) :.':t6 intel.Wih:eV~".-I~if aii"~'t;.'t:9?f. _'6.,~f.~-~. st. i,ne .. _W. ~tP.";Houge .'.tTo.~si; 'ute; that. we: a~re' g.rv.en- ...~a~ S~.,m..: R?ss.~. 9hn_so..n,,t ?.~,m-?~am,_.e_a.--' :-..~.~*f~:~`~:~`...~:t~;.~xg~..~X//~g.~~;;~.~i~i.r3~Yi`...ij~2;'.~°?`~....;L~~&-~ti&.~ gaud .~I .t~iia-es, 'b~, S~nat~ Pr[giclentSP. ro :~-e.m-Jon.n ~ur.t.o.n.' . ~-t.u."'~5*¢""-:'..'r~:'a.'P'cD.'5.%._"F-;,."~'~'Pj.:--F.:' · -.-. =.'.' , / --'~,","m""3_-? :~'t'"-f~'-":.'T-'...' .' :..'; ..,..- %": :._= .,_ .' .2.:..',.: . .' .'-.,'- ' .-' '..' .' - - "~-'~:: "-'-' ;:.'-;M~i'h~.a's~.~6i¢%5~' i~rif-..~'v~'-i_?.'-"-': ' i?-".'-, i"..~'.~.' kiht~n{ekt:{f.gahg K.na'Umt, ed:_ - ! '-' (D-"S .an :v'r~, .c_~.sc?f:..:. ;;...,.;._..::_ ._-~,:: ..: -' '"::-' ' ~--'. ".""'~ :". ~' ::'-'." "-"'?:"":' ..... ' ,, "' ': "': "': ""' "; -'tate~nt. Wedne!~da ::'L'~, Riley ,o helD, ~ased on the 1..9i a?.... ..-a~o..Sant~..~.e3.Eomm.~Y.-!Col. le.g<cli~--_ '-. s.a~.d.:.m:a pr. ep.~rcd s. :'-. .. Y - ~ ..... - . -: ._.-. ' .... ,-, ,,~,.-.i~.-.- 0 lCIa.],S ,[.-1~1t$~$C-~t~ l.~uaj',(U.., ,ua :'t'fi~O[:~ii~?n'~[.'.io-'..~2..~ij~:-I/?iii~.5,~. t~t:tha.'t'-'zh'k'..~".Mi iobt~j'adm'inist,'~tic[r(., ffi.'. '~..:v 7'.'-.-'-'" 'KZ-_ ii". 3 -':.-...:. '.-j '..-.", '.:::. o. . . EXHIBIT ':E" ?ag'e i' of'2 Pages · RSCCD School of Continuing Education Studcn! Ch:~r:~cteristics Fall 195}4- Fall 1~'99 Ethnicitv Am-..ri~an Indian 85 <l 76 · <] 165 1 155 <1 I37 <1 61 Afi-i~.an-American ] 60 ] 179 I 301 ] 364 2 398 2 As~an. 1723 12 1518 9 2005 9 1631 8 1625 6 Latino 7527 50 8947 55 12301 511 13333 63 15132 59 Fil¥ino 35 <1 33 <l 68 <1 54 <1 85 <1 '142 Caucasian 2125 14 2183 13 2923 14 2995 14 3558 14 67 Other 360 2 382 2 808 4 1432 7 1847 7 413 No,.reported 2908 20 2913 lg ~682 13 1091 5 3067 12 - , ,. : , , i ' ~ ''*-' ~ · ' i7 and under 485 .3 596 4 422 2 785 4 775 3 60 lg 505 3 571 4 828" ~ 1383 ' 7 1546 6 306 19 642 4 648 4 984 5 978 5 1201[; 5 88 20-21 1312 9 1385 9 1753 $ 1658 8 2020 8 54 22-25 2586 17 250'4 15 3412 ]6 3094 15 3867 15 50 26-29 2196 !5 2466 15 3151 15 2792 13 3519 14 60 x0-39. 3306 22 3828 2'4 5251 25 5211 25 6892 27 .' 9 4049 1328 9 1548 10 2195 10 2169 10 2824 II 13 50-64 919 6 935 6: 1238 6 1087 5 1295 5 over 64. 1603 11 1711 11 1980 9 1849 9 1858 7 I6 . not reported 4 ] <l 39 <1 39 <l ~I9 <l 45 <l -. ., . Dav/Ni~ht S~atu_s Day 6469 43 7076 44 9105 43 9015 43 11575 45 79 Night 6541 44 7418 46 8668 41 8549 4i 1021'8 40 56 Both - 1913 13 '1737 ll 3480 16 3491 ' I7 4056 15 112 , . , ,. . (~ender .. Male ' 7603 51 7393 46 10280 48 11121 53 13039 50 72 Female 7078 47 6874 42 9102~ 43 ..9387 45 10328 40 46 notrepo~ted 242 2 1964 ~2 . 1871 9 547 3 2482 10 ' - , Enrollment Status Fir~Time 4854.: 33 4897 30 5482 26 5815 28 6360 25 ~1 .Return'rog 619 4 599 4 915 4 1132 5 274 1 44 Continuing 9450 63 10729 66 14353 68' 13799 66 18748 73 98 not ~port~ - _ 6 <1 503 2 309 2 467 2 - · _Cit~nship Statu,s. - U.S. citizen 7440 50 8075 50 11634 55 12337 59 15983 62 115 3864 38 3964 15 27 immigrant .3117 21 3701 ~_3 4583 22 other 4365 2[} 4455 27 5036 24 4854 ~ 5902 23 35 · , , . .... Exhibit "D" Page 3 of 3 · · o o. · EXHIBIT. "E" Page 2 of 2 Pages ., , · LO£ ,--'~NGELES TIi~S . MO!';DA Y, · .o · o · · · --.:..lreareRound-Discontent' a.t=.:High.:SChOOl. -.-.... , -.. .... -. . -... ..." ~ .'..~. .-.....~ - -..- .. . -. :~ Tweb;~montfi ~iaed'ule. - ' · . · 'kllows morestudents~o · · cy'cl~ throu~ the building. but wlqaes ~e effect bn · o 'their ed,tica'.tion?'. ' -...' · o .o ByDUk~HELFA.N~. " " . o o doors' pp~.n 12'mor/ttis a ye2.r to ~ o%e.w~ow. '~mn'g..T'n~ye~-ro,.and ' hundreds more $t. udents through ..its cramp~'d d~sroom$..It also chilSs away at' th~-.edu~on. · -Teadhm-s $~p. pag~ of mater'S, al, assign le,s hom~wc;rk and give fewer tests 15ecafi&e.their .school 2'~ has bet-.~'~h~ bye? d~., ttun&-~s..'o.f: pupils take the- ~tanford 9 :~ shortly' after tumihg-'fi'om'ah eight.-wedr va~-. . tign. Othkr.~ ~ be.'taBng the.' . " ' · '-"' ' 'sta. te's new high' school exit axm~ Richard C~ningham, abo~,, teaches '/(~tvanhed: .,anna'.Figuero~. in Er~gli~h ~la'ds' ~he hop~ her' just. tw6 d~-y$. ~t~ th[7 rethm' . fr6m th~i-..'.win ~t~l~mak -- ' ' Pla6errient En~ish at HoIly~.od High.-~'ei0~v; ¥o- ' J~inua'ry~Sruaw ¢~lJan dsesn't hinder ktu6ies:; '.~. s:~~Sm:~get~fi=a" ' ' ' ' '. ' -' ' : - .:- - .. . - .... , . sffaim~ in.'.~.m.~i~i.ind ~b's'.ttiat ' .', ' ' ' " .... l .ooI~ '~o6a on' coIlege.~,Sp, limti6~ ' 'be.e3. us.e .they.'.r.e in :~ch~ol, ~n~. otha,~' mu~'~'~..mmpm'd~'- 'hand.artdiSk.: ' - ' ~-~ood High whether ~tud~t.z a,~'. ...g~tting a ~"xt-clax~. education and: ":'If yofl'want_q, tO.destroy public · schools, you'd ' ' . s~art, with ye. ar- . ' roun//'.'kchedules," :.s'ai/i EngI/sh ' . o . o EXHIBIT "P'.' Page 1 of 3 Pages · 'd~i:.hin five yc~r:, cvcry ],iEh · r,:bco', in, L~.- Unifit-6 mu~ convco-~ [o ~ r. rhcdule like'Hollywood H~gh'~; c.~sualfie: of crplo~ive ..:"~!':'~ grcr.,z'..h and the di~,--i:['~ iailtt-c to ".'.'.:;:.:.'! build ;~hool;. More [han halt ':': ~ i .midd]~schools al~o will h~. ~;e. to nm · .~-r~und. '" .. - .7~$~ve-month zchedule~ h~ve. ~m~ a 'primary. zoluti0n to over- 'crowding in 'a'growing number .of · 'di.~a-i~s bemuse th~7 ail.ow. -zcahools to ~erwe- ~idditional'ztud~h~ in "'7' Use 'of the year-round-calendar. .' bver two de~ad~z. L_~ Unified no~: . · 'iua~ mbre y~ar-round .campus~- . man'New.¥o.'rk, Cni~go, P~i.lade.]- '. Phi~ Miami ~r~d-Hou.st.o.n. corn~ bin~l.' ' · ' · ' · . 'The e.~ience :it H6Ib~ood . ~ p~nt..studm~th'~ur~ · .~t ~ not e~ at ~ther sch~lz. . .~ne ~~, ~e not ~pp~g on ~th~- ~,~:e ~ ~~afive toil on "'l~~g, ~~ ~mt m~y "a ~~ ~ztm of " ~In a welt;intenti0n~d effoN-to "~lve ~~~~g, we ~ve mc- '~t~ ink--Sm ~.~h~ls," -- J~n~e Oak~,-az;&iafe'dean U~k's gmd~~~I ~f ~~-' · ' ~on ~d ~omaon Sth~ ' 'pie ~ mo~ p~~e.~d.~H~-. ' .~ cio~ '~gt ~t ~ ,(:75.:.-5::~ ~'=~="=n~':' ~ . . :'5 ~"-k.' -'/ ' ' ' ' ' .'-~ .C" , . . :' ..." 'NGradeSch~~-' ' . , -~p~ ~.No~ ~ 1 m~- . .... ~ofity co~~~ Mo~ m~- . ' ~m~ ~en~.~e ~om~ at the el- . . ~ mm~le~- . . ' - .~-~oge ~d~, stu~ have ) 'mint NtOe ~~.~ ~n done . , ~-at-~d~e ~d N~h ichools, - ~~=s ~~e io few ~st out: · ,. B~ mong-~bse.~no have'~- ' · ~s M~el0's~ooN Sup~ ~ .- .:..- ... "%~nen ~k~ to d~ the , ble ofie}ed i~ ~a: t~erz ~r-~mmtio~, ~fl ~ose whose - b~ ~d ~ ~~~-or.~ ~ ' = :'~.f~ ~ rm concemed~, the . ' 'y~-ro~d ~d~ ~ ~6t ~ -o~fi- · .... . ~ ., t . . · mum lca.?.mg zit;;ation." :aid. Hollyw~ Hch senior Quiroa a~. The a~piring high cchool teacher-~;an her eight- ';ee~ vacation i~ late ' right ~ ~ ~d~c of college ~p~- ~on · Qu~o~ ~ .mi~zing a ch~ce ~o" meet r~c~i~rz,~ho~ ~'isi~ ar~ , will publi~d on ~pqa. If dd~ thi h~ to thi college idyl- · ' ~r'z old= ~d get,h~p F~g o~t h~ appli~~ for ~.~mt? don't hear wMt'z going on," z~d' Quiroa, a B itddent who le~.~ Holl~~ High from a' .p~ochi~ .~1: "I z~ould have gone to a p~tg Ngh ~~L"' 'her ~-a~tion ~ J~~ ~d F~=-' ~ ~11 co~t her valuable throe to prep~e ~o? Adv~ced Placement ..e~ N ~e Ofi~ .... : ,H~ a 33 ~de ~iit ~d h~f.a d~en ~ co~z~ on h,' on USC. Hig~ ~W scorez cd~ ~m .~~9a.g,Hege credit and.~ve spendh~ ' '' ' - ' ~~l.~ud~g~ith'~en~.' ' "It ~d~d ~ ~si~r. ff we were' I~g eye,one ~K ahe ~& ~ng ' p}a~g fi~d wo~d ~ level.' to levd ~e pta~ing field ~o~gh .~he co~ - . . ' ~ a Iaw~(filed 'ia May, the '. ' ~ ~t.~ oI ~oh~ of ~[ ~d ~nofi~ ~~~.h ~o~a ' ~e deEed ~ ~u~ ~u~fion b~ m~e th~ at~d ~~ that lack 'ad~qmie ~~ ~6.o~~ on. m~fit~ck ~~. The last' ired ~e sho~ ~c~l h}gh s~h~ls h.~s Xng~ ~d ' ~~.... . . . -'~e s~t ~ ndt ~rget the .m~ sho~ ~fio~ '~ pla~ of. ' the long smmer ~rea~ That- - s~~e is adv~ted b~ o~fi~. whb ~ long 9m~fions.Nnder. l~~g. ''-'-' ' ' - ' '- ~a~ iiu=ton lay '~d I~-. ~t h~ atL~cted Iit~ punk . "~y ~'t.'t~e~e. ~ools '" eve~h~e~ ~k~ ~ugene'~- ~ d~'of ~e O~~te $~l :. We b~d ~~".' . ?,L;~tc'=.'i6'.'. l.,t,'.- ]-)ov,_'rly r;~t,_' mulhtr-a:k ~b(,,o!.-. ~z nca.-].v d'mlflc tl~c r;,tc ~t :ampu=c: on tr~'l;t,onal ~al,,:nda.-_. TI,c r, te of ztudcnz ztill learning Engli:h i= nearly three time. r. grcat~'.. · L.A.'Unified'z year-roun6 ~lentz ;/re among the neettiezt in the z",atE lq. early all qualify for federal lunch ar. sl;',anee, the leading indi- Cator of'pover/.y among .~hoolchit- 'dren.-3,lmogt-two-thirdz are ztill- l;~rning Finnish. . . · : .The multitrae~ zchedule ~--az in- troduc_~ in Los. 3m. gel*..s at :i =ifigl'e' z:hool a quarter-~.entury ago ag a ' .temlso,'-~riy fix' lor overci'owding. Today yea.r-roun.d campuses count [or more. than on,third of' the fli~tri:t'i regular sr. aNvol~. ' ' · .' o · o · 4c.=o"r~lihg to"'the liitgst.ztate da~, L.-< Unified is the 0fily.~s- trier in California £hat runi high 'zch.ool; on ztagger~d, ygar-round schedulez, with .one' exception. 5rista Unified'in San.Diego ~dunty' has on~ ch~-ter gchool on a inulti- t,-ack z:h~ul~_ ' . The Lo~ :Angel~ diztrict alio has 'relied on bu~ing to reIieve'over: crowi:ling. 'But az an 'enrollmen[ b .uige move' tip the'grad~,'bffici~z . 3viii be. fore.-4 to ~pand. t. he year- · -.r6n. nd pr%ma .~. - -. Eighfe. efi of L.A. Unified's high schools already are year-' round, and-di..strict Officials zay the , remaining 31 will follow by 2006. · Similarly, 17 df '/2. middle.xchooN .are year-round, but of~cial~ i~ .xpect. the numbe, r to more than. double in the comingt-n, eyeam .. ' The district i~ developing an am.- 15itiouz ~chobI conxtruction pro-. 'gram.that calli for 15 new.high · zcho61z arid .seven new middle. · . '~c. ho61s over .the next.five ye. am .- But 'tho~e 33~0~..0 new xeit~ ~'ill h~.. dly keep pace. with growth, and · · iblans call for. thase.campm~ to ruff" year-round.- - .' 'Hollywood I~igh iz one of },he lat- ext to join the club. It swit3.hed in' -l~.~.ter more than ~0 years on a traditional calendar. ~ a crowd~ urb~ high. -~:ho0~ Hollywood f-acez · many problemz mg-ardl~ of itx- 'zchedul~_.But the calendar he~4 az · at oth~ year-round zcho. otz; ere-' ates anoth~ tayer~of difficulty. EXHIBIT "F" Page 2 of 3 Pages The cramped, ]~;-~sre c~mpu: .xit~ a block /rom the Hollywood V,:Mk of ~me ~d.M~m's Chin~ Tn~tre. Busloa~ ~f ~uri:~ mix with ;tudcnt=.on the =id~all:s ~~d ~e S~t ~fil~'~d ;m- pm, where Mick~y R~ne)', Cardl ~~ ~d d~ of o~er cele~ pfi~2 i~ ~; Angelm, Holl)~o0d ~~ered trae~ ~on at a ~e ~e One ~ on ~a;- ~m ~e ro~ng ~~e h~ ~-' l~wed the. school of a~ut 3,000 ~mm'~ ~~ i~' ;pa~t7 by sou ' '~ trois.unto -. But _ ~ ~ 17 ~ys from iB ~~. It. · ~ mde.~ the ~l~enm by add-. ~ . · ing 29 minutes [{~'~£n.da~ That' amoun~-to 6~,~ ez{m minutm per · ' T~zhers-dismi~ ~e'ad~tional ~fim~' ~- logistic, sle~nt~f-h~ndj ~th little edu;tior~I ~-~ue. Stu- den.~, they ~7,'~'t confentrate ~ou~n cl~s ~.fi~ ~t now ~ ~ ~u~ ' ' · ~ eon~qu~9~," ~d ~er Pafrfda ~-ker. 'Vdst ~ . m~ 7au have.& eo~le mom ~-' u~ add~ Ohm ct~ d~'t m~ you re.do mom "' · S~n[.in h~ d~r~m on a. ~t day, ~d ~s ~dut ~-. ~g ~ter 'and' ~. ~v~ that di~'t W0r~ :~k~ fi~d off' the ~s 7ea~' bibche~trv, org~hiF. ehe¢istryv' ~e~ pq~l~briu~,' ~ ~~on's role ~ ~e a~.. · "~y.~tud~ ~.nof.~hg exX ~d to mat~q~ ~at ~1 ~ldw' ~m to achieve" ~id ~rker,. ~~~ 40 ~u~,'~me sit- ~ on m~t~ t~ mls"~d at' h~~k.' - - .' · '~ne ~ds m line ~y ~I f~ sa~L~, - . ' '} - Teaelaers atto J:omplain at~oht 1o-~,¢ several dabs revi.~ ~ stud~ ret~ from thek ~ Mght-w~k.~fioni. It's not . ~~ou to ~ ~e y~ ~ a ~ ~ ~at it ~p~ mo~ dftem ~mi i~mto~ ;7 ~e more ~uent br~ ~e 'I. co~nfly m~ge ~e bat-. t~',' ~id ~gli~ t~kher ~apman. "Amdemimlly,' she add~ ~it's not id~~ ' The compl~iti~ 'a~d tight- ~o lead t~ o~ problm T,z~;l,cr.-. m:;:.i cNnr;~.c ra, rn.?. every t~n,.~ [h,.'y can,:. La:l: from vacation. Some -',lcd rr,,uzt ch;ir:ge clazzroomz in, thc eom-r.,_- of ~ :ingle ~;:hr~al day bemuse of the lack of :pace, ;toting thgir suppli~ in the trunk, r, of their cam M/~intenance i~ difficult to ule when .w. hool ~ n~rly alwayg in. se.~*-ion. Or',~.~ ~n't grow on much of the football field because it's congtantly in urn., turning it 'into a hard patch of dirt in ~mmer and a wet slog in winter. Getting 'book: into .student~ ' hands also becom~ more difficult. · The school toot: several days to cot- la.ct and tally textbooks from rtu- den~ who went on break Oct 24. The nert trauk started class Oct. ~, giving officials Ii[fie time to r~ distribute the materials. Oh the first day baal; Chapmank 11 th-graciers were ~iiting for their class novel: John'Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Mem" Chapman. let the · students chat quietly as she too!: roll. Then, without an~ything for them to read, she offered to tail: about her recent trip to E~'p. t. "You guys, we don't have our' books. We won't get them'until . ~-~."day," Chapir, an told the class on a Wedn~.chy. "So sit Back ~nd r~ lax. Since we don't have book% rm · ~,om~,i, ' ~, to show.you my slide." ' },{.any of Hollywood's studen~ have only known year-round ~hedul~ be".~ ,use they came crowded elementary and. middle schools. ' Several student~ ~aid they're 'happy at Hollywood. Some are ;grateful for the opportuniti~ to make up cla~ses during vacation~. Others like the sehooI%'menu of speeialized pr%m-am~. "I came-to Hollywood because the acting,' said Andrew Parkas- Jon~, who travels from the West- side to attend, the sehoors Perform- lng Arts Maguet. .... "P.eofil~ say .that HOllywood High is' not a good ~ehool for demi .~, but'we don't miss out on. learning," said the senior, who dreams of. becoming a professional actor but ~so sp~m of attena2ng a- community eoltege or' UeLA. "Teachers do a'really good ~ob. I can't really complain.' Still, teacher~ and ~d'mirfis'tra- to'rs worry that the sche'dule fmg- ment~ the ~ool, creati, ng three campus'~ in 'one. The trael~ act - 'like fault lines, fracturing ~udents by abiliti~ and talent& The ~:h-~ck inchide~ the art~ · magnet and closely re~_mbl~'the traditional .Septe'~ber to June cal- endar. B.traek i~ home to stud~t~ who ar~/s, till. le.arning English. C- track .e_ucompa~.t. he. New Media Acetic_my, a program that, teach~ kiigh-te~h skills such ~ how to pro- The A track include; the ar!..".'.'.>. .. magnet and closely resembles traditional S,zpte~r to June cai:"'"' · endar. B trask ix home to ~tud~nt~ who are ,till }e'.arning Engiizh. C track, encompasses the N,.-a, Media Academy, a praffr~m that teach~ high-tach slu'll.~ ,uch ;/~ how to pro- duce computerized videos. · Administrators ireely acknowl- edge.that th~'schedule creates in- equities within the school. They say B tr~ck is the $iggeit laser, even-questioning.'whether it is "academically sound.". · . The tr~:k offers 'fewer honors · and Adv,'need Placement tours~ than the other two, a gap the.school is trying 'to close. B t-ack ~tudenm also have had to tal:e the Stanford 9 exam just thr~ days after returning from-eight weeks of va:arian. ~ · ginning next spring, thee s/udenm wilI take the Stanford S ~baut weeks after returning irom vaca- tion, the r~ult of new suate ru!~ that push back the t~t!ng dat~. Teach~'~ welcome the additional time, but they ~ay the stud~ts still won't be as prepared as Others at the school. "How can ybh e.Z~ct throe k/ds to b~ on the same par as kids who have bee.~n.in school all semesmr.."?~' 'asked Trimble, the principal. '"i~}".-) criminal." ':[::-¥'. " B track suffem one adrift/anal der-' rimer: more dixrupt/or~ during the year. While the othe. r two tracks are in s~_~sioff for 16 weeks and th~ are -off for eight, B t-ack goes on vac2- tiaa after only eight weeks of school, · in the middle of'its term. Studen~ with a limited command of ~n~h say the stop-and.-start schedule 'terfer~ with their proDT-~s- ."It would be much better if we didn't have this ~st~r~' said jun-' ~or Jaman Yin/ri, a Ko~cr~'a~ Alb~- nikn who .has been in the United. States about a year.' .. Television is Ymeri's teacher during, his vacation~. He practices English by watching videotap~ hi~ favorite ~ms, the Indiana Jones movi~ and "Braveh~2rt-" He also reads'the dosed-captiOn - words that run aero; tlie screen of his television. It's about the most E'~gii~h he gets at home, ~'n~e hi, family primarily speaks ~Ibaniar~ . "~. I were in school," he mid, "I ' would probably learn .mom and do. . .:.,::...., EXHIBIT "F" Page 3 df 3 Pages Boazd of Directors Jo~ K~rr Pfc sid:nt John ].~t~e ¥ir.c Pr:sident David ]. Thompson Vi~ ~csid~z Dmnis Sh~ Tr~umr Hiddo H. Horlin~s S~~ ~=h~d A. Comell ~r~or DaSd T. Rose J:ffH: Williams ~=tor Dm 5. Young /'""~,, ORA N GE C O UNTS' /-'% . .FESSIO:,/AL FIREF]GHTERS .AS. ~ATION IAFF LOCAL 36_;] 15t,~ ] Red ! till Avc-nu:..~u,r 210 - 'l u.~tm. C.A 92'7Y, 0-7319 l'},rmc t'T 14 ~ 25~.-.'t6'~(,- Fax (714t 25g-1953 - IA:cb v.-~.v, .ocpf:t3631 .o~g November 28, 2000 Letter~ Planning Commission, City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: (USMQ Dear Ms. O_odon: The Orange CounD' Professional Firefighters Association, representing the 721 professional firefighters of the Orange CounD' Fire Authority, is in opposition of the development of the Tustin Air Base until, and unless, adequate fire protection is provided to the area. '::;-'.:::..:::-'.i . ... It is my understanding that there is no additional fire protection planned for the area under consideration. With the proposed addition of 4,049 dwelling units, 11 million square feet of commercial, industrial floor space as well as the planned public and recreational buildings and open spaces there is a definite need' to increase fire protection. A community of appro 'xirnately thirty thousand residents would constitute a good size city alone. I do not think that if you were building a new city of 30,000 people you do so without addressing fu'e protection for those people. · Using a baseline of one professional f].refig~hter'for each one thousand citizens gives you some idea of how lacking the fire protection will be for the proposed development. The city currently has approximately 33 professional firefighters to serve a population of almost 60,000. As you can see bY applying the above formula, the city is already below the number of professional firefighters that should be employed. Even with assistance from. fire stations in Irvine and the surrounding area, the number is inadequate. Taking into accoimt the population, type of buildings planned and the traffic that will be generated by the planned proposal it is imperative that there be a fn-ehouse located inside the development It would be best to plan for a firehouse and the related vehicles and personnel now while the site is in the planning stages. This will allow the city the necessary time to explore both the firehouse locations, to serve the population best, and to study the fiscal impacts of maintaining a~ fire station and crew permanently. Repms~ting Pmf~-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~ional Fimfight~--s protecting the citi~ of: BuN'ne Park Cypress - Dan~ Poim Irvine - La...,nma Hills - Laguna Ni~el Laguna Wooc~ - Lake Forest La Palina Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Plac~ntia Rancho Santz ~ta San Clcm~nte - San Juan C. apistrano Se. al B~ch - grantee - Tustin Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linde Unincorlmm~ Orange Coun~ ~in Pbnnin~ Commission November 2~. 2000 If the planning process does not take place before the building begins and the people arrive you will find that the additional workload of protecting thc new development will "straw that breaks the camels back" and places both the citizens and the fi~efightors in danger. Thank you, John Latta, Vice Presidon~ Cop), Joe Kerr, Presiden~ Amended Response to Written Comments Received November 28, 2000 At the Planning Commission Public Hearing On General Plan Amendment 00-001 Letter #1 dated November 28, 2000 from Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP to Dana Oc~don on FEIS/FFIS 1-1. Comments made are broadly framed, reference CEQA guidelines and-the attached correspondence (in letter #s 2 and 3). As additional data is provided, however, in this letter or in the letters attached to this letter, responses will be proVided. Limited response to Letter # 3 is provided since nearly all issUes therein are unrelated to the FEIS/FEIR. Environmental Justice issues will be addressed in responses following this letter. 1-2. Page 3, paragraph 3. A comment that the FEI'S/FEIR grossly underestimates the projections of students generated to SAUSD is flawed. Absent either specifics or expert information in the letter detailing specific inadequacies, staff will address this issue in response to comments on similar, more specific issues raised in letters'numbered 2 and 3. The statement that there was no analysis, of the number of credit or non-credit students that will be added to the RSCCCD from the project, is addressed below. The RSCCCD was' provided notice of all' scoping public hearing meetings and also provided copies of ali draft and final environmental documents for the project over the last 6 years. At .po time during this period or prior to the close of the written comment periods on the Final EIS/EIR on January 24, 2000, did RSCCD respond 'to or make statements' on the public record regarding an impact on its district or the need for analysis to document any impacts of the Reuse Plan on its District. Unlike local school districts, attendance at a community college does not require occupancy within a district's bOundaries, in other words, attendance areas are for revenue collection purposes but district boundaries are. flUid and permit' attendance.across them. Accordingly, since new community College students could attend any community college in the County, there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect imPacts on the RSCCD. No expert opinion has been offered by the RSCCD or anyone else on this subject. City staff has contacted the City's environmental consultant on' the projectl Cotton and Beland and Associates ("CBA")..They confirmed that in their experience, due to the' fluid nature of community college district boundaries, there is no universally recognized methodology for projecting indirect impacts on a community college district. /here is a community college site proposed on' the MCAS Tustin site that will be an advanced technology training facility and will provide a full curriculum of community college courses. It is expected that students in both the South Orange County Community. College District (SOCCCD) and in the RSCCCD in close proximity to the MCAS Tustin site will attend the facility cldsest to their place of residence. This is particularly evidenced by that fact that there is no restriction precludin~ student enrollment across 1/16/00 district boundaries for community colleges (this is, of course, quite different from the very limiting attendance boundaries that restrict 'attendance at K-12 local school districts). On this basis, it was determined that there would be no significant, impact on the RSCCCD and hence no discussion in the FEIS/FEIR. Future enrollment data is speculative at best and there is no evidence that the project will cause impacts. Here, we are doing our best to fill the void in data but the data is not empirically derived. 1-3. Page 4, paragraphs 4 and 5. A very small portion of the MCAS Tustin facility, 120 acres, is located in the SAUSD and RSCCCD. No housing is proposed in these areas and the closest housing is over I 1/2 miles away and is separated from the district by the SR-55 Freeway. There are no direct housing impacts on SAUSD, unlike TUSD and IUSD. A reasonable range of choices providing alternate densities is proposed in the FEIS/FEIR. There is no requirement in CEQA or NEPA to include in a range of alternatives a proposal like the one made in this letter to address a perceived problem that has been evaluated and found not to have a significant impact warranting mitigation. Finally, the FEIS/FEIR provides a summary and reference to additional information as to why certain requests for property were not included in the Reuse Plan. RSCCD was' part of an informal coalition of agencies, the Orange County Education Coalition, which requested approximately 100. acres to accommodate a jointly operated community college facility in the Learning Village proposed in the Reuse Plan. However new screening under the Base Closure Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 by the LRA was authorized by the Department of Defense. On October 31, 1995, RSCCD submitted a Notice of Interest for approximately 116 acres in the Learning Village. The 116 acres as shown on the new RSCCD submittal were located within the boundaries of the South Orange County Community College, the only agency with the legal authority under California state law to acquire the site. · The Learning Village site' for a community college was only proposed for approximately 100.acres. The property originally requested by the RSCCD. as part of the. Orange County Education Coalition was also within SOCCCD boundaries. 'Other local school districtS (those providing public elementary, intermediate or high school facilities) proposed in the Reuse Plan for receipt of property on MCAS Tustin have direct impacts on school enrollment because housing will be developed at MCAS Tustin in their districts. Additionally, these other districts are indirectly impacted by other 'development at MCAS Tustin. Since there is a definitive and stronger methodological support for project direct impacts on school enrollment versus potential indirect impacts, local school sites were only recommended in the Reuse Plan where direct impacts occurred on a local school district. Other issues raised by SAUSD in paragraph 2 are irrelevant. ..:.: :-.... · . . . . · .. - .% :':... · · · .:...-..;.! ':.::i:;..7' 1/16/00 2 Letter #2' An attachment to Letter 2 and referenced in Letter #1. letter dated November 28. 2000' from Conner, Blake & Griffin LLP to William Cassidy, Jr. 2-1. Page 1, paragraph 3. This comment is a generalized summary comment. A response is provided to specifics raised elsewhere in the letter. During all comment periods on either the draft or Final EIS/EIR, SAUSD never raised the environmental justice issue. RSCCD has never commented previously on any environmental document on the project, nor at any public hearing. 2-2. Page 2, paragraph 1. This comment is a generalized summary comment. response is provided later to specifics raised. A 2-3. Page 2, paragraph 5; Page 3, paragraphs .t and 2. The Commentor argues that the FEIS/FEIR fails to "adequately analyze~and, to attempt to lessen or avoid-- the impacts, whiCh the Project will have on the public elementary, intermediate, high school, and community college facilities in the City of Santa Ana." The FEIS/FEIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the indirect impacts on the SAUSD. No significant impact was found. Response L-9-1 to the revised Draft EIS/EIR contained in Volume 2 of the FEIS/FEIR describes the state legislated scheme of school fees and state aid for mitigation impacts on the public school facilities. See Response _ 1-3 regarding RSCCD. The SAUSD and RSCCD did not respond to these written comments circulated for response on December 23, 1999, in the FEIS/FEIR and the written comment period closed JanUary 24, 2000. See Response 1-2 above. 2-4. See Responses 1-3 and 2-3, above. 2-5. See Response 1-2, above. The SAUSD did not raise envirOnmental justice issues during the statutory review period on either the draft or Final EIS/EIR. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income .Populations (" E.O.") This Executive Order requires that each federal agency identify · and address "...as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental affects of its.., activities on minority and iow-income populations..." E.O. (§ 1-101). The Executive Order further establishes federal agency responsibilities for federal, programs, ensuring that its activities "...do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under such ... activities, because of their race, color or national origin." E.O. (§ 2-2) The Commentor has objected to the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEISi and Final Environmental Impact Report'(Fl:IR) for MCAS 'l'ustin based on allegations that there Was a failure to consider adequately ."...whether the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the disposal and 1 / 16/00 3 reuse of MCAS Tustin would result in disproportionate negative..effects on minority populations in the area surrounding MCAS Tustin..." Specifically, the Commentor alleges a failure of compliance with Executive Order 12898 and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq). in essence,, the Commentor asserts · that failure to dispose of federal real property at MCAS Tustin by designating a portion of it for use on behalf of his' clients for educational facilities for the two districts constitutes a violation of the Executive Order, a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, a failure to mitigate preexisting educational overcrowding in the areas surrounding MCAS Tustin and a denial of "... the valuable benefits that are expected to flow from the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin...". Analysis of these objections requires examination of two factors. First, without regard to the disposal of MCAS Tustin, what are the conditions with respect to the adequacy and · overcrowding of existing educational facilities in the area proximate to Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin? Second, what are the education population impacts of the disposal of MCAS Tustin and do those impacts create a significant adverse and disproportionate result for minority or Iow-income populations or do they exacerbate such conditions that. already exist? Examination of the data submitted by the Commentor demonstrates that students who live in the Santa Ana Unified School District and the Rancho San Diego Community College District are predominantly minority. The Commentor has not asserted that there are iow-income populations and for purposes of this analysis, they will not be treated as such. in analyzing whether the census tracts that surround MCAS Tustin constitute minority population areas, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that these census tracts are not disproportionately high minority population areas and, therefore, the proposed reuse of MCAS Tustin is not likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority populations. The Commentor takes issue with this conclusion on the ground's that even if the census tract does not demonstrate a disproportionately high.minority population area, the impact could nevertheless have a disproportionately negative impact on one or more minority populations. , The fundamental flaw with the Commentor's assertion is that it fails to correctly characterize what a negative impact is and what a disproportionate impact is. If the proximate census tract areas were not disproportionate high minority population, areas, then the impact of the proposed 'action would fall equally upon ali residents of that census tract. The Executive Order does not preclude negative impacts on minority populations. Ratherl it requires an assessment of whether such impacts fall disproportionately on minority populations. Stated differently, if a negative impact affects all of the residents of a census tract without regard to their minority status, and the census tract is a majority population as a whole, then the adverse impact is spread equallY across the members of that census tract and cannot be said to be disproportionate. The second 'flaw in the C°mmentor's analysis concerns what an impact is. Inasmuch as the Environmental Justice Executive Order employs the process of the National Environmental PoliCY Act, reference to the regulations for implementing the procedural 1/16/00 4 provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, promulgated by the Council of' Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), are appropriate sources for definition. At 40 CFR 1508.8, it is noted that "effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous." The definition of both direct and indirect effects reflects that they are caused by the action in question. The action in question' in this matter is the disposal of McAs Tustin to the. local redevelopment authority. That disposal cannot be construed as causing the preexisting concerns Which the Commentor raises; Data submitted by. the Commentor demonstrates that the adequacy or inadequacy of existing educational facilities in the areas proximate to MCAS Tustin are not new, have been identified previously, and do not result from the proposed action which the Depar[ment of the Navy has under consideration, in essence, what the Commentor seeks on behalf of his clients is a land transfer t° mitigate preexisting conditions. While such a. goal may be worthy, failure to mitigate a preexisting condition can hardly be construed as an impact under the CEQ regulation cited nor can it be-construed as an effect of the activity in question on minority populations as contemplated in the Executive Order. As specifically noted in § 2.2 of the Executive Order, the obligation of the Department of the Navy in this matter is to ensure that its activities do not ~ieny the benefits of its programs because of race, color or national origin'.The Commentor does not allege nor is it apparent that the decision under consideration has been influenced by race, color or national origin' From the foregoing, the objection raised does 'not fall within the purview of the Executive Order, does not constitute an impact under the National Environmental Policy Act regulations and is' not attributable to race, color or national origin. , Notwithstanding, the foreg'oing, there is an issue with reSpect to whether' the Proposed transfer of MCAS Tustin will induce indirect growth in the adjacent areas and.whether the cumulative effect of such induced; indirect growth will exacerbate existing adverse impacts such that they would be visited upon minority populations disproportionate from non-minority populations- /he analysis tho Commentor objects to has taken into consideration the. issue of inducod, indirect §rowth. in order to make the point', the Commentor speculates on where certain people will live, what their racial composition will be and their level of income.. The Commentor' takes issuo With the' updated Household Growth Report used for this analysis. That report, by its very nature, is a mere projection. It is a good faith, reasonable effort to project future, indirect gro~h but it can hardly be considered definitive. · Nonetheless, that report indicates that as a result of expected induced growth resulting from the Reuse Plan, an additional 82 to 509 new students for the Santa Ana Unified School District may be expected. Given the nature .of the report, and the assumptions upon which the Commentor's dispute is based, it is apparent that the data collected and considered in the FEIS/FEIR process was designed to identify reasonable, foreseeable, significant adverse impacts 'and that 'the methodologY for collecting that data, its analySiS and the conclusions based upon it were reasonable approaches to a complex and somewhat speculative process..Furthermore, it is important to note that the total enrollment of the Santa Ana Unified School District, reported in the California Department of Educational report which the Commentor submitted, is 58,043 students' 1 / 16/00 5 Using the high end of the range to which the Commentor objects, 509 additional students constitutes a .8% increase in school population. Even if that figure were doubled (an action for which them is no basis in fact), the impact on the existing school population could hardly be conStrued as a severe or intense effect. The induced student population resulting from the proposed transfer is slight, negligible and does not create or cause an adverse and disproportionate effect on a minority population. To the extent that there is overcrowding, it already exists. in esSence, what the Commentor seeks is an allocation of land to mitigate preexisting conditions unrelated to the proposed action. The proposed action will not cause or create any significant adverse impact, direct or indirect. The cumulative impacts are negligible at best. A request for mitigation under these circumstances does not fall within the purview of either the National Environmental Policy Act or Executive Order 12898. 2-6. Comments are broad and generalized. Where specific information is provided, a response is provided. 2-~. Page 8, paragraph.5; page 9, top of page. As a point of information generally related to this comment, the "Updated Report..." referenced in the Commentor's 'letter was provided in response to comments from the SAUSD on the original report entitled "Impact of Redevelopment' of the MCAS Tustin site in Accordance with the Reuse Plan Upon the Santa Aha Unified School District". Many of the comments now raised are inconsistent with information previously provided by the SAUSD. The Commentor notes that the FEIS/FEIR estimates that 77,400 jobs will be created 'and, therefore, the school impact estimate, contained in the report the "Updated Household Growth.. Report", is unreasonably Iow. The Commentor overstates the 77,400-job figuro. First, the prefer'red proiect, alternative according to the FEiS/FEIR would only generate 24,852 direct new jobs due to the project.. An additional 15,081 indirect or induced jobs may be created as well as up to 37,468 short-term co'nstruction jobs... In prepadn§ the "Updated Household Growth Report", a socio-economic demographic expert ~was hired by the City to analyze information provided early in the planning process in January, 1997' by the SAUSD.. See Response L9-1 in the FI:IS/Fi=IR. In SAUSD's own report "Analysis of the Impact of MCAS 'l-ustin Reuse Plan on the Santa Ana Unified School District", dated July. 22,. 1996, the only employment figures recommended for use by' SAUSD in projecting impact on school enrollment .is direct on-site iob creation from a project and.indirect, induced empl0ymont. Short Term construction impacts were not recommended for use by SAUSD's own consultant team nor are they ~enerali¥ used in projections for school enrollment ~eneration... ... Construction jobs were not.included in the FEIS/FEIR p~ojecti0ns because they are generally filled by workers already residing in the region who generally travel relatively long distances and who shift from temporary project to temporary project. They are not "new permanent workers" in the County and it would be inappropriate to include them in any impact at build-oUt (since these jobs are temporary). The Navy and City of Tustin o o . · . 1/16/00 6 have also discussed the approach taken in the FEISIFEIR on this issue with three additional preeminent economic/development consultants who concur with the .approach taken. The additional consultants included Al Gobar, Al Gobar & Associates; Walter Hahn, Ernst & Young; and Frank Wein, Parsons HBA and Associate Professor at USC School of Policy, Planning and development. 2:-8. Page 9, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. Since there is no universally accepted method for calculating indirect household growth impacts associated with a project's estimated employment, the "Updated Household Growth Report" presented a range of estimates of impacts based on two scenarios. Scenario 1 presents a high impact; Scenario 2, a lower impact, to bracket the range of probably' impacts. Scenario 1 does not differentiate between employment new to Orange County and employment already in the County. Scenario 2 estimates the percentage of employment new to Orange County based on Dennis Macheski Consulting's interviews with economists in the region. The estimate of 10% new employment to Orange County is documented in the report based on interviews with research personnel, brokers with the firm of Grubb and Ellis, and staff economists at the Irvine Company, Economic Development Corporation of Los Angeles and Southern California Association of Governments. On the backfill issue, according to the "Updated Report'' the net impact on [he SAUSD of employment already in Orange County that relocates to the MCAS Tusti.n site is considered negligible, since these employees already live somewhere in the region (perhaps some in the SAUSD), and are unlikely to relocate within the SAUSD merely because their employer changes location in the. County. However, Dennis Macheski Consulting did acknowledge that empl°yment new to the County brings with it indirect and induced impacts (a "multiplier impact"). The magnitude of the multiplier impact estimated and provided in the report is actually higher than the multiplier impact used by SAUSD in their own report, "Analysis of the Impact of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan on the Santa Ana Unified School District", dated July 22, 1996.. Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR, which uses a more conservative methodology than SAUSD and which is more favorable to SAUSD's argument, found impacts ranging from 80 to 509 students 2-9. See Response 2-7, above. 2-10. See Response 2-8, above for a description of the methodology approaches used in the FEIS/FEIR. The Commentor notes that the high-end estimate of 509 students to be generated for SAUSD is grossly understated because neither induced employment nor construction related jobs were considered. See Response 2-7 related to the construction jobs issue. On the issue of induced employment, there are two separate methodologies provided by the FEIS/FEIR that use different approaches, both of which are accepted ways of proiecting school'.enrollment. Nothing has been provided by the Commentor to.. substantiate the allegation that estimates are grossly understated, in fact, the SAUSD!s own report referenced in Response 2-8, above, projects only a total district household impact of 404 students based on a previous direct employment projection for the project 'of 2~,~80 (the 1 million square foot decrease in proposed commercial/business square footage by the City reflected in the FES/FEIR resulted in reduced employment of 24,852).. In correspondence from the District dated August 9, 1/l 6/00 7 '1996, SAUSD also identified a net financial impact on the District of approximately $3.8 million over the build-out of the project. No information provided by either the SAUSD or the Commentor revises their previous report nor has"new information been offered to substantiate why the student estimates in the FEIS/FEIR are understated. 2-11. The Commentor states that projections are iow as a result of the assumption that 4% of households would reside within the SAUSD. This figure is based on adopted SCAG data that include the employment impacts of development of MCAS Tustin as well as information validated by the City of Santa'Ana in its input on SCAG data. The Commentor incorrectly notes that the employment figure that shoUld be used is 77,400. As noted in Comment 2-7, the Commentor has incorrectly added short-term construction jobs so that the representation that total jobs created is 77,400 is in error. Including short-term construction jobs is not acceptable input in an indirect household analysis. More specifically, the reasons that the Updated Household Growth Report assumed a 4% figure indlude the following' ' The SAUSD is nearing build-out and there is little room in the area for additional housing. At the same time, there is vacant land (primarily in South Orange County) within communing distance of the site and a large amount of development activity is taking place there. Orange County's official projection (OCP-96) indicates that 96.2% of the County's housing growth will take place outside the SAUSD, and.only 318% within the SAUSD. New housing opportunities will exist primarily outside the SAUSD, and this is where the vast majority of the growth and the impact will take place. Most of the firms (an estimated 90%) that will locate at the Tustin MCAS. site are already in Orange County, with employees already dispersed throughout the County. The number of firms at the site that will be new to Orange County will be relatively small. A survey conducted of seven firms located near the site and of a classification similar to the firms expected to locate at site once developed, indicated that only 4.8% of employees resided in the City of Santa Ana. in the Conner, Blake & Griffin LLP letter, the survey conducted of seven businesses located near MCAS Tustin to determine where the employees of those businesses reside was criticized as falling "far short of being a large enough sample to support any · reliable conclusions." The survey was not the primary reason .for making the 4% assumption; the relative lack of housing opportunities in the SAUSD and the small percentage of firms that would be new to Orange County were the primary factors: However, the results from the survey did result in a small adjustment upward (from 3.8% to 4.0%) over the allocation shown in the SCAG OCP-96 data.. Also, please note that while the survey included "only seven firms," it also encompassed 6,011 employees- a very significant number. '.: :'-'::::i'-'; '-'.:: 1/16/00 8 2-12. See Responses 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11, above. Them is no basis for the Commentor's allegations that the assumptions and conclusions in the FEIS/FEIR are unfounded and underestimated. The FEIS/FEIR analysis was based on the work of consultants with expertise in this area. The SAUSD's own analysis completed by Public Economics as noted in responses above, projected figures significantly lower than estimates provided by the FEIS/FEIR. 2-13. See Response L9-1 and L9-2 in Volume 2 of the FEIS/FEIR. 2-14. See Response 2-5 2-15. See Response 1-2, above. . Letter # 3- attached to and referenced in Letter 1; dated November 24, 2000 from Connor, Blake 7 Griffin LLP to William Cassidv, Jr. The majority of this letter is unrelated to physical impacts requiring evaluation in the FEIS/FEIR and so will not be responded to as part of the FEIS/FEIR process. However, those, items that are related to the potential impacts are discussed below. 3-1. The City needs to reiterate'for the public record that it offered SAUSD, at no cost to SAUSD, a 10-acre parcel adjacent to its boundary at MCAS Tustin, though not within the Learning Village, and 'an advance of $3.5 million in SB 50 fees (school impact development fees). This good faith effort, rejected by..SAUSD, was made even though · no future housing units at MCAS Tustin will be located within SAUSD boundaries, in addition,, the SOCCCD offered to permit up to 1,000 SAUSD students per year to participate in joint programming at the proposed SOCCCD Tustin campus. Neither of these proposals required modification of the Reuse Plan or proposed Navy disposal plan. In fact, state law and,' in particular, SB 50, would have precluded the City from requiring these conditions as mitigation in the FEIS/FEIR. The City was prepared to · transfer the 10 acres to the SAUSD as a separate transaction outside of the environmental document, as was SOCCCD. Currently,'the City is negotiating another proposal with SAUSD. 3-2. See Response 3-1. The City's analysis of indirect school impacts on the SAUSD has been both thorough and technical in nature, based on input from respected population/economic demographers, and educational and environmental consultants. No housing will be constructed on the approximate 122 acres within the SAUSD and no students will be directly generated. The area at the former MCAS Tustin site within the SAUSD is proposed for commercial/business uses which do not include large retail stores, upscale residential projects, or a golf course. The statement that the City clearly recognizes that commercial development proposed for MCAS Tustin will generate new jobs which, in turn, will increase the number of medium and Iow-income families residing in Santa Aha-and 'add hundreds and ! / 16/00 9 hundreds of additional students, exaggerates and misrepresents information in the FEIS/FEIS. No housing units will be constructed within SAUSD boundaries at MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/FEIR states only. that, based on the assumption that perhaps new employees at the former MCAS Tustin site might seek new housing within the SAUSD, there is the · potential for an indirect impa'ct on the SAUSD from the MCAS Tustin project. To bracket the range of probable indirect impacts, the City's experts presented an estimate using two scenarios. Both scenario 1, a highly unlikely worst-case scenario, and scenario 2, the more likely scenario, were prepared for the FEIS/FEIR. Based on the projections under each scenario of household growth, either 509 students might be generated over a 20 year period (scenario 1) or 82 students (scenario 2) over the same period. Based on SAUSD student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential impact to SAUSD would be in 'grades k-8 with over 50% of this impact in grades K-5 (under either scenario). With an average K-5 elementary school built to accommodate 800 students, the average middle school built to accommodate 1,560 students and the average high school built to accommodate 2,400 students, neither of the indirect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an entire school site at M. CAS Tustin as requested by SAUSD. It should be noted, however, that in any event, the worst-case scenario is greater than even the projection SAUSD provided the City in preparation of the Draft EIR/EIS.. Public Economics, a SAUSD consultant, only projected an indirect impact estimate of 404 new households and 272 students in their report to the SAUSD. · 3-3. Please note that the C0mmentor's representation is inaccurate. In addition to all FEIS/FEIR notices which were sent to the SAUSD and RSCCC'D, the City also noticed RSCCCD on August 27, 1998, that the ERRATA was scheduled for consideration by the Tustin City Council on September 8, 1998. The RSCCCD did not appear or voice any opposition to the amendments at' that time. Additionally, the Errata was distributed as part of and was discussed in the revised Draft FEIS/FEIR in 1999. and in the FEIS/FEIR distributed December 23, 1999. No comments were received from the RSCCCD in response to this information. .. See response 3-1 and 3-2, above. 3-5. See Response 3-1 and 3-2, above.' 3-6.. See Response 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, above. 3-7. See Responses 3-1, 3-5, 3-6, 1-3, 2-7, 2-8,2-10, and 2-1 i. 3-8. The Commentor argues that both SAUSD and an Orange.County Educational Coalition have approved public benefit applications with the Federal Department of Education.. It is the City's ie§ai position that the' Department of Education's pre- December, 1@~5 approval of the SAUSD request for 75 acres is null and void and cannot be acted on by the NaYy. This position also applies to any Department of Education letter re~ardin~ the EduCational Coalition' On or about October ~, 1@~4, Congress passed the Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless ' .?i?.i::'" 1/16/00 ] 0 Assistance Act of 1994 ("Redevelopment Act"), which was signed by the President on or about October 25, 1994. The Redevelopment Act created a new, community-based process wherein homeless providers, state and local agencies were expected to work directly with local redevelopment entities such as the City of Tustin for closing military installations. .::--..?:.-.., · The Redevelopment Act provided that review of applications submitted prior to the effective date of the new legislation be suspended for 60 days. During that time, the City was required to decide whether to continue under the old process or follow the new procedures in the Redevelopment Act. On November 17, 1994, the City requested authority to re-screen property at MCAS Tustin under the Redevelopment Act. Authority was granted on December 15, 1994 and was completed in coordination with the Navy. ' The 19 member MCAS Tustin Base Closure Task Force reviewed over 30 reuse requests. Public hearings were held on January 9, 1996, September 10, 1996 and in October of 1996. Additionally, a workshop was held September 19, 1996. Over the course of these hearings,, the City received requests that, if granted, would have committed over 300% of the property. Each request for property was reviewed for completion and measured against a set of established.. Criteria. The Task Force 'had to measure each request for property in a manner balancing the community's needs for economic development and other community development. Although both at the hearings and in writings, SAUSD reduced its request to 50 acres, neither SAUSD nor RSCCCD received a recommendation for transfer of property at MCAS Tustin. Many other agencies were also denied. The City's economic consultants recommended no more than 20-25% of the project be set aside .for public benefit conveyances or the economic. feasibility of' the project would be jeopardized. The Reuse Plan currently allows for nearly one-third -or 518 acres - of MCAS Tustin to be allocated for public uses. These uses are a balance of needs consistent with the criteria applied in the screening process. For example, the plan includes an abused children's shelter, a homeless shelter, transitional housing for the homeless, an animal control facility, flood control and storm drainage facilities, roadway right-of-way for construction of regionally needed arterial roadway extensions; day care facilities and recreation, in addition to a community college focused on advanced technology and local school sites where direct impacts and housing construction occurs at MCAS Tusti.n. It should be noted that in 1996, RSCCCD sent Tustin a letter relinquiShing any role at MCAS Tustin and acknowledging SOCCCD as responsible for development of the community college planned at MC;AS Tustin. 3"9, See Response 3-1, above. The SAUSD and RSCCCD proposal is unacceptable. The site is totally within the boundaries of SOCCCD and TUSD and, with minor excepti°ns not applicable here, state law provisions preclude development of facilities by another district within SOCCCD and TUSD boundaries. The proposal is largely based on the argument that SAUSD and RSCCCD haVe a greater need than any other district including SOCCCD. The City has made a reasonable pr°posal to SAUSD that it believes has a strong relationship to any 1/16/0011 indirect impacts on the SAUSD. Impacts of MCAS Tustin on RSCCCD have been determined insignificant as noted in Response 1-2; other accommodation offers have been made to SAUSD outside the FEIR/FEIS process (see Response 3-1, above, for a discussion of legal issues). Letter #4- Orancte County Professional Firefighters Association to Planninq Commission, letter dated November 28, 2000 Although dated November 28, 2000, the Administrative. Secretary for the Planning Commission has certified that the attached letter was neither received by the City nor presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Apparently, the letter was left in the hearing room after the November 28, 2000 meeting had ended. Despite failure to provide information in a timely manner, the Orange County Fire Commentor (OCFA) is the agency responsible for planning adequate fire protection. OCFA has been consulted on potential impacts of MCAS Tustin and it commented on the draft revised EIS/EIR. in responses to its comments, modifications were made to the FEIS/FEIR and OCFA was provided thirty days to review the responses to its issues. OCFA has provided no additional comments as part of the FEIS/FEIS reco~d. Letter # 5, letter dated November 28, 2000,..with attachments, from City of Santa Ana ..... 5-1. The definition of committed roadway network includes roadWay projects that are in the Capital ' improvement Program of a jurisdictionl or are a' condition of approval of a specific project, or are a required mitigation measure of a'previous environment document, or in a special fee program. This FEIS/FEIR or oth'er Planning document such as a General Plan considered the aforementioned impr°vements as "probable' future projects". Based uPon this definition, the committed roadWay network is defined not by current funding criteria,, but on whether it is identified or conditioned in some approved document. Since the General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions are approved documents with approved supporting environmental documentation, 'the roadway networks of the Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan was assumed as committed improvements. .. 5-2. The reference to generation of 300,000 vehicles per day by the project is for Alternative 3 in the long range, year 2020 scenario. Alternative 1, which generates approximately 216,000 vehicles per day in the year 2020 scenario, is the Local Reuse Authority Reuse Plan. Traffic volumes throughout the region and the FEIS/FEiR Study Area are projected to increase in the future. These are projected by demographic data as well as County traffic modeling information. However, the future condition also includes various improvements to existing roadways, construction of new roadways, changes to land use Patterns and more travel mode Choices for commuters. The County Traffic Model OCTAM 2.8 used for this. project provides.. the most recent countywide traffic distribution patterns and demogr, aphic information to forecast traffic ,',-, [':,, ;,', · ,, 1/16/00 12 distribution throughout the region. At some locations within the FEIS/FEIR Study Area, traffic volumes increase while at other locations traffic volumes decrease. Traffic volume variation throughout the project study area is based not only on the increased traffiC volume the project generates, but also on 'the additional roadway capacity created by the project to serve regional and local traffic distribution. 5-3. The post-2020 traffic analysis has assumed transportation improvements beyond .those in the committed network including the transportation corridors as free facilities. No specific year.beyond post-2020 is identified in the analysis since it is assumed that both the project alternative and required mitigation for off-site traffic and circulation impacts will be completed by 2020. The intent of this analysis is not to devise a complete study area transportation plan for the post-2020 'time frame but rather to provide information for land use and transportation plans beyond the year 202.0 framework used in the .impact analysis. The assumption of toll free facilities sometime in the future is not unrealistic based on various agreements for development and funding of the transportation corridors. 5-4. The traffic forecasts derived for this project are based on County traffic model OCTAM 2.8, which was approved by OCTA for use with 'this project. The traffic distribution patterns are the same patterns defined by the OCTAM 2.8 model for this region. Based on these patterns and other associated factors (see 5-2 above), the traffic volume variations throughout the project study area are explained. The FEIS/FEIR Traffic Study repor[s the existing traffic volume on Edinger Avenue east of Grand Avenue as 32,000 vehicles per day (VPD) and on Warner Avenue east of Grand Avenue as 19,000 VPD. in the year 2020 scenario for Alternative 1, the traffic volumes increase to 57,000 VPD on Edinger Avenue and 40,000 VPD on Warner Avenue, both east of Grand Avenue. Traffic on Warner Avenue east of Grand Avenue is not decreasing in this scenario as a result of the project. 'As shown in the Traffic Study, traffic on Warner Avenue increases under both the 2005 and 2020 scenarios for ali three alternatives considered. Edinger Avenue in this area is classified as a "Smart Street" on the County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways. As such, the traffic model considers and takes advantage of the increased capacity of the higher roadway classifications when assigning traffic from the project. 5-5. Roadway improvements and mitigation measures are assumed to be construction based on the committed roadway network (see definition in 5-1 above). Traffic impacts of the project that are mitigated with roadway improvements are to be implemented per mitigation measures T/C-2 and T/C-3 of the FEIS/FEIR'.- In some locations MCAS traffic uses excess roadway capacity where available, however, the project also constructs new roadways, thereby providing excess capaci~ at some locations for regional traffic. 5-6. The committed roadway network is defined in response 5-1 above. Warner Avenue .is included in the committed roadway network since it is shown on the Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element as a major arterial in the 2010 scenario. According to the Santa Ana General Plan, a major arterial is defined as a six-lane, 1 / 16/00 13 divided roadway. This classification is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. On May 22, 2000, the City of Tustin prepared a sPecial analysis of Warner Avenue from east of Grand Avenue to west of Main Street in Santa Ana as a courtesy to Santa Aha. The conclusions of that analysis, using regionally accepted peak hour analysis, indicates that peak hour data for Warner Avenue does not indicate any. segments operating at an unacceptable level of service. Therefore, Warner Avenue between · Grand Avenue and Main Street does not require widening for either the 2005 or 2020 scenarios as a result of the MCAS Reuse Plan. The City of Tustin recognizes the regional significance and circulation benefits provided by Warner Avenue and the City is sensitive to the iSsue that Santa Ana may not have funds or plans to widen Warner Avenue to six lanes. While not a required mitigation issue in the FEIS/FEIR, there are existing and available mechanisms to assist Santa Ana in widening Warner Avenue including use of Transportation System Improvement funds collected and distributed by Santa Ana and Tustin. 5-7. Implementation measures are identified in Chapter 7 of the FEIS/FEIR that ensure completion of roadway improvements to mitigate traffic impacts due to the project. Where significant traffic impacts are identified, mitigation measures have been identified in Chapter 4 of the FEIS/FEIR to reduce them. Trip thresholds are specifically spelled out and until improvements required at certain thresholds are implemented, development will be stopped, in addition, since implementation of certain mitigation measures would occur at later times as build-out of the project occurs, mitigation measures provide for conditions to be plaCed on specific development projects or when impacts actually occur under those developments. It is not reasonable'to construct all the necessary roadway improvements for full build- out at this point in time- The mitigation measures, which are based on performance standa'rds in the FEIS/FEIR, identify the type of improvement necessary to mitig'ate traffic impacts and identify ADT thresholds requiring construction of specific improvements. 'Implementation would occur when the mitigation threshold is reached. Development projects would be conditioned to fund that project's share of improvements. 5-8' The letter indicates the City of Santa Ana's concern that sufficient mitigation of traffic impacts associated with the Reuse Plan is not identified in the EIS/EIR. The methodologies used in the traffic analysis are regionally recognized and supported by Orange County Transportation Authority, and are consistent throughout the County of Orange. To date, the City of Santa Ana has not provided technical information to substantiate its claim that the mitigation measures are underestimated and insufficient. 5-9. The list of transportation improvements that the Commentor proposes the City of Tustin fund has been reviewed. When Santa Ana provides the information' it used to determine Tustin's fair share of improvements and explains why mitigation measures .. -.:-...' :-:.-' · ...;.;:-...';..;¢,..' 1/16/00 14 should be substituted for mitigation improvements identified in the EIS/EIR, this issue will be addressed. 5-'10. The EIS/EIR identifies mitigation improvements at the Grand Avenue/Edinger Avenue intersection. However, where a mitigation measure is not due '100% to'project impacts, the City of Tustin can only require a fair share mitigation contribution. 5-11. The traffic studY does not identify adverse traffic impacts to Alton east of Main Street in' the year 2005 Alternative I analysis. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Furthermore, due to traffic distribution patterns used in the Orange County Transportation Analysis Model 2.8, the project traffic study identifies a reduction in traffic volumes on this section of Alton in the year 2020 scenario for Alternative 1. Accordingly, no mitigation is required in 2020. 5-12. Although Warner Avenue improvements between Grand Avenue and Main Street are not required as mitigation for the MCAS Reuse Project, the City of Tustin is sensitive to the regional benefit this arterial provides and the City of Santa Ana's desire to improve the roadway. There may be opportunities for both cities to agree to prioritize widening Warner Avenue using Transportation System Improvement Area Fees. 5-13. The letter indicates that Santa Ana has continually disagreed with the EIS/EIR traffic study methodology which, Santa Ana alleges, underestimates the traffic impacts of the project. The EIS/EIR uses regionally recognized methodology supported by OCTA. Santa Aha has provided' no technical support to substantiate that traffic impacts .. are underestimated. Mitigation Measure T/C-9 includes a provision for substituted improvements as determined by mutUal agreement if the same levels of improvement and mitigation can be achieved. . 5-14. The Final EIS/EIR clearly identifies on-site ADT cumulative thresholds, when off- site improvements must be completed. See pages 4-198 through 4-202 Of the Final ., EIS/EIR. · $-15. Where a mitigation measure is not 100% project specific but a project share, 'the City of Tustin can only require a fair share contribution for a project's responsibility. The agreement required by Mitigation Measure T/C-9 would be negotiated to determine how fair share contributions will be distributed.. Santa Ana may option to require payout of the fair share cost no later that 30 days 'after Santa Ana notifies the City of Tustin that a contract for construction of an improvement has been awarded.. Each fair share 'improvement c°st could also be adjusted to reflect increases or decreases in the cost of construction. ~-16. Warner Avenue improvements between Grand Avenue and.Main Street are not required as mitigation for the MCAS Reuse Project. As a courtesy, Tustin prepared a. special analysis of Warner AVenue in Santa Ana at the request of Santa Ana staff in May 2000. The conclusion of that analysis, using regionally accepted peak hour analysis, indicates that peak hour data for Warner Avenue west of Main Street to Grand AvenUe does not show any segments operating, at unacceptable levels of service. 1/16/00 15 Therefore, Warner Avenue between Grand Avenue and Main Street does not require widening for either the 2005 or 2020 scenarios as a result of the MCAS Reuse Plan. Since Warner Avenue is certainly an existing facility that has area-wide circulation benefit, Tustin and Santa Ana may agree to prioritize funding incremental widening using Transportation System Improvement Area Fees. 5-17. Tustin continues to acknowledge in the Final EIS/EIR that certain intersections in the vicinity of Warner Avenue in the study area need improvement and Tustin will bear significant costs associated with mitigation. Santa Ana previously agreed to provide a list of alternative improvements that would achieve similar levels of mitigation. However, the City has not received this list despite numerous discussions with Santa Ana.staff on the issue. ,5-18 City of Santa Ana correspondence dated November 28, 2000, included an attachment of its January 24, 2000, comments on the Final EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The letter's comments address a variety of issues that were responded to in Volume 3 of the Final EIS/EIR provided to the City of Santa Ana on November 16, 2000. The Comment Index for Volume 3 indicates that the City of Tustin's and Department of Navy's response to these comments was provided at Letter Reference "Local 2." Please.see specific responses Local 2-1, Local 2-2 and Local 2-3 provided in Volume 3 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter. 5-19 City of Santa Ana correspondence dated November 28, 2000, included an attachment of its" August 31, 1999, comments on the revised Draft EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The letter's comments addressed a variety of issues formerly responded to in Volume 2 of the Final EiS/EIR provided to the City of Santa Ana on December 23, 1999. The Comment Index for Volume 2 indicates that' the City of Tustin's and Department of Navy's formal response to these comments was provided at Letter Reference "L12." Please see specific'responses L12-1 through L12- 81 provided in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter. ,~-20 City of Santa Ana correspondence dated November 28, 2000, included an attachment of its March 2, 1998,' comments on the initial Draft EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The letter's comments addressed a Variety of issues. Per implementing .guidelines' of the California Environmental Quality'Act (CEQA), when an entire EIR is re-circulated, the lead agency "need not reSpond to those comments received during the earlier circulation period" (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, §§ 15088.5(0(1)), but the lead agency shall "in the revised EIR, or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR" (Cai. Code Regs., Title 14 §§ 15088.5(2)(g)). Consistent with state law and implementing regulations, a summary, of revisions to .the initial Draft EIS/EIR was provided in Appendix D of the revised Draft EIS/EIR, which was provided to the City of'Santa Ana on July 8, 1999." The March 2, 1998, comment letter was also attached to the City of Santa Ana's August 31., 1999, comment letter on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. As such, the letter was responded to in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR provided to the City of ':'.'::"i-:-! '.?..-:..:.. 6/00 16 Santa Aha on December 23, 1999. The Comment index for Volume 2 indicates that the response to these comments was also provided at Letter Reference "1"12." Please see the specific responses L12-82 through L12-102 provided in VolUme 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter. 5-21 City of Santa Ana correspondence dated November 28, 2000, included an attachment of its August 27, 1999, correspondence requesting that the City of Tustin clarify the date by which comments were to be submitted on the revised Draft EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The formal written response from the City of Santa Ana was received on August 31, 1999, and is included as comment letter L12, discussed above. The letter was also attached to the City of Santa Ana's August 31, 1999, comment letter on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. As such, the letter was responded to in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR provided to the. City of Santa Ana on December 23, 1999. The Comment index for Volume 2 indicates that the response to these comments was also provided at Letter Reference "L13." Please see the specific responses L13-1 provided in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter. 5-22 City of Santa Ana comments in its attached letter of August 31, 1999 (second copy), were addressed in response 5-19, above. ,5-23. City of Santa Ana comments in its attached letter of August 31, 1999 (second copy), were addressed in response' 5-20, above. Additional Response to City of irvine Correspondence of January 22, 2000 (contained in FEIS/FEIR and oral testimony to City of Tustin on November 28, 2000, by Peter Hersh). ' Attached is a letter to irvine. 1 / 16/00 ] 7 Office of the City Manager December 15.200'0 City of Tusti n ~00 C..n,e'nnial Way Tustin, CA 92780 714.573.30i0 FAX 714.838. i602 Ms. Allison Hart, City' Manager City of Irvin: One Civic Center Plaza P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92606-5208 MCAS Tustin Project Dear Allison: The CiD: of In,ine ("Irvine"'), in correspondence dated January 28, 2000, and in ora] testimony to the CiD' of Tustin (:' Tustin; ') Planning Commission on November 28,000, has identified several transportationJcirculation issues it has with the Joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (':'FEIS/FEIR") for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (the "Project"). Tustin and Irvine staffs' have discussed these issues on several occasions. Irv. ine has represented that an additional clarification by Tustin outside of the formal FEIS/FEIR · document and public record would be helpful to Ir¢ine understanding Tustin's commitment to transportation/circulation mitigation measures in the FEIS/FEIR and would go a long way toward Irvine having a greater level of comfort, eliminating any need Irvine would' have to challenge either Tustin or the Navy on the FEIS/FEIR. With the above in mind, the following information 'is provided as a 2trther response to and clarification of transportation/circulation issues addressed Mth Irvine and also to articulate constraints Tustin faces on the Project. This letter is provided in an attempt to settle any misunderstanding bem, een the cities. General Backeround First, it needs to be reinforced that the FEIS/FEIR is a joint document with the Navy,. Tustin does not have the authority to unilaterally modify the document before its certification for any action, including the Navy's Record of Decision for the disposal of property. The Navy's position has been that Irvine's comments of January 28.. 2000, are adequately addressed in the · FEIS/FEIR. Second, Tustin and the Navy, over the last eighteen to twenty-four months, have gone to significant financial expense and delay to accommodate Irvine's concerns on the original Draft '-".'i".:" .;'.'. -.-. :.-o . Ms. Allison Hart December 15.2000 Page 2 EI$/EIR and in r~sponse to additional comments Irvin¢ provided on the revised Draft EISFEIR and the FEIS/FEIR. More specifically, th~ following actions' occurred: 1. The Traffic Study area was expanded with written agreement from Irvine. 9 The traffic modeling was significantly modified ~o reflect Irvine cormments and ~o incorporate Irvine year 2005 land use/traffic modeling information, which Irvine agreed to in ~Mting. The modeling changes Irvine requested were no~ consistem with OCTA model information for Irvine. Tusfin supported and obtained concUrrence from OCTA · ~%r the use of modified Irvine land use transpo~afion modeling information in the FEIS/FEIR. The list of short range (year 2005) and long range (year 2020) Commit-ted Improvements was carefully reviewed and modified (see Volume 2 of the FEIS/FEIR, response L6-9). . Pursuant 'to Irvine's request, mitigation measures identified-in the FEIS/FEIR take into consideration Irvine's "Level of Service" ("LOS") standards. Clarifications of FEIS/FEIR Response to Irvine's Janua~w 28..2000 Correspondence , Irvine requested that funding sources for certain short range. (year 2005) and long · range (year 2020) improvements be identified. Short range (year 2005) intersections or freeway ramps identified by Irvine included Jamboree Road & the I-5 Southbound · Ramps and Barranca & Jamboree. Long range (year 2020) intersections identified by Irvine included Barranca & Von Karrnan (Tustin Ranch' Road), Von Karrnan & Alton, Von Karman & Main, Main & MacArthur, Main & Redhill and Jamboree & Michelson. Tustin Clarification: " As discussed with Irvine, the FEIS/FEIR identifies year 2005 intersections in Irvine requiring mitigation in Table '4.12-5 on page 4-150 of the document and freeway ramps' on Table 4.12-4 on page 4-148 (information in the document is based on the Final Traffic Technical Report contained in Volume 2 of the FEIS/FEIR). The FEIS/FEIS idemifies year 2005 mitigation at the Jamboree &-I-5 Southbound Ramp and at Barranca & Von Kanban (Tustin Ranch Road).. The Jamboree and I-5 Improvements in the Short range (year 2005) scenario have been completed recently with the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor by the TCA. No long-range (year 2020) imp.rovements at this location are required by the Project. The Barranca & Von Karman improvement is an.interim improvement only in the short range (year 2005) analysis and is not necessary in the long range scenario. On the Barranca & Jamboree intersection, Table 4.12-7 on page 1-156 of the FEIS/FEIR identifies that Ms..~iison December 15.2000 current Jamboree & Bmn-anca improvements in the short range will be made to this intersection to maintain an acceptable level of service to be agreed to by the cities of Tustin and Ir~:ine and the TCA for baseline conditions pursuant to the 1998 MOA between the TCA. Tustin and Irvine. When these improvements are designed and included in the ICU calculations, any additional impacts of reuse with the MCAS Therefore, as noted in the FEIS/FEIR. impacts mav Tusiin project will be identiSed. be overstated, are difficult to quami~, at this time and could be less than significant at this location because of minimum imProvemems to be the TCA's responsibili~, that have not yet been designed or constructed. However, mitigation of this intersection will also be accomplished by the requirement to provide in the ,short term (2005) analysis a new' access to the reuse plan area from Warner'Avenue, west of Jamboree (page 4-154 and Table 4.12-7). The FEIS/FEIR identified in the long-range analysis intersections in Irvine requiting mitigmion in Table 4.12-6 on .page 4-151. Long range mitigation is ~:equired a~ .Redhill & Main, Von Karman & Michelson, jamboree & Alton, Harvard & Alton, Culver & Warner and Red.hill & Alion. The' following intersections identified by Irvine do not require mitigation in the FEIS/FEIR: Von Karman & A/ton, Von Karrn~ & Main, and Jamboree and Michelson. All of these improvements are required' mitigation measures .as part'of the Irvin& Business Complex (IBC) rezoning in 1991. The ~lifferences i'dentified above appear to be based on Irv'ine requesting mitigation at intersections that are part of the committed roadway network and must be considered "probable future projects". While you may argue that there is no funding by Irvine to install .these improvements, they are identified and conditioned in a previously approved Irvine environmental document. In approving a multitude of development projects over the last decade, Irvine has used traffic studies employing the same approach Tustin was required to use in the FEIS/FEIR. With both the Northwood and Village 10 environmental documents, Irvine assumed many improvements were committed improvements although not apparently' funded or constructed, based on mitigation measures required in other EIR'~ approved in Irvine. Irvine has also used the Lower Peters Canyon EIR in approval of numerous subsequent discretionary actions in the Lower Peters Canyon project area. The Lower Peters Canyon EIR also assumed certain improvements were committed based on mitigation measures required in other EIR's approved in Irvine. For example, a Jamboree grade separation at Barranca and an improvement of Barranca to eight lanes was assumed "committed improvements" in the Lower Peters Canyon EIR. If some of the imersection mitigation improvemems required as part of IBC rezoning that Irvine identifies are higher priorities to Irvine, mitigation measure T/C-8 in the FEIS/FEIR provides that alternative improvements that provide an equivalent level of mitigation in the short range (year 2005) or long range (year 2020) analyses to those Ms. Allison Hart December 15; 2000 Pa_~ 4 identified in the FEIS/FEIR, ma), be idemified by In,ine in consultation with Tusfin. Tustin has already had similar discussions with Santa Aha and would be open ~o such discussions with Irvin¢ as part of the A~eement preparation required wkh mitigation measure T/C-9. As discussed with Irvine, various transportation/ circulation mitigation measures ensure the project's commitment to funding and implementation of *&ose specific transportation mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/FEIR. More specifically, the following is a summary of these measures. a. -T/C-2 requires that the arterial intersections required in.the 2005 and 2020 analyses shown in Tables 4.12-7 and 4.12-9 are implemented in each respective jurisdiction according to cumulative' ADT thresholds identified in each table and according to the fair share basis nme& b. T/C-4 requires that all on-site circulation'improvements assumed in the 2005 and 2020 analyses.as sho,zm in Table 4.i2-10 be implemented according to ADT thresholds. At each ADT threshold, roadway improvements shall be constructed before a_ny additional projects can be approved. c.-T/C-3 requires that Tustin and Irvine, as applicable, contribute on a fair share basis to freeway ramp improvements in Table 4.12-8. d. T/C- 5 requires that prior to approval of a site development permit or vesting map for private development, a project developer must enter into an agreement with Tustin and Irvine, as applicable to assign improvements required in the FEIS/FEIR to the development site and participation in a fair share mechanism to design and construct both on-site and off-sire improvements consistent w/th ADT thresholds established for each improvement e. T/C-6 requires Tustin and Irvine, as applicable to monitor all new development accounting for .cumulative ADT's. As A_DT thresholds are reached, roadway improvements required shall be constructed before additional projects are approved. . -.':_:.:. f. 'T/C-9 requires' Tustin to enter into an Agreement with Irv'ine to ensure construction of "project" and "fair 'share" mitigation measures. The specific scope of improvements required in the FEIS/FEIR, costs, timing and funding levels for such improvements are to be addressed in the Agreement. Tustin has also identified in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (the "project") and in the confidential MCAS Tustin Business Plan that funding for required mitigation measures will include developer contributions, assessment .,Ms..Allison Hart D,.cemb... ] ~ 2 ~ ,',' . 000 Pa_os 5 district financ!ng, redevelopment agency ffmding, in lieu gas taxes, or other similar funding mechanisms. Additional outside funding sources such as state and federal funds may also be used. The improvements identi~'ied in the FEIS,qZEIR report are, in any ever~t, required. The CiD' is not required, either by CEQA or the FEIS/FEIR to identify' specific funding sources. However, the mecl~anisms for ensm-ing funding are clearly identified. Irvine is also insured of implementation since AD'T thresholds have been set forth for each on- and off-site improvement. These thresholds establish the minimum level of development that can occur until {'equired improvements are constructed. Failure to meet threshold standards will result in shut down of the Project. o Irvine alleges that certain roadways around the project would be more sig~ficantly impacted than indicated in the FEIS/FEIR indicating that cliff%ring land use assumptions were used in the FEIS/FEIR and in each CiD~'s traffic modeling. Tustin Clarification: The FEIS/FEIR re. flects short range (2005) and long range (2020) land use model info~ation agreed to 'and provided by Irvine. In addition, Mitigation Measures T/C-4, T/C-5, T/C-6, T/C-7, L¢-I, IA-2 and IA-3, IA-4 and IA-5 require monitoring of' project-generated trips, installation of' off-site and on-site improvements required...by the FEIS/FEIR at specific average daily'trip ("ADT") thresholds and implementation Of a Trip Budget. T/C-9 also requires Tustin to enter, into an Ageement with Irvine to ensure cohstruction of "project" and "fair share" mitigation measures in Irvine. The specific scope of improvements, costs, timing and ffmding levels for such improvements are required to be addressed in the Agreement. It is Tustin's intention to complete said Agreement prioi' to issuance of'the fLrst building permits for private development on the base since mitigation measure requires assignment of' improvements required in the FEIS/FEIR to development sites and developer participation in a fair share mechanism to design and construct required mitigation measures pr/or to approval of a Site development permit. Tustin's commitment to this process is demonstrated by the fact that Tustin has already prepared draft constrUction cost estimates of the required mitigation measures for Irvine's comments. Irvine has reviewed the draft report and the next step is discussion and preparation of the joint Agreement. Irvine argues that mitigation, measure T/C-9 only requires a scoping meeting without commitment to improvements and does not require Irvine's participation. Irvine has' also requested additional modification to this mitigation measure as follows' a. Irvine requested a traffic report study for each subsequent master plan or tentative subdivision map in the Project. b. Irvine requested a definition' of the format of any traffic study. Ms. Allison Hm-'t December 15.2000 Page 6 c. 'Irvine requested that if i. mpac'~ed imersection exceeds service level standards, then link and intersection improvements shall be submitted to and commented on by them. d. Irvine requested that all improvemems be fully funded prior to issuance of permits for a relevant development phases and that improvements be completed or construction contracts awarded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a project. e. Irvine requested that prior to the first tentative tract map, Tustin establish a funding mechanism for 2005 and 2020 obligations for .the project and prior to permits, the project fund or contribute its fair share in accordance with an adopted fee program. f. Irvine wants Tustin to subm/t a trip monitoring report to Irvine at each phase of development showing the cumulative level of daily and peak hour trips. ' Tustin Clarification: T/C-9 is very clear regkrding obligations for entering into a.joint two-party implementation agreement (see clarification # 2 above). Additional responses to other language changes requested by Irvine follow (corresponding to the items identified above). a. An initial study Will be prepared on all development projects,, where required by CEQA, to determine whether additional traffic impact studies will be necessary. In mitigation measure T/C-7 Tustin is required to adopt a Trip Budget and monitor cumulative ADT's generated by the project. In fact, mitigation measure IA-2 has specifically identified the .required Trip Budget which is shown in Table 7-3 on page 7-35 of the FEIS/FEIR.. With mitigation measure T/C -5, no site development permit or vesting maps (except for financing purposes or conveyance purposes), can be approved until project developers enter into agreements' with Tustin and Irvine, as applicable wkich assign on--site and off-site improvements. Mitigation measure IA-3 also permits the City of Tustin Traffic Engineer to require submittal of specific additional traffic information. The requested information shall include assignment, of improvements; evaluation of delays in previously committed Circulation improvements or construction of Unanticipated improvements, .and; the utilization of the circulation system and capacity assumptions within the FEIS/FEIR and any additional improvements completed by affected jurisdictions for the applicable time frame of analysis. While this measure is listed under on-site improvements, the information that can be required by the Traffic Engineer goes far beyond to also include-off-site improvements in affected jurisdictions. '.;: ..-....'..:',' 'Ms. Allison Hm"t Dec~mber ~ 5.2000 Pa_oe 7 b. The format of any subsequent traffic study required will be as defined by the Traffic' Engineer. x, Xrlnere improvements are being evaluated in an affected jurisdiction, the Ci~..' Mil consult with that agency. However, environmental determinations on projects within Tustin'will be made by the CiD' of Tustin and are subject to review and comments by other jurisdictions under CEQA provisions. c. T/C-9 requires ~hat an Agreement be prepared be~rween Tustin and Irvine that defines the scope, timing, fimding level and design and construction process for impacted intersections identified in the FEIS/FEIR.. As noted on page 4-154 of the document, if subsequent studies demonstrate that trips would not be generated or impacts.are different than 5nose projected in the document, mitigation measures may be modified, subject to the approval of Tusiin and the affected jurisdiction, provided that the same level of service must be achieved. d. Clarifications in item" _ ,-. 1 and ~ above identi~., the process for ensuring funding fair share 5mding commirrnents for all requii'ed mitigation improvements. e.' Mitigation Measures T/C-4, iA-I, IA-2, iA-3, ~d IA-5 require monitoring of'all development based on cumulative ADT generated by development projects and to ensure installation of mitigation measures consistent with ADT thresholds in the FEIS/FEIR. All monitoring information ~411 be available to Irvine upon request. 4. Irvine questions the concept of"probable future projects.'' Tustin Clarification' Tustin and Navy legal staffs have reviewed the concept of "probable future projects" and beiieve the .use of the term in consistent with CEQA. , In an additional e-mail request dated December 4, 200, Irvine identified additional concerns. o Irvine asked for an agreement on future measures that are not part 'of the FEIS/FEIR. Tustin Clarification: Mitigation Measure T/C-8 does provide that impacted jurisdictions may suggest alternate mitigation improvements that provide an equivalent, level of mitigation. However, this authorization does not involve reopening the land use/traffic modeling process previously agreed to in writing. o irvine asks that its commitments to Tustin on RedhiI1 Avenue mitigation tied to previous IBC environmental documents be reconsidered. · Tustin Clarification: Tustin is requesting all Redhill Avenue right-of-way between Barranca and Valencia be deed conveyed by the Navy to Tustin as part of the MCAS Tustin Project. While the Project itself does not trigger the need for full link Ms. Allison Ha.~ December ~ 5, 2000 Page 8 widening, several intersection enhancements along Redhill Avenue are required mitigation measures dealt with in the FEIS/FEIR. It does need to be stated that to date, Irvine has not met its written le_~al .commitments to Tustin that were part of the trvine Business Complex (the "IBC") approval process. Provisions of the !992 agreement regarding mitigation t%r the IBC between Irvine and Tustin required certain specific obligations of Irvine including but not limited to preparation of a Project Design Report for detennin/ng traffic capacity on Redhill Avenue between .Dyer Ro'ad/Ba,-Tanca Parkway and the I-5 Freeway. Irvine is currently in breech of this agreement. Link v~ddening of Redhill Avenue is not an MCAS Tustin Project impact and fight-of-way dedication for widening to eight lanes between Barranca Parkway and Valencia is a significant "fair share" contribution to any future Re. dhill widen/rig project if such mitigation were required. While the FEIS/FEIR is not the appropriate forum for this new request by Irv'ine, Tustin would certainly be prepared to discuss more specific scoping, timing and fimding obligations of Irvine and Tustin consistent with the original intent of the IBC Settlement Agreement in preparing the implementa{ion agreement required by Mitigation Measure T/C-9. In conclusion, Tustin remains committed to mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/FEIR. Each on-site as well as off-site mitigation measure has an ADT threshold at which point implementation of a measure must be in place o'r the entire project shuts down. A Trip Budget is also required for the Project. This Trip Budget ensures monitoring of each development's ADTs and cumulative ADTs produced by the Project. In addition, the FEIS/FEIR requires both cities to enter into a mitigation implementation agreement. Tustin is committed to exercising its good faith in cooperation ivith Irvine in negotiating and entering into such an agreement for memorializing the scope, timing,' design, funding, and design and construction of required mitigation measures. Irvine has assigned lead agency responsibility to Tustin for preparation of the FEIS/FEIR as it relates to that portion of the MCAS Tustin project within Irvine's jurisdictional boundaries. This will necessitate that the agreement required by Mitigation Measure T/C-9 also assign to trvine and to development sites in the project in In, ine, as'applicable, the proportional "project" and "fa/r share" responsibilities for all Project mitigation based on traffic volumes anticipated from Irvine development projects at the former MCAS Tustin. This certainly reinforces the need for both Tustin and Irvine to continue to .work cooperatively on the MCAS Tustin project while ensuring that reuse can move forward in both jurisdictions in an expeditious manner. Ms..AJlison Hart December ] 5, 2000 Page 9 I hope' the above information" addresses previous concerns of Irvine and clarifies our commitments to mitigation implementation. Sincerely, ~ / William A. Huston Cc.' Lois Jeffrey P. Hersh D. Anderson Attachment 6 Letter Submitted to the City Council on December 18, 2000 and the City of Tustin's Written Response; Letter Submitted to the City Council on December 29, 2000 and the City of Tustin's Written Response. CULBERTSON, ~AMS & ~SOC~TES . PLANNING CONSULTANTS December 1 g, 2000 Cit)' Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780-3767 SUBJECT: GPA 00-001' Failure to Adequately Disclose Si~ificant Impacts in FEIS/FE~ on Base Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, Califomia; Failure to Identify Feasible Mitigation Me,utes and Project Alternatives Honorable Co~cil Members: "...'.'.7.'.7 This office represents Santa Aha Unified School District (hereinafter "SAUSD") in preparing environmental documentation for school facilities, and has for over 10 years. The signatory to this letter is no stranger to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), having administered, written or critiqued over 500 documents in the last 27+ years. Some of the more controversial projects in Orange Count), have been addressed by the undersi_o-ned to the satisfaction of reviewing courts. My professional commitment to complete, unbiased and accurate administration of CEQA has been a hallmark of my work The SAUSD has recently requested that we (1) review the record so far established for the Final EIS/EIR ("FEIS/FEIR") and determine if there has beer full and accurate compliance With the California Environmental Quality Act 'and the State CEQA · Guidelines and (2) respond to the staffs CEQA-related comments set forth in Attachment 5 to the Agenda Report which has been prepared by' the Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 00- 001 ("GPA 00-001") and the certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin (the "City") at the public heating scheduled for Decemb. er 18, 2000. Please note that the Agenda Report 'was only obtained from the City by SAUSD's counsel, Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, las~ Friday afternoon, December 15, 2000, .and was forwarded to me for my review on Friday evening. As such, my office has had little time to fully analyze and respond to the many new points raised by staff in its response to the Written comments which SAUSD's counsel submitted 'to the City's Planning Commission" in connection Mth the public hearing on GPA 00-001 which was held November 28, 2000. · 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso \:iejo. California 92656-4105 · (949) 581-2888 · Fax (949) 581-3599 City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Paee 2 cont. However, notwithstanding the severe time limitations with which my office had to contend over the past weekend, our review of the record has sufficed to demonstrate that the CEQA compliance process for GPA 00-001 is seriously flawed and must be materially revised before the CiD: Council can legally proceed to approve that project. The reason to address the City Council at this late point in the process is to make one last attempt- in a direct fashion- 'to alert the City Council to major errors in the CEQA process. Whatever the reasons ostensibly Compelling the City Council to move forward at this point, the City Council alone is responsible for ~'" ' ' ~, · . d,.t,.rm~mn~ the adequacy of this CEQA process, and the mitigation which (or which does .not: in the case of Santa Aha Unified School District), attend it. As a frequent representative of public agencies and school districts, we find ourselves obligated to point out these problems- and their solutions- to the City Council directly. Failure to Adequately Disclose Si_o-nificant Imf)acts to SAUSD School System The FEIS/~IR concedes that, under the City's preferred altemative, referred to as "Alternative 1," up to 509 new students would be indirectly generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the 'tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created by the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin (FEIS/FE~,'at pp. 4-61 to 4-64.) According to the FEIS;FEIR, the build-out of Alternative 1 could result in "indirect or induced ~owth" which would add up 'to 547 new households within SAUSD's jurisdiction as new employees moved into the Santa Aha area to fill some of the new jobs created at MCAS- Tustin. (Id.) For the reasons stated below, the failure of the FEIS/FE~ to adequately identify the student generation impacts associated Mth the development of Alternative 1 as "siguificant environmental effects" under CEQA and to specify feasible mitigation measures to minimize or eliminate these impacts, is a clear-cut violation of CEQA and . the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City's apparent refusal to adopt the aPPropriate findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring report to properly address these impacts likewise runs afoul of the mandatory provisions of CEQA and the Guidelines. Sections 15126 and 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines require' an EIX to identify'all "significant environmental 'effects of the proposed project." In this regard, EIRs must discuss chan_es induced in pot)ulation distribution, pop.u, lati. on concentrati.0n, the human ..u.se .of the land.., and other aspects of the resource base such as ... public sen'ices." (Emphasis added.)' Of course, in this context, the tem~ "public services" would include public schools within the SAUSD school system. . SAUSD\School Impacts letter - ..-.-.:-.:.-.- 4 City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Pa~e 3 In determining whether the student generation impacts on SAUSD which would be associated with the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin should be deemed '~'siguificant" ~4thin the meaning of CEQA and would require adequate mitigation, the provisions of Section 15064(e) of the CEQA Guidelines are quite instructive and appear to address the veD: school "overcrowding" problems which will be exacerbated by the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tusti'n: Altemat~v,.lv, economic and social effects of a physical chan_~e maybe used to d,.,,rmm~ that the physical change is a si~ificant effect on the environment. If the ohvsical chan_~e causes adverse economic or social effects on r)eou, le, those adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether the physical change is si~ificant. For examr)le, if a r)roiect would 'cause overcrowding of a r)ublic fac/lin..' and the overcro~vdin~ causes an adverse effect on r)eor)le, the overcrowdin~ would be re~arded as a simaificant e~Fect. (Emphasis added.) Although school overcrowding, standing alone, may not, in every instance, constitute a "significant environmental effect" within the meaning of CEQA, the California courts have held that, when a proposed project would add additional students to an already- overcrowded school district, thereby necessitating the construction of new school facilities--and possibly changing bus routes and altering traffic patterns--to accommodate the influx of such new students, these student generation impacts would be considered "sig'nificant" under CEQA and would require adequate mitigation. (See, e.g., Goleta · U~ion School Dist. v. Regents of Universi~. of Calfornia (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1025, 1032; El Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.App. 3d 123, 131-132.) ., , In the Goleta Union case, the trial court found that the EIR initially prepared .by the Regents violated CEQA because it failed to provide relevant information and adequate mitigation measures regarding the significant environmental impacts which the Regents' plan to expand the University of California at Santa Barbara ("UCSB") might have on student enrollment in the schools run by the Goleta Union School District (the "District"). Specifically, the trial court found that, because of severe overcrowding of the Districts' classrooms, the additional students that would be generated by the expansion of UCSB Would eventually necessitate construction .of new classroom facilities or additional busing of students. The Supplemental EIR which the trial court required the Regents to prepare after making this finding reported that the cumulative effect of the Regents' expansion plan would involve an increase of 192 new students in the District. The Court of Appeal in the Goleta Union case ageed that, based upon the trial court's findings, this projected increase in student' enrollment was a si~ificant effect which SAUSD\School Impacts letter City Council City of Tustin December 1 g, 2000 Page 4 5 cont. required appropriate mitigation measures to order to comply with the dictates of CEQA. be specified in the Supplemental EI]~ in Likewise, in' the El Dorado O)~ion case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling that the City's EIR fell "xvoefully short" of the ~:equirements imposed by CEQA because (1) it did not adequately address of the effects of adding 88.3 new high school students to an already .overcrowded school system and (2) it failed to specify any mitigation measures to minimize those impacts. In contrast to the 192 additional students in the Gol. eta Unio~ case, and the 88.3 additional students in the El Dorado Union case--both of which were deemed to be "si~ificant" impacts requiting proper CEQA compliance--the FEIS/FEIR in this case estimates that up to 509 new students for the SAUSD school system could be generated by the build-om of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS--Tustin. Inexplicably, ho~vever, the FEIS/FEIR fails to identi~, this student 5~_,.n,.rauon '~ ' impact as sight, cant and likeMse fails to specify, any mifi_~ation~ measures, other than a brief reference to developer fees, to minimize this impact. Prior letters submitted on behalf of SAUSD have clearly demonstrated that SAUSD is experiencing' severe overcrowding problems and is in desperate need of additional school facilities to handle some 24,000 students who are temporarily housed in "portable" classrooms. Obviously, adding over 500 new students to an already Overcrowded and over-capacity school system w/ll necessitate the' construction of new classroom fhcilities to accommodate these new students because there is no excess capacity to absorb these students. Moreover, depending on where these new students reside w/thin SAUSD's boundaries, their transportation needs to and from their respective schools may necessitate changing existing school bus routes and altering traffic patterns within the Santa Aha area. Each of these impacts needs to be adequately addressed and mitigated in the FEIS/2rEIR before the City proceeds to approve GPA 00-001. 6 What is imperative to note here is that, when the FEIS/FEI~ is read in conjunction with the staff commems set forth in the Agenda Report regarding GPA 00-001, it is apparent that the CiW, itself, has provided the evidence necessary to establish that the student generation impacts of its Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin are so "si~ificant" that, at a minimum, an entire new ~rade school will need to be built to handle the influx of the hundreds of new students that will be added to the SAUSD school system. At page 9 of the "Response to Written Comments" section of the Agenda Report, the staff makes the following observations: "The FEIS/TE~ states only that, based on the assumption that perhaps new employees at the former MCAS Tustin site might seek' new housing w/thin the SAUSD, there is the potential for a'n indirect impact on the SAUSD from the MCAS Tustin project. To' bracket t~e range of probable indirect impacts, the SAUSD\School Impacts letter Cir).: Council City of Tustin December 18, Pa~e 5 6 cont. 2000 City's experts presented an estimate using two scenarios. Both scenario 1. a hi_~hlv unlikely worst-case scenario, and scenario 2. the more likely scenario. ._ were r)rer)ared for the FEIS/FEIR. Based on the projections under each scenario of household ~owth, either 509 students might be generated over a 20 year period (scenario 1) or 82 students (scenario 2) over the same period. Based on SAUSD student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential impact to SAUSD would be in ~ades K-8 Mth over 50% of this impact in ~ades K-5 (under either scenario). With an avera_~e K-5 elementary school built to accommodate 800 students, the average middle school built to accommodate 1560 students and the average high school built to accommodate 2400 studenis, neithsr of the indirect imf)act scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an entire school site at MCAS Tustin as reouested bv the SAUSD." (Emphasis added.) The clear implication of the above-quoted passage from the Agenda Report for GPA 00- 001 i's that, if either of the "indirect impact scenarios" discussed in the FEIS[FEI~ indicated that at least 800 new students would be _~n~rated for the SAUSD school system by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, then the City would have to a~ee that such an impact would be si~ificant and would require "an entire school site at MCAS- Tustin" to-' be provided as mitigation. By carefully scrutinizing the calculations performed by the City's consultant in projecting the 509 additional students under "scenario 1" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR, it tums Out that, after accounting for an unjustified omission which was made in the calculations performed by the Ci~'s consultant, the actual number of students that would be generated under "scenario 1" would be 817 new students. This, of course, would be well above the City's 800-student threshold--which, by the way, has no basis in CEQA law--for establishing a significant impact requiring mitigation. In the May 1999 report entitled "Updated Report on the School Facili¢ Indirect Impact of Redevelopment on the MCAS-Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Aha Unified Scl-iool District," which was prepared at the City's request by Dennis Macheski Consulting (DMC") and which forms the basis of the indirect student generation figures set .forth on pages 4-62 and 4-63 of the FEIS/FEIR, DMC failed to utilize any multiplier for indirect and induced employment in determining that some 509 additional students would be added to SAUSD's school under "scenario 1." However, in detemxining that 82 new students would be indirectly generated for the SAUSD school, system under "scenario 2," DMC used a multiplier of 0.61 for indirect and induced employment, which resulted in a projection of additional new jobs, which DMC included in its calculation. When that same 0.61 multiplier is applied ~o the figures set forth on page 5 of DMC's .. report, the revised number of "new househoi'ds estimated to live in the SAUSD" would ! SAUSD\School Impacts.letter City Council Cit3' of Tustin December 18, 2000 Pa~e 6 7 cont. be 878 new households, rather than the 547 ho~eholds set forth in Table 4.4-1 on page 4-63 of the FEIS/FEIR. Then, by applying the same 0.93 student generation multiplier used in the FEIS~IR (which is now outdated and is no longer used by SAUSD), the number of additional students that would be generated under "scenario 1" would be 817 new students--which is substantially different than the 509-student figure reported in the FEIS,~EIR. Since the FEIS/FEIR clearly concedes that the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin will result in.;-~,~ 852 "direct" jobs and 15,081 "indirect and induced" jobs (see, Table 4._*-*_ at p. 4-18), there is no rational justification for why the same 0.61 multiplier for this second category of "indirect'and induced" jobs would have been omitted from DMC's calculations for "scenario 1.,,' but included in his calculations for "scenario 2." Once his calculations for "scenario 1"" are adjusted to account for the proper number of "indirect and induced" jobs to be generated, by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, it is clear that the supposed "worst case" Scenario for the student generation impacts to SAUSD is off by a factor of over 60,°,/o and this can hardly be 'considered to be an insi~ificant error that can be disregarded. In fact, this miscalculation is so material that it requires the FEIS,,TEIR to be supplemented and recirculal~ed for public review and comment. Moreover, what' this omission underscores is the need to critically reevaluate DMC's calculations and carefully reexamine the assumptions upon which those calculations were based to determine whether the FEIS/FEIR has seriously underestimated the number of new students that Mil be generated for the SAUSD school syst.em by the City's proposed Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin. At the request of SAUSD's counsel, the consulting firm of Public Economics, Inc. ("PEI") has been asked to undertake such an reevaluation in time for the City's Council December 18 heating on GPA 00-001, and I Mil defer to PEI to direct its written analysis to the City for i~s review in this regard. '8 As the record stands now, however, the so-called "worst case" scenario for student generation impacts on SAUSD is factually incorrect and is patently inadequate under CEQA. In addition, the 82-student scenario--referred to as "scenario 2" in the Agenda Report--is highly questionable because it is based on the untenable and wholly unsupportable assumption that only ten percent (10%) of the "direct" jobs generated by the development of the City's Reuse Plan Mil be "new" jobs to. the MCAS-Tustin development area that Mll not already be filled by pre-existing employees. This ~_ assumption will also be examined in the report to be submitted by PEI. 9 As a final observation in this area, we find the City's reliance on the "direct" or "indirect" nature of school impacts troubling. This is clearly a distinction without' a difference. Whether the students are generated by increases in households brought about by a neighboring agency's promotion of j6b and revenue produqing opportunities, or · '"::'.: 4'(.'.' , . SAUSD\School Impacts letter City Council City of Tustin December 18, Pa_oe 7 2000 9 cont. whether the students are generated by the construction of homes, is irrelevant to a determination of whether the impact is required to be disclosed under CEQA. By obscuring this issue, the City has essentially eliminated the lo~cal pro~ession of analytical events leading to mitigation and project alternative discussions. It is precisely this type of indifferent agency conduct that CEQA is aimed at exposing, particularly in __ multi-jurisdictional settings. 10 Failure to Disclose the Unavailability of Land for New School Facilities · . o . . Irrespective of the number of students truly generated by the Ciry-'s Reuse Plan, the · FEIS,,TE~ completely overlooks whether the SAUSD can actually accommodate these students. Even a cursor), evaluation of SAUSD facilities-if one had been undertaken at all by the City--reveals that there is no land available for absorption of these students. The City simply i~ores the effect of the addition of 509 new students to the 58,000 students already housed in SAUSD. The City fails to acknowledge that sig'nificant impacts attend the addition of any students to a school district which is already on multi-track year round education, featurfng some of the highest student per acre densities in ~he state of California. While schools in other districts operate elementary schools of 750-900 students on 10-12 acres, the same schools in SAUSD house as many as 1,124 such childreh on 2.88 acres. To state that SAUSD has feasible "options" to acquire additional school, sites to accommodate more students in an urban district is simply false. A proper environmental analysis would have addressed this space issue directly. Instead, the FEIS/FE~ avoids taking a hard look at whether it is feasible to find space available to construct classroom facilities to house the hundreds and hundreds of new students that · will be added to SAUSD's schools as a result of the proposed redevelopment .of MCAS- Tustin. The "ratio" approach to impact assessment - the concept that the impact of 509 students is "small" in relation to the total size of the' District (58,000) - has long been regarded as inappropriate under CEQA. Accordingly, this is yet another example of a material failure on the part of the City to adequately assess the significant impacts of its Reuse Plan on public services and facilities. ' :l.J. Failure to Identify Feasible Miti_~ation Measures and Proiect Alternatives In pursuit of identifying adequate mitigation, the SAUSD has asked for undeveloped land, which is virtually non-existent in the Santa Ana area. The City, however, has refused this request. Ostensibly, the City seems to believe that it can dismiss effects to SAUSD because (1) the students added could be spread district-w/de (even thought there are no facilities 'to house them); (2) the students generated are "secondary effects"; in other words students generated by houses built for the base are more important; and (3) SAUSD\School Impacts letter City Council City of Tustin December 18, 2000 Pa_~e 8 cont. the portion of the base in SAUSD involves is non-residential, emplo~Tnent-generating land uses. Of course, as to this last point, it is the Gi~, ~vhich has made this land use decision. Therefore, to the extent the City has elected to shape its land use plan in a manner that reduces the obligation for school sites genuinely owed to SAUSD, this is the Cit)_.".s, not SAUSD's, fault. Happily, CEQA provides a solution in these cases- the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, folloMng' the consideration of a reasonable range of project alternatives. ~,s~bl,. mitigation or There can D,. no question .that such r'~o ' ~ project alternatives are required to be considered.and that they may only be rejected if found infeasible on the basis of substantial evidence. It is difficult to imagine, Mth some 150 acres of the base failing within SAUSD's jurisdiction, that a land dedication could not be made available. Clearly, it is feasible- land in generous portions has been made available to other school districts on the basis of lesser impacts.~ Notably, there are more students in SAUSD housed in portables (24,000) than the entire student population of Ir¥4ne Unified (23,400). When considered in this light, the failure to provide land to SAUSD presents a stark- and troubling- contrast. 12 It is clear that the City of Tustin has made accommodation for its impacts in other contexts, and in fact miti_~ated in excess of its imr~acts in at least two instances. With respect to traffic, the record discloses that in the City of Santa Aha, the City of Tustin mitigated impacts to affected intersections to the de~ee the reuse project contributed traffic- pro rata, in other words. Notably, however~ with respect to two overcrowded intersections, the City of Tustin proposed to pay for comolete · not pro rata- improvements to these intersections to offset the impacts.' If the CiD' of Tustin can spend money to lay asphalt to help autos move more efficiently throu~ intersections, can there be a justification for i~oring mitigation for children in an overcrowded school district? We think not. 13 What is so unique about this case is that it involves a military base disposal and reuse process and, as such, the City., in its capacity as the Local Redevelopment Agency ~ desi~ated for this process, has the ability to recommend to the U. S. Department of the ~ Compare the disparate treatment given to the Irvine Ui~ified and Tustin Unified School Districts, both of which have e.'cisting capacity at all grade levels. Irvine USD received 20 acres of land for 302 students generated; Tustin USD received 60 acres for 1,143 students. Santa Ana received no acreage for 509 students. Using a pro-rata.share approach, Irsdne USD received 1 acre of land for e:,ery 15.1 students; Tustin received 1 acre of land for every 19.05 students. If one were to merely extrapolate an equivalent amount of acreage for Santa Ana USD using these rat[os, Santa Ana USD would be entitled too 33.7 acres (using the ratio for Irvine USD) or 26.7 acres, respectiy, ely. The "solutions" proposed by the city to this land availability issue for SAUSD fall far short of the City's 'treatment of the other two school districts ... involved. '.-..:.:.:. ' SAUSD\School Impacts letter City Council Cirs.' of Tustin December 18, 2000 Page 9 J.3 cont. Navy (the "Nax..w") that surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin .be transferred to SAUSD-- at no cost to the City--to help mitigate the student generation impacts that will be caused by the Ci~"s Reuse Plan. At present, MCAS-Tustin is overflowing w/th the precious commodity of yacam land which SAUSD desperately needs for school sites to construct the additional classroom facilities necessary to accommodate the hundreds and hundreds of new students which x.~dll be generated by'the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. As a feasible mitigation measure, the City could recommend to the Naw that a sufficient amount of surplus land lying Mtkin SAUSD's boundaries at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed to SAUSD for new school" Altematively, without any threat to the economic · sites. viabiliB,, of the City's Reuse Plan, the City could propose mitigation measures which would entail a public benefit conveyance of surplus land at MCAS-Tusfin which was outside.,,., of SAUSD's boundaries, but which could be acquired by a Joint Powers Autho.riry ("JPA") of which SAUSD would be a member along with the Rancho Santiago Community College D/strict ("RSCCD"). For example, instead of supporting the conveyance of 100 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to the South Orange County CommunitT College District ("SOCCCD"), the City could recommend to the ~aw that a sufficient portion of this acreage to construct a K-14 facility be transferred to a .rPA, which would'consist of an "Education Coalition" including SAUSD and RSCCD. This option was discussed in the earlier correspondence, which SAUSD's counsel submitted to the City in connect/on Mth GPA 00'-001. Unfortunately, in instead of discussing any mitigation measures in the FEIS/FEER which would involve the transfer of surplus federal land to SAUSD, either directly t'o SAUSD or indirectly to a JPA of which SAUSD was a member, the City has wron~zfull¥ concluded in the FEIS/FE'IR that any problems caused by the additional students wi:rich will be generated by its Reuse Plan'could be resolved by the imposition of school impact development fees, or Other revenues which SAUSD could attempt to obtain from the state of California. CFEIS;~~, p. 4-63.) However, even assuming for the sake of argument that such fees or other state funds might be available for SAUSD to obtain, those revenues would, not mitigate the overriding problem faced by SAUSD, i.e.,'the critical shortage of available land within its boundaries that can be used of new school .sites. Such land does, however, exist in abundance at MCAS-Tustin. Without acknowled~ng the fact that it holds the key to providing. SAUSD x~Sth the land it needs to construct new school sites, the City offers the following unsubstantiated comments in the FEIS/FEIR in an attempt to justify its failure to Propose feasible mitigation measures to less.en or avoid the sig-nificaflt student generation impacts , , associated with the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan: SAUSD\School Impacts letter Cie' Council City of Tustin December 18, Paae 10 2000 13 cont. "Since the need for new facilities is not vet confirmed, there is no facility desig'n or location that could be evaluated in this EIS/EIR for fiscal impacts to the environment. Such vhvsical imvacts may be simaificant and. if so. mitiaation would be the resaonsibiliw of the SAUSD." emphasis added.) (FEISTY, pp. 4-63 to 4-64, In the first place, SAUSD believes, that, in its prior submittals to the Cig,, it has adequately demonstrated "the need for new facilities," and it has proposed any number of facility'desi~s, including, most recently, a K-14 facili9~, which could have--and should have--been evaluated in the FEIS,'FEIR in the form of feasible mitigation measures and . project alternatives. Instead of doing this, however, the FEIS/~IR concluded that: "Any mitigation for possible fiscal impacts associated with furore new facilities to accommodate potential indirect student generation would be the resvonsibiliW of the SAUSD because the actual need at this time is sveculative, and there is no .. facitiry desi=o'n or location for evaluation in this EIS/EIR." (Id., at pp. 4-66 to 4- 67, emphasis added.) 14 As evidenced by the staff comments set forth in Volume 2 of the FEIS/~I:R (see, Response Lg-1), the City has apparently based the above-quoted conclusions on (1) the provisions of section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines and (2) the court's discussion in the GoIeta Union case. Of course, to suggest that student generation impacts are too "speculative for evaluation" and that they can be i~ored under section 15145 of the Guidelines would be to completely ig'nore the holdings the Goleta Union and El Dorado Onion cases--which stand for the .exact opposite proposition. Indeed, by claiming that student generation impacts .were too "speculative" to analyze in an .EIf~, any project proponent could shirk any and all responsibility for ever discussing or attempting to mitigate such impacts. More importantlyl the City's attempt 'to rely on the Goleta Union case in its effort to shift the responsibility for mitigating student generation impacts to SAUSD, rather than itself, is entirely misplaced. Nowhere in the Goleta Union case does it state, or even suggest, that it is the sole responsibility of the impacted school district to devise ways 'to mitigate the addition of new students to be generated by the build-out of a development project, To contras, that case underscores the absolute necessity for an appropriate EIR to provide "a range of possible mitigation measures related to potential physical impacts bf the [development plan]." (37 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1033-1034.) Unlike the Supplemental El:R, which was Under attack in the Goleta Union case, the FEIS/FEIR 'in this case contains no statements or findings of significant student generation impacts to SAUSD and provides no mitigation measures, other than unspecified.developer fees, to minimize or eliminate such impacts. To date, the CEQA SAUSD\School Impacts letter ':.:.;?.' CiD' Council City of Tustin' December 18, 2000 Pa~e 11 14 cont. cases decided by the California courts which have addressed student generation impacts, such as the Goleta [h~ion and E1 Dorado [h~io~ cases, have not involved a siiuation in which a city., county, or local agency which was proposing to approve a new development project which would generate new students for one or more school districts has had the abili~, as part of a militar3., base closure and reuse process, to make free federal land available to the affected school districts'for use as new school sites. 1 5 In this case, the City has reco~ized its ability to mitigate (1) the 302 additional students to be added to Irvine Unified by providing that district Mth 20 acres for a new school site and (2) the 1,143 additional students to be added to the Tustin Unified by providing that district with a total of 60 acres for 'three nexv school sites. What is missing here, however, is the City's reco~ition of its need to mitigate the 509 (actually 817) additional students to be added to SAUSD by providing that district with adequate ,~ 'o~ acr~a=~ for new school sites at MCAS-Tustin. CEQA does not countenance such an omission in the FEIS,rFEIR,. and the City must correct this glaring deficiency before proceeding to ._ approve GPA 00-001. Sincerely, M. Andrie2e Culbertson President MAC/lid Attachment cc: Hon. William Cassidy, Jr. Dr. Edward Hemandez · Dr. A1Mijares Dr. Don Stabler John Didion Ruben Smith, Esq. Edmond M. Connor, Esq. SAUSD\School Impacts letter Response to Written Comments Received at the December 18, 2000 City Council Meeting on General Plan Amendment 00-001 1. The commentor has indicated that the short time allowed for review of General Plan Amendment' (GPA) 00-001 and the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) has placed "severe limitations" in commenting on GPA 00-001. it should be noted that pursuant to California Government Code Section 65091, a public notice of the proposed City Council Hearing on December 18 was mailed to the Santa Aha Unified School District (SAUSD) more than 10 days prior to the City Council hearing date for GPA 00-001. Staff's written responses to SAUSD written comments that were submitted at the November 28, 2000 Planning Commissi°n meeting were provided to the SAUSD at the earliest possible opportunity. Oral responses were made at the November 28, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the November 28, 2000 Tustin Planning Commission consideration of General Plan Amendment 00-001, the City of Tustin mailed a copy of the , notice of public hearing and 'availability of ali staff reports including the FEIS/FEIR. · The FEIS/FEIR provides written responses to comments by SAUSD on the draft EiS/EIR, which was previously provided to the SAUSD for review and comment from July 9, 1999 to August 23, 1999. The FEIS/FEIR was provided to the SAUSD on December 22, 1999 for a 30-day review ending on January 24, 2000. No comments were made by the SAUSD in response to this opportunity for comment. Section 15207 of the California Environmental QUality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states: "If any public agency, or person who is consulted with regard to an EIR...fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the lead agency, it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that' such agency' Or person has no comment to make." 2. The commentor's letter incorrectly states the number of students and households that the FEIS/FEIR estimates may be generated indirectly by the proposed project. The FEIS/FEIR does not establish a finite number but indicates that the proPosed project could indirectly generate a Iow estimate of 82 and a high estimate of 509 students, in addition, the FEIS/FEIR estimates that between 88 (Iow estimate) and 547 (high estimate) new households could be indirectly generated through the implementation of the proposed plan. The SAUSD has provided the City of Tustin with a report titled, "Analysis of the Impact of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan on the Santa Aha Unified School District", dated July 22, 1996. That report concluded that only 404 new households and 272 students would be generated as an indirect impact of implementation of the approved Reuse Plan. The City's analysis of indirect school impacts on the SAUSD has been both thorough and technical in nature, based upon input from respected population/economic demographers, and education and environmental consultants. No housing will be constructed on the approximate 122 acres within the SAUSD so no students will be directly generated by the implementation of the proposed plan.. The FEIS/FEIR assumes that commercial/business development of this 122-acre site will create new job opportunities and that new employees might seek housing within the SAUSD. This "indirect" impact on the SAUSD was fully evaluated by the City's exper[s using two scenarios (a highly unlikely "worst" case scenario and a more likely scenario). Based on SAUSD student generation information, 78% of either scenario's indirect impact to SAUSD would be in grades K-8 with over 50% of this impact in grades K-5. With an average K-5 elementary school built to accommodate 800 students, the average middle school built to accommodate 1560 students and the average high school built to accommodate 2400 students, neither of the indirect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an entire school site at MCAS Tustin as suggested by the commentor's letter. Although the FEIS/FEIR indicates that the provision of land is not warranted as mitigation of .the indirect impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project (s discussion on p. 4-63 of Vol. ! and ReSponses· L9-1 and L9-2 in Vol. Ii of FElS/FEIR), the City has publiCly offered SAUSD a no- cost 10-acre parcel which could accommodate 800 students at a K-8 school at the former MCAS Tustin and an advance of $3.5 million in tier level I school impact fees. According 'to the June 1999 "Updated Report School Facility Construction Cost Impact of. Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District" prepared by JCJ Associates, the average size of an elementary school in the SAUSD is 6.18 acres. According to the June 1999 "Updated Report School Facility Construction Cost Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District" prepared by JCJ Associates, the average size of an elementary school in the SAUSD is 6.18 acres. To date, the SAUSD has rejected this offer. 3. The commentor states that the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately identifY the student generation impacts for Alternative 1 as "significant environmental effects" under CEQA and "to adopt the appropriate findings, a statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation monitoring report" to properly address the indirect impacts. CEQA does not require the adoption of Findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations or a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program to address impacts not found to be Significant. .. The FEIS/FEIR provides a comprehensive analysis of all significant environmental effects of the proposed project as required by Section 15126 and Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. The number of students that would be indirectly generated by the proposed'project is not known at this time and there are no facility designs or school location's that 'could be evaluated for physical impacts to the environment. As to the potential funding of new facilities, CEQA does not require the mitigation of financial impacts. However, the State has provided a comprehensive scheme (SB 50 is discussed on pages 4-58 and 4'-63 of Vol. ! Of the FEIS/FEIR) to assist school districts to fund new facilities. Except for paying school impact fees (that will be required as part of the project) a new development is not required to build or provide sites for new schools (California Government Code Section 65995). 4. There is no evidence that the project Will cause overcrowding. As discussed in the FEIS/FEIR, even' if a high estimate of students is generated, SAUSD has the ability under SB 50 to build new facilities. As for the iow estimate of possible new students, the SAUSD could also decide to accept the City's offer to receive a 10-acre site and $3.5 million in up-front tier level I school impact development fees to accomplish school development at MCAS Tustin. The SAUSD would need to comply with CEQA prior to constructing a new school at the site. According to the June 1999 "Updated Report School Facility construction Cost Impact of Redevelopment of the' MCAS Tustin Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District" prepared by JCJ Associates, the average size of an elementary school in the SAUSD is 6.18 acres. To date, the SAUSD has.rejected the City's offer. ., 5. The commentor cites two California court' cases (Goleta Union School Dist. v. Regents of University of California (1995)and E! Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of Placerville (1983)) in arguing that the proposed project causes a significant effect upon the SAUSD and requires adequate mitigation. The Draft and Final EIS/EIR were developed in full knowledge and compliance with the Goleta Union and El Dorado Union cases. Both cases affirm CEQA's requirement for the analysis and mitigation of significant impacts on the physical environment associated with a proposed project that may increase school enrollment. Unlike the situation in Goleta and E! Dorado, the FElS/FEIR studied the potential for increased' student enrollment indirectly stemming from job growth in the SAUSD. The FElS/FEIR found that it was too speculative at this time to evaluate the physical impacts because the numbers of students likely to be generated couldn't be confirmed, much less the location of the students within the SAUSD. It should be noted that while SAUSD projected increased student enrollment due to the project, the District has not specified which schools would need to be expanded, if any. This uncertainty is recognized by the commentor who states: "...depending on where these new students reside within SAUSD's boundaries, 'their transportation needs may_ necessitate changing existing bus routes and altering traffic patterns within the Santa Aha area." Until more is known about indirect student generation from job growth at MCAS Tustin, it is too speculative to evaluate the impacts on the physical environment. Regarding the evaluation of "speculative" impacts, .CEQA Guidelines Section 15145 states: "if, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation,' the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact." At this time, there is no evidence establishing that new facilities would definitely be required. Finally, since Goleta and El Dorado were decided, the obligation of a development project to mitigate impacts on schools has been completely revised. The State is now responsible under SB 50 for.financing new schools and mitigating the impacts of land use approvals (see Oalifornia Government Code Section 65995(e)). 6. The commentor has misinterpreted the staff report. The FEIS/FEIR finds that the impact on schools in SAUSD is too speculative to evaluate. Even if mitigation was warranted, State law prohibits conditioning projects to require that land be provided for schools (Cai. Gov't Code Section 65995). The point being made in the staff report is that hypothetically, even if mitigation is required, the SAUSD is asking for more land than needed to accommodate 82 tO 509 potential additional students. 7. The commentor has apparently misunderstood the information contained in the Dennis Macheski Consulting (DMC)'report titled "Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Aha Unified School District", dated May 1999. The commentor alleges that the "DMC failed to utilize any multiplier for indirect and induced employment in determining that some 509 additional stUdents. would be added to'SAUSD's school under Scenario 1". The commentor has also incorrectly utilized the multiplier in attempt to calculate on their own the number of new households (878) that they claim would be indirectly generated by. Scenario 1, which the commentor later uses to generate an incorrect indirect student generation figure (817). The DMC Report identifies a range of households (not students) that are assumed would be generated as a result of implementation of the Reuse Plan. Since there is no universally accepted method for calculating indirect household growth impacts, the DMC Report brackets a high and iow range of probable household impacts to the Santa Ana Unified School District associated with the Reuse Plan. The DMC Report's Scenario 1 estimates.a high impact of 547 households while Scenario 2 estimates the bracket's lower range impact of 88 households. The JCJ Associates report' titled "Updated , ¢.-..,'...-... :.., .. Report School Facility Construction Cost Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District", dated June 1999, uses the DMC Report household high and iow impact assumptions to identify a range of students that could be indirectly generated from the household growth scenarios identified on the DMC Report. The approach used to generate the number of households in Scenario 2 was to calculate direct and indirect employment that would occur from implementation of the project. Scenario 2 assumes that 10% or 2,485 of the 24,852 total jobs generated by the project would be direct employment. The Macheski report used a "multiplier" that reflected "the mix of employment anticipated at the site" (see page 6 of the report)identifying 1,508 indirect and induced employment generated by the .project. Scenario 2 assumes that. 3,993 new jobs would be created by the proposed project with 88 households generated in the SAUSD. The JCJ report concludes that 82 students would be generated from these new households. The approach used to generate the number of households in Scenario 1 was not limited to new direct jobs nor did it calculate indirect/induCed employment at ail. Without the reductions utilized in Scenario 2, Scenario 1 concluded that 13,668 new jobs would be created by the proposed project with 547 new households generated in the SAUSD. The JCJ report concludes that 509 students would be generated from these new households projected in the Scenario 1 analysis in'the DMC Report. The commentor's suggestion to use a multiplier for Scenario 1, if properly applied, would result in identical household and student generation conclusions for both Scenarios. Such a reduction would not be supportive of the purpose of bracketing a range of impacts. · . The assumptions currently identified in the FEIS/FEIR are correct.. The. SAUSD's own report "Analysis of the Impact of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan on the Santa Ana Unified School District", dated' July 22, 1996, indicated that only 272 students would be generated as an indirect impact of implementation of the approved. Reuse Plan. The FEIS/FEIR provides a range of impacts to the SAUSD (including a "worst" case analysis projected between 82 and 509 students). The SAUSD had no comment on the FEiS/FEIR conclusions regarding indirect student, generation du~'ing the comment period for the FEIS/FEIR. 8. The commentor alleges that the "so-called' 'worst case' scenario" is factually incorrect. Please see Response #7, above. The commentor also states that it is "highly questionable...that only 10% of the.."direct jobs" generated by the development of the proposed project would be generated by the development of the City's Reuse Plan". There is no universally accepted method for calculating indirect household growth impacts 'associated with a project's estimated employment. The 'estimate of 10% new employment to Orange County is documented in the report' based On interviews with research personnel, brokers with the firm of Grubb and Ellis, and staff economists at the irvine Company, Economic Development Corporation of Los Angeles and Southern California Association of Governments. According to the DMC Report, the net impact of employment already in Orange County and relocating to the MCAS Tustin site on the SAUSD is. considered negligible, since these employees already live somewhere in the region (perhaps some in the SAUSD), and are unlikely to relocate within the SAUSD merely because their employer changes location in the County. Since there is no universally accepted method for calculating indirect household growth impacts, the DMC Report brackets a high and iow range of probable household impacts to the Santa Ana Unified Sch°ol District associated with the Reuse Plan. 9. The commentor alleges that there is no difference between direCt and indirect impacts and that the City has not logically analyzed o.r mitigated the indirect student generation for the project. While direct impacts from housing are easy to evaluate and indirect impacts more difficult, the FEIS/FEIR addresses the latter in a thorough manner using independent consultants. The distinction between the two impacts is recognized by CEQA. The identification and evaluation of a proposed project's indirect impacts is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15358(a)(2) which states' "indirect or secondary effects which are caused by the project and are later in time or farther removed in' distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable." The proposed, development of the MCAS Tustin property could result in a range of future Student generation indirect impacts to the SAUSD, at school sites that are removed at a distance from the project site. Consequently, the FEIS/FEIR's analysis and conclusions regarding indirect school impacts associated with this project is appropriate and compliant with CEQA. The FEIS/FEIR concludes that this 'incremental impact is not significant with the 'available implementation by the SAUSD of the provisions of SB 50. 'CEQA does not require mitigation of impacts that are not significant. 10.The commentor alleges that the FEIS/FEIR fails to disclose the unavailability of land for schools. The City of Tustin has provided the SAUSD information concerning the availability of numerous alternate sChool 'sites within the SAUSD that could be acquired for the construction of schools. However, the FEIS/FEIR does not find that the SAUSD would be required to construct new facilities as a result of reuse of MCAS Tustin. it is unclear what the SAUSD will actually do to accommodate the potential 82 to 509 new students that would be indirectly generated by this project. This number is less than the average size of an elementary school. Whether the SAUSD determines to absorb these new students into existing classrooms, construct new portables at exiSting school sites or construct new school sites, the physical impacts associated with that decision must be mitigated by the SAUSD as a Separate project, pursuant to CEQA. 11.The commentor alleges that the FEIS/FEIR fails to identify feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives. The FEIS/FEIR concludes that the indirect impact on the physical environment of commercial/business development within the SAUSD is too speculative to evaluate at this time. CEQA requires mitigation of project related impacts that are anticipated to be significant. in addition, the commentor alleges that the City of Tustin has developed a Reuse Plan for non-residential development of,the 122-acre SAUSD site that purposely "reduces the obligation for school sites genuinely owed to SAUSD". It should be noted that the Reuse Plan was carefully developed over several years utilizing the input of citizens of Santa Ana, Tustin, Irvine and others. The 122-acre site is adjacent to privately developed commercial/business uses in the cities of Santa Aha and Irvine. No one, including the SAUSD, has ever suggested that residential reuse should occur at this site. The proposed project has been evaluated pursuant to CEQA. C'EQA does not require the provision of land as mitigation of significant impacts and in fact, SB 50 precludes such a requirement. No impact beyond a speculative indirect impact to school services is anticipated from the implementation of the proposed project (see FElS/FEIR page 4-66). if an impact occurs, it can be addressed by the ,SAUSD through the securing of various sources of funds that are available to it under SB 50. in other words, under either the lower or higher estimates of student generation, the SAUSD is able to recover .100% of the cost of these indirect impacts und'er the provisions of SB 50. 12.The commentor alleges that the FEIS/FEIR provides mitigation "...in excess of its impacts...with respect to traffic...'' Also, the commentor alleges that the City of Tustin is "ignoring mitigation for children in an overcrowded school district." First of ail, traffic and school issues are treated differently. School issues are influenced by the provisions of SB 50 that preclude mandating dedication of school sites. The FElS/FEIR proposes only a pro-rata (fair) share of the project's traffic intersection mitigation. Whenever the proposed project causes 100% of an intersection deficiency, 100% of the required mitigation is the responsibility of the project. Whenever the proposed project contributes to an existing intersection deficiencY, the proposed project contributes the proportional pro-rata (fair) share of the mitigation necessa .ry to resolve the additional deficiency caused by the project. There is a typographical error in FEIS/FEIR Table 4.12-9 for the intersection of Grand & · Warner (intersection 63), where the proposed project is incorrectly identified as providing 100% mitigation at an intersection which has been identified as having an existing deficiency. A review of the Traffic Analysis located within the FEIS/FEIR Technical Appendices has revealed that the proposed project causes a currently sufficient intersection to become deficient, explaining, why the table correctly assigns 100%. mitigation responsibility to the proposed project. Again, the FEiS/FEIR does not propose mitigation beyond a pro-rata (fair) share for traffic. The City strongly denies the suggestion that the FEIS/FEIR does not mitigate school-related impacts to children. The proposed project has been evaluated pursuant to CEQA. CEQA requires mitigation of project related impacts that are anticipated to be significant. CEQA does not require the provision of land as mitigation of significant impacts on schools and in fact, it is the City's belief that SB 50 precludes the City from mandating land dedication for school sites. While an indirect impact, to school services is anticipated from the implementation of the proposed project (see FEIS/FEIR page 4-66), it is speculative as to timing and location and with the available implementation by the SAUSD of the provisions of SB 50. in other words, under either"the lower or higher estimates, the SAUSD is able to recover 100% of the cost of these indirect impacts under the provisions of SB 50. it should also be noted that SB 50 specifically supercedes prior CEQA case law that had allowed local agencies to deny or condition development projects based on impacts, to schools. ... · · . · . · , , 13.The commentor alleges that the City of Tustin, the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) should provide surplus MCAS Tustin land to the SAUSD as mitigation for the impacts associated with the proposed project. The commentor confuses Base Closure law with CEQA. Under the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance..Act of 1994 ("Redevelopment Act"), the 19 member MCAS Tustin Base Closure Task Force reviewed over 30 reuse requests from public agencies and non-profits. Over the course of three public hearings on the matter, the City considered requests including one from SAUSD that, if granted, would hav. e committed over 300% of the property. The City's economic consultants recommended no more than 20-25% of the project be set aside for public benefit uses or the economic feasibility of the project would be jeopardized.. Each request for proPerty was reviewed against an objective set of established criteria. The Task Force had to measure each request for property in a manner balancing the. community's needs for 'economic development that could pay for the investment in roads, utilities, water and sewer needed to reuse the property. Many agencies and organizations were denied. At the conclusion of these hearings, nearly one-third (518 acres) of MCAS Tustin had been allocated for public use. --..'!:;- The proposed project is being evaluated under CEQA. CEQA requires the mitigation of project related impacts. CEQA only requires mitigation of project related impacts that are anticipated to be significant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 indicates that mitigation measures should be proposed to minimize significant effects of the project. No K-14 facility design was presented for review during the preparation of the EIS/EIR. While an indirect impact to school services is anticipated from the implementation of the proposed project (see FEIS/FEIR page 4-66), it is speculative as to' timing and location and with the available implementation by the SAUSD of the provisions of SB 50. 14.See Response #5, above. The law on mitigation has changed since Goleta Union and El Dorado were decided. 15. The commentor alleges that the City "has recognized its ability to mitigate" lrvine Unified and Tustin Unified student generation impacts. It must be noted that the FEIS/FEIR concludes that no impact beyond an indirect impact to school services is anticipated from the implementation of the proposed project (see FEIS/FEIR page 4-66). All school districts, including the SAUSD would need to address these insignificant indirect impacts with the available implementation of the provisions of SB 50. The ERA's recommendations to the Navy regarding the future conveyance of surplus base property to the lrvine Unified and Tustin Unified School Districts and denial of the SAUSD request was in compliance with the provisions of the Base Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assi'stance Act of 1994 ("Redevelopment Act"). The base reuse planning process involved broad- based participation by affected public and private interests. The City of Tustin formed the City of Tustin Base Closure Task Force to guide the preparation of a Specific ,Plan/Reuse Plan. The nineteen member advisory group was comprised of representatives from the cities of Irvine, Santa Aha, Tustin, the County of Orange, the Chamber of Commerce and local business interests, local homeowner's associations, the Marine Corps, and the community-at- large. The broad-based representation ensured that issues and concerns of the. local community and neighboring areas would be addressed during the reuse planning process. Under the Redevelopment Act, the Base Closure Task Force held numerous outreach workshops and meetings and conducted tours of the base. Over the course of Several public hearings and a public workshop held in 1996, the Task Force reviewed and considered over 30 reuse requests that, if granted, would have committed over 300% of the MCAS Tustin property to public and homeless use. The Task Force measured each request for property against an established set of criteria and in a manner balancing the community's need for economic development and other community development. The TUSD and IUSD applications were conditionally approved due to the fact that 4,601 residential units will be developed within these two school districts through implementation of the proposed project. Many public agency and homeless organization applications were denied. Specific reasons for denial of the SAUSD application are provided in the Reuse Plan. However, it should be noted that no residential units are being proposed on the 122 acres within the SAUSD at MCAS Tustin. ., orth I rvine Vii es Ass0ciatiSn 6 Tustin City. Council' Tustin City Hall $00 Centennial Way Honorabif Counci.l:n:fems~r~': ~-.-.~"" '~ December 27, 2000 Re.' General Plan Amendment 00-001 MCAS Tustin Land Use/7_onina/General Plan Use Final EIS/EIR The North lrvine Villages Association [NIVA] is an association of 19 homeowner associations of approximately 5,500 homes located in North lrvine. This letter is being sent by NIVA to you in response to your pending consideration of General Plan Amendment 00-001 and corresponding Final EIS/EIR involving the MCAS Tustin. NIVA has had one maJo~ concern from'the outset on the proposed reuse: that being traffic generation and the possibility Of increased.traffic congestion in the neighborhood of North lrvine and Tustin. Upon reviewing the documents available for ... general public, NIVA objects to the traffic studies and proposed mitigation measures as being inadequate and lacking in assurance, of sucoessfully mitigating the expectant traffic congestion. This conclusion is based on the following salient points' i · The lack of sufficient mitiaation measures. 2. Of the identified mi.tigation measures, not all have reliable or fully 100% committed funding from identified source(si so as to reasonably expect timely implementation. o 3. As with many traffic studies, it has the inherent assumption that simply identification on paper suffices. Many proposed mitigation measures turn out to be practically infeasibi~ or unacceptabio clue to othor difficultios or obi~ctions. · 4. 'i'he~e always is a risk in re!¥in~ compiot~t¥ on the o~tput o~ computer-moda!a~ tragic studies and .the lar~er the project the lar~er the risk. Historically the tragic s~udies have been unre!iabi~ in many Significant instances with few t~ no opt. ions available ~t the later, sta~d of development to rectify th~ Situation.. o 51 Historically traffic studies on other similar-large developmen~ projects have under-estihnated traffiC'generation, misallocate~,traffic distribution, and failed tq considor Uniquo feat. utes f.or which tho camputer mode!s do n~t inctud~ or have no ready means f~r adaptiOn to 'include.' 6. Good examples of failures of previous traffic studies are exemplified or illustrated in the traffic snarls seen on Jamboree through the Marketplace and on Irvine Bivd west of Jamboree. The developments that generated this traffic were of IRVINE BOULEVARD, SUITE 105; PMB 254 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92620 Tustin City CoUncil -2- 1 De~': , ,~,~mber 27 2000 7 cont. course previously studied in similar fashion but obviously failed. 8 7. Developers have no objections to the use of traffic studies as the decision basis I .because underestimates of traffic result in failure to identify congestion, less needed mitigation measures, and ultimately less cost to them. 9 8. At minimum, a reasonable contingency amount for margin-of-error should be added (say lO% to any increased amount) for large projects extending over lengthy implementation timeframes. The Myford Avenue overpass of the i-5 most ce~ainiy must be included, fully funded and built early in the project timeframe so as to avoid exacerbating the already Unacceptable traffic mess on Jamboree and congestion at the I-5 Freeway off ramps to Jamboree. :I. 0 9. The Reuse Plan should avoid any large increase in traffic on Harvard Ave. ~ be~een lrvine Center Drive and Walnut Ave. · :!.~ 101 The Reuse Plan should avoid any. development which results in additional _L' tragic on Imine Blvd. at peak hours west of Jamboree. Though our constituency is totally within the City of lrvine, we share the consequences of these previous errors in roadway circulation design with our'neiahbors in .north Tustin and Tustin Ranch. We are pleading the case for no further traffic aeneration which impacts the identified critical roadway segments north of the I-5. -~,ny increase in traffic on these segments should be offset with"commensurate reduction in development intensity. There now exist no meanin~ul and economically feasible roadway improvements to use as mitigation measures which could be re~listically expected to result in any meaningful reduction or curtailment of further deterioration of these roadway segments. The City of IrVine is not without similar mistakes with which we find ourselves havin~ to.live. We hav~ to live With this congestion on a daily basis and the congestion knows no City boundary. We have previously proposed -- and do so again' that the staffs of the Cities of irvine and TUstin sit down and work together to .study the future traffic that can be expected ih totality from the closures and reuse of-both Marine Bases and the other open land around the El Toro MCAS to arrive at a realistic level of traffic increase that can be accommodated without unreasonably compromising thb lives of the existi.ng reside,~ts of both of'our cities. The parochial approach used by each city is hurtiqg the community in which we ii~. ' ·. · . ¢~cerely, . David ¢iv'old ~ Presfdent · Response to Written Comments Received December 29, 2000, from North Irvine Villages Association (NIVA) on General Plan Amendment 00-001 1. The commentor indicates that the North irvine Villages Association (NIVA) "has had one major concern"; that being "traffic generation" and "congestion." The City of Tustin has worked closely with. representatives of NIVA throughout the reuse planning process .and through the preparation of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact · Report (FEIS/FEIR). On August 25, 1999, NIVA submitted written comments on the draft EIS/EIR. A copy of the FEIS/FEIR was provided to NIVA on December 22, 1999 for a 30-day review ending January 24, 2000. The FEIS/FEIR provides the City of Tustin's written responses to NIVA's August 25, 1999 comments. During the comment period on the FEIS/FEIR, no additional comments were received from NIVA. Section 15207 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states' "If any public agency or person who is consulted with regard to an EIR...faiis to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the lead · agency, it shall be assumed, absent a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency .or person has no comment to make." .. 2. The commentor indicates that NIVA is concerned that sufficient mitigation measures are not identified in the FEIS/FEIR. The mitigation measures are based .on the traffic analysis, which utilizes methodologies that are regionally accepted and supported by Orange Count, y Transportation Authority (OCTA), and are consistent throughout the County of Orange.. NIVA does not provide technical information to substantiate its claim that the mitigation measures are insufficient. 3. The commentor alleges that not all mitigation measures "have reliable or fully 100% committed funding from identified sources.". The mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/FEIR are reliable based upon the methodologies utilized in the traffic analysis (see item N°. I above). Where a mitigation measure is not .100% project specific but a project share, the City of Tustin can only legally require a fair share contribution for a project's, responsibility. 4. The commentor indicates that there is an inherent assumption that "simply on paper suffices." The FEIS/FEIR traffic study does not assume that "simply identification on paper suffices." Considerably effort has been expended to evaluate the traffic analysis and develop mitigation measures that are feasible and acceptable. See response in item No. 2 above. The commentor also indicates that many' proposed mitigation measures are practically infeasible or unacceptable due to other' diffiCulties or objections. The FEIS/FEIR traffic study identifies feasible mitigation measures that. address impacts of this project. Mitigation Measure T/C-9 requires the City of Tustin to work with adjacent agencies to develop improvements to mitigate impacts that are acceptable to those affected agencies. T/C-8 provides opportunities for those affected agencies to suggest substitute mitigation improvements within their jurisdiction that would replace improvements identified in the FEIS/FEIR as long as those substitute improvements provide the same level of mitigation. These provisions are designed to alleviate the difficulties of implementation of mitigation and also ensure feasibility of mitigation measures. 5. The commentor alleges that there "is a risk in relying completely on the output of computer-modeled traffic studies", and that traffic studies have historically, been unreliable. The County Traffic Model OCTAM 2.8, utilized for this project, provides the most. recent countywide traffic distribution and demographic information to forecast traffic throughout the region. This model provides the most reliable traffiC information available at this time. The OCTAM 2.8 was approved for use with this project by OCTA as well as by the other agencies included in the study area for this project. The letter does not identify specific traffic studies that have proven unreliable, however, experience with such large traffic studies such' as the East Tustin Specific Plan EIR (City of Tustin), the Lower Peters Canyon Specific Plan EIR (City of irvine), and East Orange Specific. Plan EIR (City of Orange) have proven to be very reliable in-forecasting traffic conditions at future dates and implementing infrastructure in a phased manner when required to mitigate project impacts. 6. The Commentor expresses a concern with the failures of "other similar large development Projects"' under-estimating traffic generation, traffic distribution, etc. The traffic analysis developed for this project does not underestimate traffic generation, nor does it misallocate traffic distribution associated with this project. See response in item No. 4 above. 7. The commentor references "good examples of failures of previous traffic studies" resulting in traffic congestion currently experienced on Jamboree Road'around the Market Place and on irvine Boulevard west of Jamboree Road. lrvine Boulevard west of Jamboree Road and Jamboree Road north of the I-5 Freeway (Market Place area) currently operate within acceptable traffic levels of service (LOS B for both sections of roadway). The occasional traffic congestion experienced along these stretches of roadways is normally the result'of unusual con'ditions (accidents, roadway maintenance and construction, traffic signal maintenance, etc.)' and is not necessarily indicative of failed traffic studies. The commentor does not site specific examples of failed traffic studies, however, the City is not aware of failed traffic studies in this area. See response No. 5 above. -.:.'.;.:..: 8. The commentor alleges that the FEIS/FEIR has been prepared to reduce the cost of traffic mitigation to future developers at the base. The FEIS/FEIR traffic study does not underestimate traffic conditions to provide benefit for any potential development entity. See response No. 5 above. 9. The commentor suggests that "a reasonable contingency" for a "margin of error should be added" to the FEIS/FEIR traffic analysis. Due to the nature of the OCTAM 2.8 traffic model used for this project traffic volume contingencies are not necessary for this project. The OCTAM 2.8 model does not include a reduction for Transportation Demand Management strategies that have been utilized in some of the other 'large projects in this area by the City of irvine (Lower Peters Canyon EIR and irvine Business Complex EIR). The Myford Road overcrossing of the !-5 Freeway is not identified as a mitigation measure for this project. Since the Myford Road overcrossing is not included on the County's MPAH, it is not assumed to be constructed in the Year-2020 time frame for this project. The Myford Road overcrossing is on the City's General Plan Arterial Roadway Plan and is expected to provide local access for residents and business in and around the area. it serves, but is not intended to provide regional traffic relief. 10. The commentor indicates a desire that the project "avoid any large increase in traffic on Harvard Avenue between irvine Center Drive and Walnut Ave." The traffic study identifies a traffic volume increase of 3,000 vehicles per day on this section of Harvard Avenue in the Year 2005 scenario, and a decrease of 1,000 vehicles per day .in the year-2020 scenario...The' decrease is due to redistribution of traffic based upon the OCTAM 2.8 Model and the addition of north-south roadway capacity resulting from infrastructure improvements by this project.. As identified in the FEIS/FEIR traffic stUdy, the cumulative traffic volume in the Year-2005 does not result in unacceptable traffic levels of service for this section of roadway. .. 11.The commentor indicates a desire that the project "avoid any development which results in additional traffic on irvine Boulevard at peak hours west of Jamboree" Road. As identified in Appendix B of the FIES/FEIR the project does not add any peak hour traffic on the subject section of roadway in the Year 2005. The project reduces the peak hour traffic by 60-vehicles per hour in the Year 2020. See explanation for traffic reduction in response No. 10 above. o · 12. The commentor states NIVA's desire for "no further traffic generation which · impacts the identified critical roadway segments north of the !-5". The commentor further suggests that any increase in traffic on roadway segments north of the I-5 Freeway should be offset with a commensurate reduction in development intensity. Per the traffic study the following increases/decreases in traffic volumes are indicated on critical roadways north of the I-5 Freeway' TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREASES Year-2005 Year-2020 Red Hill Avenue Tustin Ranch Road. Jamboree Road Culver Drive Irvine Blvd. +1,000 ADT 0 ADT +2,000 ADT + 1,000 ADT 0 ADT +1,000 ADT +5,000 ADT +I,000 ADT +1,000 ADT -1,000 ADT As seen from the table above, the traffic .volumes attributable to the project do not represent significa'nt increases for the major arterial roadways noted. None of the noted roadways operate at unacceptable levels, of service as a result of the project. Any adverse impacts attributable to the project along these sections of roadways north of the !-5 Freeway have been mitigated to a' level of insignificance. 13. The commentor suggests that the Cities of irvine and Tustin "work together to study the future traffic that can be expected in totality from the closures and reuse of both Marine Bases [MCAS Tustin and MCAS El Toro]..." Such a cooperative study was utilized in the preparation of the FEIS/FEIR where appropriate. The FEIS/FEIR traffic study for the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan includes traffic generation and distribution for MCAS El Toro as approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors, assuming a 30 Million Annual Passenger International Airport. Pursuant to CEQA, the. FEIS/FEIR identifies project related traffic impacts and, where feasible, a program for mitigating these impacts. The City of Tustin has worked extensively to ensure that the FEIS/FEIR fully meets the requirements of CEQAi In addition, Mitigation Measure T/C-9 requires the. City of Tustin to enter into a Cooperative Agreement .to ensure implementation of mitigation measures in the FEIS/FEIR coordinated with the City of irvine. mcas\environ\niva.doc Attachment 7 Resolution No. 00-90 certifying Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin as adequate and complete and prepared in com- pliance with the requirements of CEQA. ]0 ]] ]2 ].3 .. . . ]5' ]6 ]7 ]8 2O 2] 22 23 24 · ' 25 RESOLUTION NO. 00-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF THE FORMER MCAS TUSTIN AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows' The City Council finds and determines as follows: : A. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin has been determined surplus to the needs of the federal government and has been approved for disposal by the United States Department of the Navy (DON)in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission approved by the President and accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and B. The City of Tustin' has been approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA)for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for preparing a Reuse Plan 'describing the reuse of the installation and providing recommendations to the DON for disposal of the former base to various public agencies and the homeless. The goal of base disposal and reuse is economic redevelopment and job creation to help replace the economic stimulus previously provided by the military installation. The LRA submitted the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense in October 1996, and an Errata amending the Reuse Plan in September 1998; and C. The City of Tusti'n intends to implement the Reuse Plan through the approval ' or adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adoption of a Specific Plan and other discretionary actions' and D. California State law requires each City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for its own physical development and for any land outside its boundaries which bears a relationship to 'its planning activities. The General Plan must be periodically updated to ensure that the Plan accurately reflects City policies, conforms to State law, reflects current court decisions, and · provides an integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies designed to reflect any changed characteristics or growth of the community. The closure of MCAS Tustin and implementation of the Reuse Plan would necessitate amendment of the Tustin General Plan; and -1.- 10 14 2O 2! 22 23 24 25 E. The Tustin City CoUncil has received a request to consider proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 that is intended to amend all General Plan Elements in support of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin; and F. On November 28, 2000, the Tustin Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to provide a further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 3739 recommending 'that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001; and G. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources . Code Sec. et. seq. 21000) and the State Guidelines (Title '14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Department of Navy have completed the following actions in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR): 1. On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. 2. On .July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments on the NOP for the EIS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. 3. On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR was released for a 60-day public review and comment (SCH No. 94071005). The Document assessed the significant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and irvine, California and the subsequent reuse of those properties and other adjacent properties. ... 4. On February 5, 1998, a Public Hearing was held on the initial Draft EIS/EIR. 5. On July 8, 1999, a revised Draft EIS/EIR released for a 45-day public review and comment. A copy was also filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Clearinghouse. The comment period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. 6. On August 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. A Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/FEIR) was then prepared. -2- ' '..'.-:'.': i," . .. ]0 11 12 ]3 . . ]5 16 ]? 18 ]9 2O 21 22 23 24 7. On December 23, 1999, the FEIS/FEIR was released for a 30-day public review and comment. The comment period on the FEIS/FEIR closed on January 24, 2000. The FEIS/FEIR provides the required written responses to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 8. Although not required by CEQA, on November 17, 2000, a Response to Comments document on the FEIS/FEIR was released. The Response to Comments on the FEIS/FEIR has been prepared and distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the FEIS/FEIR. o Prior to approving the proposed acti°n, the City Council must certify that the FEIS/FEIR is complete and adequate; and H. The FEIS/FEIR was prepared to analyze a proposed project addressing the potential environmental effects of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and a wide range of. project alternatives, in general, the FEIS/FEIR evaluates the proposed project (Alternative 1-LRA Reuse Plan), two other build-out alternatives (Alternative 2-Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High Residential and Alternative 3-Arterial Loop Pattern/Reserve Area/Low Residential) and two no project/no development alternatives (No Action Alternative and Disposal of Navy Property Alternative). For background purposes, Alternatives 1,2 and 3 are briefly summarized as follows' Alternative 1 -LRA Reuse Plan- Alternative 1 is the alternative submitted by the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) t© the DON and HUD and the one that the City of Tustin believes would best meet the community objectives of the reuse planning process. This alternative would result in 4,601 dwelling units (4,049 dwelling units in the City of Tustin) and 11,406,975 square feet' of commercial/industrial/recreational square footage; Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Golf Village with.'hotel and ancillary retail uses; an Urban Regional Park developed around the northern blimp hangar; a large Community Core developed with mixed uses including reuse of the southerly blimp hangar if financially feasible; and specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities 'within a Learning Village campus. Alternative 2- Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High Residential- This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing housing and cultural'opportunities for the residents of Tustin, lrvine and nearby communities. This alternative would result in 6,205 dwelling units and 9,214,583 square feet of. commercial and business uses, Village Mixed-Uses, and Public Institutional/Commercial functions. A large Cultural Center would be developed under this alternative, and the -3- l0 12 14 2O 2! 22 2~ 24 25 g. northern blimp hangar would be incorporated, if financially feasible. southern blimp hangar would be demolished under this alternative. The. Alternative 3- Arterial Loop Pattern/Reserve Area/Low Residential- This alternative proposes a variety of' urban uses with a focus on enhancing employment and cultural opportunities for residents of Tustin, irvine and nearby communities. This alternative would result in 4,340 dwelling units and 10,916,575 square feet of commercial, commercial business, Village Mixed-Use and other business-related uses. A large Cultural Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and would incorporate the northern blimp hangar, if financially feasible. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished. A 179-acre Reserve Area would include residential, Commercial/business, and institutional uses in iarge-scaie development; and In accordance with Section 15132 of the State Guidelines, and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the FEIS/FEIR consists of' 1. The initial Draft EIS/EIR, revised Draft EIS/EIR, and Final EiS/EIR inclUding Comments and Responses on the revised Draft EIS/EIR and all appendices and technical reports thereto; 2. Comments and Responses on the Final EIS/EIR; 3. Redevelopment Agency staff report, to the Planning commission dated November 28, 2000; 4. Minutes of the City of Tustin Planning CommisSioni' dated November 28, 2000; · -. 5. Redevelopment Agency staff report to the City Council 'dated January 16, 2001 including the letters submitted to the Planning Commission, a letter submitted to the Tustin City Council and the City of Tustin's written responses, and all other attachments; 6. Minutes of the Tustin City Council, dated January 16, 2001; and Section Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the State Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following findings prior to approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been prepared identifying one or more significant effects of the project, together with a statement of facts in support of each finding' 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated int©, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2. 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. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for · '.'.'i :: ?' -4- 10 11 12 13 15 1'6 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 .:-2..-: :-.-.7 .-..-..-...: .... !!. !!1. highly trained workers, make infeasible alternatives identified in the EIR; and the'mitigation measures or K. State Guidelines Section 15093(a) requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and L. State Guidelines Section 15093(b) requires that, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in an EIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIS/FEIR or other information in the record.. Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is incorporated here by reference and provided as Exhibit A; and M. A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the FEIS/FEIR has been drafted to meet the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, which is incorporated here by reference and provided as Exhibit B provides a checklist of mitigation measures and implementation measures identified in the FEIS/FEIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin to ease the process of monitoring the progress of each measure. The following information is identified for each measure listed in the checklist: · The text of the measure is provided which contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form' of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken as mitigation. · The timing of the implementation of the mitigation measures in the 'table are listed, by environmental impact area in the 'same order as they are listed in the FEIS/FEIR. · The table lists the appropriate responsible or supervising party or agency to perform or enforce the mitigation measure or implementation measure. · Each mitigation and implementation measure is listed by environmental impact area in the same order as they are listed in the FEIS/FEIR; and The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby find and certify that the. FEIS/FEIR for MCAS Tustin, in its entirety, is adequate and complete and prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, NEPA, and the State Guidelines; and The City Council hereby finds that the unavoidable significant environmental effects identified in. the FElS/FEIR have been substantially lessened in their severity by the imposition of the proposed mitigation measures. The City Council also finds that the remaining unavoidable significant environmental effects are outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Community Reuse Plan, as set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as' -5- IV. Exhibit A. The City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and The City Council hereby finds that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will mitigate or avoid the potentially Significant adverse effects identified in the FEIS/FEIR as specifically itemized in Exhibit B, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. All mitigation measures contained in the FEIS/FEIR are adopted and shall be incorporated as conditions of approval at subsequent discretionary actions at the appropriate level of project implementation. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16th day of January 2001. TRA~cY"wI'LLs WOR'["bY," Mayor l0 14 l? 2O 2! 22 PAMELA"sTOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ). COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) !, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby 'certify that the whole n.umber of the members of the City Council of the' City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 00-90 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on January 16, 2001, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES' COUNCiLMEMER NOES: COUNClLMEMBER ABSTAINED' COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK -;. -.o, 'o ,... . ...,.: ....: ;} 25 24 ccresos\00-90.doc 25 -6- Exhibit A to Resolution 00-90' Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Final EIS/EIR Resolution No. 00-90 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report For the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. SCH NO. 94071005 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Date Adopted by Tustin' December 18, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN - Section , , , FINAL EIS/EIR FOR THE PROJECT Pa~oe II. THE ADMINISTRATI~ RECORD Contents of the Record Location of Administrative Record o. III. PURPOSE OF FINDINGS IV. EFFECT OF FINDINGS Ve FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Aesthetics Cultural and Paleontological Resources Agricultural Resources Traffi c/C ircul ati on Air Quality Cumulative impacts VI. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPOtL~TED INTO THE PROJECT Land Use Aesthetics Cultural and Paleontological Resources Biological Resources Traffic/Circulation Noise bispo'~al and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 4 4 4 6 6 10 14 18 18 19 19 21 22 23 SCH No. 94071005 Section VII. FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS'-'i;HAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Utilities. Public Services Pa~oe 25 25 '~7 VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Introduction Reasonable Range of Alternatives . Summary of Comparison of' Akernatives Project Objectives LtLa. Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1) Alternative 2 Alternative ~ Alternative 4' No Action Alternative 40 34 43 4a 44 45 IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Summary of Overriding Considerations Adoption of Overriding Considerations 47 47 49 TABLES Table Table 1 Summary Comparison of Land Development and Buildout Characteristics of Alternatives Page 32 .7! :'.':'..' '..... . Table 2 Key Differentiating Factors Between Alternatives Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR SCH No. 94071005 .. FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PROJECT Pursuant to the Califomia Environmental QualiW Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091 as amended Januau, 1, 1999, the City. of Tustin (City) upon review of the Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR), including the comments and responses therein, and based on all the information and evidence in the records, hereby makes the Findings set forth herein' Ie FINAL EIS/EIR FOR THE PROJECT The FEIS/EIR for the project consists of two volumes eiatitled "'Final Volume 1 December, 1999 Environmental Impact Statement~nvironmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin" and "Final Volume 2 December, 1999 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin". In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, an Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR was distributed on June 30, 1994 to regulatory agencies, local jurisdictions, elected officials, and public sen, ice providers, among others for a 30-day comment period. On March 9. 1995. a supplement to the NOP was sent for a 30-day comments period to all previously notified parties to inform them of the City. of Tustin's intent to also utilize the joint EIS/EIR for its applications to pursue a LAMBtL& designation with the Califomia Trade and Commence Agency. As part of the EIS/EIR scoping process, the Ciw of Tustin and the Marine Corps held a public meeting on July 20, 1994 designed to inform the public about disposal and'reuse alternatives and to solicit public participation and comments. The Marine Corps also held a public meeting in April 1997 regarding the blimp hangars pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to describe the Section 106 process and the role of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as it relates to the reuse plan and to receive public comments. The initial Draft EIS/EIR was made available for a 45-day public review period on January 16, 1998. Comments received on the initial Draft EIS/EIR indicated the need to expand the traffic/circulation study, and to provide supplementary analysis for the issues of regional growth, schools, biology, water quality, air quality., utilities, noise, public services, and hazardous materials. A revised Draft EIS/EIR was made available for a 45-day public review period on July 8, 1999. The review period for the Draft EIS/EIR ended on August 23, 1999. The Final EIS/EIR was made available for a 30-day review period beginning on December 23 and ending on January 24, 2000. The FEIS/EIR includes extensive analysis of potential environmental impacts under both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). These findings pertain only to the requirements of CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. In some cases, the differences between CEQA and NEPA lead to different conclusions, as presented in the DEIS/EIR and FEIS/EIR. NEPA analyses in the DEIS/EIR and FEIS/EIR that do not apply to CEQA are not discussed herein, nor are impacts that are significant under NEPA but less than significant under CEQA. The FEIS/EIR identifies.mitigati°n measures to avoid significant environmental impacts of the project or reduce them to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures are also identified for environmental impacts of the.project that are significant and unavoidable even though mitigation is applied. The FEIS/EIR also identifies implementation measures where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. Disposal a~d t~us¢ of MC,~S Tustir~ EIS)EIR I SCH No. 94071005 II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS , ~ ... THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECO~ CONTENTS OF THE RECO~ The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings and the actions taken by City. in certi~'ing the FEIS/EIR and approving the project: The FEIS/EIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference in the FEIS/EIR All testimony, documentau, evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the Ciu, in connection with the meetings, workshops and public hearings at which the Draft EIS/EIR (DE1S/EIR) or FEIS/EIR was considered by the City. All testimony, documentary evidence, and correspondence of the Base Closure Task Force in which the DEIS/EIR or FEIS/EIR was considered. o All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of meetings and other documents relied upon or prepared by Ci~, staff and consultants relating to the project. 5. Any other documents specified by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). LOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD The City. is the custodian of the administrative record, including all CEQA documents and the other background documents and materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which City. Council decisions to certify, the FEIS/EIR and approve the project are based. The administrative record is located at the Tustin Community. Redevelopment Agency at the City. of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 2 .... S~H No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENrT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS III. PURPOSE OF FINDINGS The FEIS/EIR, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quali~, Act (CEQA), evaluates the significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the pro~ect. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the public agency approving or carrying out the project shall make written findings for each significant impact identified in the EIR. These findings include one of the following: o Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as defined in the EIS/EIR. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility a. nd jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or pro~ect alternatives identified in the final EIR. These findings accomplish the following: 1. They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIS/EIR for the approved project. They incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the FEIS/EIR. They indicate whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a less-than-significant level, or remain significant and unavoidable, either because there are no feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of mitigation measures, a significant impact will occur. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the FEIS/EIR and other substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. Each of the effects that remain potentially significant and unavoidable is considered acceptable by the City based on a determination that the benefits of the project outweigh the risks of the potentially significant environmental effect, as set forth in Section IX. Statement of Overriding Considerations. IV. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES INTO PROJECT DESIGN The mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR as feasible and within the City's responsibility, and jurisdiction to implement are hereby incorporated into the design of the Disposal and Reuse projects as required by CEQA. The City shall implement these measures during project implementation. Where the FEIS/EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, the City finds that these other public agencies have adopted the measures, have agreed to adopt the measures, or can and should adopt them. 'Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 3 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,, V. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS The FEIS/EIR indicates that the project would result in sianificant unavoidable impacts within six environmental impact issue areas. As described below in the findings for each of these impacts, there are either no feasible mitigation measures or the feasible mitigation measures would only partially mitigate the impact and the residual effect would remain significant. As set forth in Section IX. Statement of Overriding Considerations. the Ci~' finds that these impacts are acceptable in light of the projects benefits. AESTHETICS (FEIS/EIR SECTION 4.5 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) . . IMP.4 CT: VIS UAL IMPA CT Impact: The loss of both hangars would be a significant unavoidable visual impact. Mitigation Mitigation measures to retain both blimp hangars if economically feasible are included in Section 4.6 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) of the FEIS/EIR and are discussed in Section V. of'these findings. If not economically feasible, one or both of the hangars may be demolished to accommodate development. If one hangar is demolished, impact would be less than significant: However. ifboth hangars are demolished, impact on aesthetics due to the change in views would be significant and unavoidable. Within this context, no mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to less than significant. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable.' The City Council also finds that there are no feasible mitigation measure that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technolozical... . or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstandino= this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.6 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMP.4 CT: HISTORIC RESO UR CES IMPA CT Impact: All of the two discontinuous historic districts would be eliminated. The intent is to retain both hangars, if financially feasible, but one or both of the blimp hangars could be eliminated. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with the elimination of the historic districts and potentially one or both blimp hangars. However, the residual effect will remain significant. Hist-1 Historic American Building Survey. (HABS) - DON will complete the appropriate recordation for hangars 28 and 29 and the discontiguous historic district prior to conveyance of any property within the discontiguous historic district and shall ensure that copies of the · 'Z:.':'.:.' Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EISIEIR 4 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEtX~.,,~T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS recordation are made available to SHPO, the City. of Tustin. and any local or other archive facilities designated by SHPO. Hisx-2 Curarion - within 30 days of the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), DON will donate copies of plans and architectural drawings and other archival materials and records, as available, concerning the layout and the buildings and structures that made up the original NaD' lighter-than-air blimp facility to a local curation facili~,. The City. of Tustin or its designee will also be provided with copies of these materials. Hist-3 Hist-4 As specified in the MOA. a substantive effort will be made to determine whether there is an economically viable adaptive use of Hangar 28 and Hangar 29. o If the marketing effort identifies an economically viable adaptive use of either of the complexes, that complex, will be encumbered by a historic preservation covenant. In the case of the Hangar 28 complex, these measures shall balance the needs of the adaptive use and the needs for effective operation of the Federal Lands to Parks or Historic Monument programs. Hist-5 IfNPS and/or SHPO determine that, despite a marketing effort that complies with the terms of the MOA or as agreed to by the Ci~ of Tustin/County of Orange, NPS, and/or SHPO, an economically viable adaptive use of the Hangar 28 complex was not identified. NPS and/or SHPO shall promptly advise DON and notify the Cit3.' ofTustin/Count3.' of Orange that the following measures are required. a. Written History.- The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare an illustrated history report on MCAS TUSTIN, with emphasis on the initial construction of the Air Station and its World War II Nax? lighter-than-air operations. b. E'xhibit- The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare a professional-quality illustrated interpretive exhibit with emphasis on the initial construction of the air station and its World War II Nax3' lighter-than-air operations. · c. Interpretive Video - The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare a professional-quality documentary video and shall undertake a one-time distribution and outreach program for the documentary video. DoN, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), the City of Tustin, and the Coun~ of Orange have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding cultural resources and the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin, which is included as Appendix H of the FEIS/EIR. The MOA specifies how the parties will implement the mitigation measures above and binds the parties to implement the measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that the measures listed above will reduce the impact, but there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the impact to a less-than- ]Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tu~tin EIS/EIR 5 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS significant level. The Ci~ Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibiliD.' and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the CiD' of Tustin. have been adopted by the appropriate agency with approval of an MOA. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project no~'ithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.8 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CD A GRICUL TURAL RESO UR CES IMPA CT Impact: Existing farmland would no longer be cultivated. Project development will result in the conversion of approximately 682 acres of P~:ime Farmland and 20 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance for a total of 702 adres of Farmland to.non-agricultural use. Mitigation No mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Potential alternative mitigation measures to reduce this impact were considered in the FEIS/EIR. but rejected as infeasible. Mitigation measures considered were' a) purchase of off-site agricultural farmland (infeasible due to cost between $210.6 and $421.2 million or 10 to 20 times greater than the Ci~'s annual general fund budget); b) purchase and improvement ofnon-a~icultural farmland (infeasible because cost of doing so would exceed cost of buying a~iculmral farmland); c) protecting existing farmland using agricultural easements (infeasible due to cost of $105 to $210 million), transfer of development rights (infeasible because Ci~: has no power to establish program outside its jurisdiction, and does not have and is not contemplating such a program), right-to-farm ordinances (infeasibie because neither the City nor the CounD' has adopted such an ordinance. and Ci~'s General Plan does not identify agriculture as a long-term use), and/or Williamson Act applied to land elsewhere in coun~ (infeasible since only short-term prot'ection for existing agricultural land would be provided, and program is voluntary, preventing City or County from requiring land owners to enroll). Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record.before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. T1LAFFIC/CIRCULATION (SECTION 4.12 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: LONG-TERM TRAFFIC/CIR CULA TION IMPACTS A T THE INTERSECTIONS OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND WALNUT A VENUE, AND JAMBOREE ROAD AND BARRANCA PARKWAY Impact: There would be decreased levels of sen, ice at certain intersections and road seo_ments. With feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020). DiSposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 6 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMr..NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buiidout (year 2020). However, the residual effect xvill remain significant. T/C-2 The Cie' of Tustin and the CiU of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall ensure that the arterial intersection improvements required in 2005 and 2020 and as indicated in Tables 4.12-7 and 4.12-9 of the FEIS/EIR are implemented for their respective jurisdictions according to the cumulative ADT thresholds identified in each table and according to the fair share basis noted. The ADT threshold represents the traffic volume which would result in an impact and the fair share percentage reflects the percent of the traffic impact resulting from.the reuse generated traffic. In some cases, reuse traffic would generate 100 percent of the impact, thereby assuming full financial responsibili~ for the identified improvemeflts. In other cases, reuse traffic would generate only a fraction of · the traffic impacting the intersection and financial responsibility would correspond. T/C-3 The City of Tustin and the City. of Irvine. as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within h-vine), shall contribute, on a fair share basis, to improvements to freeway ramp intersections as listed in Table 4.12-8 of the FEIS/EIR. The method of implementing the improvements., e.~.,o restripine.~., ramp widenine,~., shall be based on special desien_ studies, in association with Caltrans. T/C-4 The Ci~ of Tustin and the City oflrvine, as applicable (for that'portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall ensure that all on-site circulation system improvements for the reuse plan area assumed in the 2005 and 2020 traffic analysis and as shown in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR are implemented according to the cumulative ADT thresholds identified in the table. Under this Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall monitor all new development within the site,, accounting for the cumulative ADT generated by development projects. As each ADT threshold is reached, the roadway improvements listed in Table 4-.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR shall be constructed before any additional projects.within the reuse plan area would be approved. T/C-5 Prior to approval of a site development permit or vesting tract, except for financing or conveyance purposes, for all land use designation areas in Alternative 1 with the exception of the Learning Village, Community Park, and Regional Park, a project developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin and Ciw oflrvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine) which assigns improvements required in the EIS/EIR to the development site and which requires participation in a fair share mechanism to design and construct required on-site and arterial impi-ovements consistent with the ADT generation thresholds shown in Tables 4.12-7, 4.12-8, 4.12-9, and 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR.~ T/C-6 The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion 6f the reuse plan area in Irvine), will monitor new development within the reuse plan area, accounting for the Table references in the mitigation measures have been changed from Final FEIS/EIR to match the correct table numbers in the FEIS/EIR. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 7 SCH No. 94071005 ". ." FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA'[~. ..4~ ,..~F OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS cumulative ADTs generated by development projects within the reuse plan area. As each cumulative ADT threshold shown in Table 4.12-10: ofthe FEIS/EIR is reached, the roadway improvements listed shall be constructed before any additional projects within the reuse plan area are approved. T/C-7 The Cit'3.' of Tustin shall adopt a trip budget for individual portions of the reuse plan area to assist in the monitoring of cumulative ADTs and the amount and intensiB, of permitted non-residential uses as evaluated in the EIS/EIR. T/C-8 Alternative improvements that' provide an equivalent level of mitigation in 2005 or 2020 to wha~ is identified in Tables 4.12-7.4.12-8. and 4.12-9 of the FEIS/EIR may be identified in consultation between the CiD' of Tustin and the CiW of Irvine, as applicable, and the impacted jurisdiction. T/C-9 The City. of Tustin shall enter into agreements xvith Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate the effects of the proposed alternative are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. · In order to properly coordinate the timing and improvements in the adjacent jurisdictions. the Ci~.' of Tustin shall hold a scoping-like meeting with the respective jurisdictions. The purpose of said scoping-like meeting shall be to identi~ the concerns of the respective jurisdictions prior to the initiation of the fair share study. The purpose of the study would · be to fully idemif3,, with each jurisdiction, the scope and costs of feasible improvements (as determined by the respective jurisdiction). The improvements would be acceptable to each jurisdiction toward fulfilling the timing and cost of the transportation improvement obligations as required to mitigate transportation impacts in each jurisdiction. The funding for the improvements to be incorporated into the agreement would be utilized by the respective agency to improve the capacity of the impacted intersections/links or be used for substituted improvements, as determined by mutual agreement.. Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction would be allowed ten (10) working days to review the technical report prior to being provided with a copy of the proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have ten (10) working days to review and comment as to its concurrence with the improvement programs contained in the agreement. The comments of each jurisdiction would be considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's responsibility for fair share funding of the improvements in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully addressed. IA-1 Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR presents the Phasing Plan for the on-site circulation system. The Phasino, Plan is based upon traffic circulation impact and mitization., analyses, contained in the Traffic Report (Final Appendix F). Under this Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall monitor all new development within the Specific Plan, accounting for the cumulative ADT generated by development projects. As each ADT threshold is reached, the roadway Table references in the mitigation measures have been .changed from Final FEIS/EIR to match the correct table numbers in the FEIS/EIR. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EISIEIR 8 SCH No. 94071005 IA-2 IA-3 IA-4 IA-5 '....' ,FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'I"AT~_ , , ~T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS improvements listed in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR shall be constructed before any additional projects within the Specific Plan would be approved. Table 7-3 of the FEIS/EIR presents the Trip Budget which summarizes the square footage of non-residential uses allocated to each neighborhood by Planning Area and the associated ADT. (Residential uses are shown for information only, they are not part of the budget.) Pursuant to Section 3.2.4 of the Specific Plan. the City of Tustin shall implement the trip budget by neighborhood to control the amount and intensity of non-residential uses. Trip Budget transfers between neighborhoods shall also be implemented as directed in subsection 3.2.4 of the Specific Plan. Prior to the approval, of (1) a Planning Area Concept Plan pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Specific Plan, (2) a site development permit, or (3) a vesting tentative map for new square footage (not for financing or conveyance purposes), a project developer shall provide traffic information consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan, this EIS/EIR and the requirements of the City of Tustin Traffic Engineer. The traffic information shall (a) identif'3.' and assign traffic circulation mitigation measures required in the EIS/EIR pursuant to the Phasing Plan described in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR;. (b) evaluate the effects of either the delay of any previously commit-ted circulation improvements or the construction of currently unanticipated circulation improvements' and (c) utilize the circulation system and capaci~ assumptions within the EIS/EIR and any additional circulation improvements completed by affected jurisdictions for the applicable timeframe of analysis. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development within planning areas requiring a concept plan, a project developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin to (a) design and construct roadway improvements consistent with the ADT generation Phasing Plan described in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR and (b) address the impact of and specify the responsibility for any previously committed circulation improvements assumed in the EIS/EIR which have not been constructed. If a subsequent traffic Phasing Plan demonstrates that certain circulation improvements should be included in a different phase of Specific Plan development (accelerated or delayed) or that a circulation improvement can be substituted, the mitigation Phasing Plan in Table 4.12-10 ofthe FEIS/EIR may be amended, subject to approval ofthe City of Tustin and any other affected jurisdictions, provided that the same level of traffic mitigation and traffic capacity would be provided. . IA-6 The Ci~ of Tustin will enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate the effects of the Specific Plan are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. In order to properly coordinate the timing and funding of fair share obligation of Specific Plan improvements in the adjacent jurisdictions, the City of Tustin shall hold a scoping-like meeting with the respective jurisdictions. The purpose of said scoping-like meeting shall be to identify the concerns of the respective jurisdictions prior to the initiation of the fair share study. The purpose of the study would be to fully identify, with each jurisdiction, the scope and costs of feasible improvements (as determined by the respective jurisdiction). The improvements would be acceptable to each jurisdiction toward fulfilling the timing and DisPosal and Reuse ~)f MCAS Tustin EIS/E'IR 9 SCH No. 94071005 FI~'DINGS OF FACT,AND STATEM, ENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS · cost of the transportation improvement obligations of the Specific Plan as required to mitigate transportation impacts in each jurisdiction, as listed above. The funding for the improvements to be incorporated into the agreement would be utilized by the respective agent).' to improve the capacity of the impacted intersections/links or be used for substituted improvements, as determined by mutual agreement. ; Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction would be allowed ten working days to review the technical report prior to being provided with a copy of the proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have ten working days to review and comment as to its concurrence with the improvement pro.ams contained in the a~eement. The comments of each jurisdiction would be considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's responsibility for fair share funding of the improvements in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully addressed. IA-7 Each Specific Plan project would contain, to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin and/or City. oflrvine, as applicable, a pedestrian eirculation Component showing pedestrian access to regional hik. ing trails, parks, schools, shopping areas, b.us stops, and/or other public facilities. Mitigation measure T/C-9 requires the City. of Tustin to enter into a~eements with Calrrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate traffic effects are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. For improvements identified within the jurisdiction of other agencies, those agencies can and should adopt them. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City. Council further finds that the measures listed above will reduce the impact, but there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above ~vhich are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the. City of Tustin can and should be adopted by them. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstandin~ this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overridino Considerations. AIR QUALITY (SECTION 4..13 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: l' AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FR OM C03,~STR UCTION Impact: Peak reduced emissions of suspended particulates (PM~0), reactive organic compounds (ROC), and oxides Of nitrogen (NO0 due to construction activities would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance during some or all phases of the project. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with air quality.impacts from construction. However, the residual effect will remain significant. Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 10 ' ' S'CH No. 94071005 AQ-I' FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDER. ATIONS If determined feasible and appropriate on a project-by-project basis, the Ciw of Tustin and the CiW oflrvine, as applicable, shall require individual development projects to implement one or more of the following control measures, if not already required by the SCAQMD under Rule 403' Apply water twice daily,, or chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or staging areas or unpaved road surfaces at all actively disturbed sites. Develop a construction traffic management plan that includes, but is not limited to. rerouting construction trucks off congested streets, consolidating truck deliveries, and providing dedicated turn lanes 'for movement of construction trucks and equipment onsite and offsite. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers accordinz to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously ~aded areas inactive'for four days or more). Replace ~ound cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders according to manufacturers' specifications, to exposed piles of gravel, sand, or dirt. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and top of ~he trailer). Sweep streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads (use water sweepers with reclaimed water when feasible). Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. AQ-2 Unless determined by the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, to be infeasible on a project-by-project basis due to unique project characteristics, each city, shall require individual development projects to use low VOC architectural coatings for all interior and exterior painting operations. Mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 require the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, to require projects to implement measures to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants during construction if determined feasible and appropriate on a project-by-project basis. The City of Irvine can and should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, can and should be adopted by the City of Irvine. Specific economic, legal, ~iSposal' and Reuse of McAs Tustin EIS/EIR 11 ' "SCH N~). 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS social, technological, or other considerations justif3..' approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fullv described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPA CT: AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM MOBILE (I"EHICULAR) AND STATIONARY S 0 UR CES Impact: Long-term operation emissions from mobile (vehicular) and stationaD: sources would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, NO.,, and ROC. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and wili be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with long-term air quality, impacts from mobile (vehicular) and stationau, sources. However. the residual effect will remain significant. AQ-3 Prior to the issuance of development permits )or new non-residential projects with 100 or more employees, and expanded projects where additional square footage would result in a total of 100 or more employees, the Ci~' of Tustin and the Ci~, oflrvine, as applicable, shall impose a mix of TDM measures which, upon estimation, would result in an average vehicle ridership of at least 1.5, for each development with characteristics that would be reasonably conducive to successful implementation of such TDM measures. These TDM measures may include one or more of the following, as determined appropriate and feasible by each city on a case-by-case basis' Establish preferential parking for carpool vehicles. Provide bicycle parking facilities. . Provide shower and locker facilities. Provide carpool and vanpool loading areas. Incorporate bus stop improvements into facility design. Implement shuttles to shopping,., eating..., recreation, and/or 'parkino~. and transit facilities. Construct remote parking facilities. Provide pedestrian circulation linkages. Construct pedestrian grade separations. Establish carpool and vanpool programs. Provide cash allowances, passes, and other public transit and purchase incentives. Establish parking fees for single occupancy vehicles. Provide parking subsidies for rideshare vehicles. Institute a computerized commuter rideshare matching system. Provide a guaranteed ride-home program for ridesharing. Establish alternative work week, flex-time, and compressed work week schedules. Establish telecommuting or work-at-home programs. Provide additional vacation and compensatory leave incentives. Provide on-site lunch rooms/cafeterias and commercial services such as banks, restaurants, and small retail. Provide on-site day care facilities. Establish an employee transportation coordinator(s). Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR SCH'/h;.'9ho,~oos FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OV'ERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,,, AQ-4 If not required under each individual development's TDM plan. the CiD' of Tustin and the Cit'3' of Irvine, as applicable, shall implement the following measures, as determined appropriate or feasible by each city on a case-by-case basis: Reschedule truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak hours. Implement lunch shuttle service from a worksite(s) to food establishments. Implement compressed work week schedules where weekly' work hours are compressed into fewer than five days, such as 9/80.4/40. or 3/36. Provide on-site child care and after-school facilities or contribute to off-site developments within walking distance. Provide on-site employee ser3ices such as cafeterias, banks, etc. Implement a pricing structure for single-occupancy employee parking, and/or provide discounts to ridesharers. Construct off-site pedestrian faciliD' improvements such as overpasses and wider sidewalks. .Include retail services within or adjacent to residential subdivisions. Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers or multi-modal stations. Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.). Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development. Construct, contribute, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle trails linking, the facility to desienated bicvcle commutino, q routes Include residential units within a commercial development. Provide off-site bicycle facility, improvements, such as bicycle trails linking the facility to designated bicycle commuting routes, or on-site improvements, such as bicycle paths.' Include bicycle parking facilities such as bicycle lockers. Include showers' for bicycling and pedestrian employees' use. Construct on-site pedestrian facility improvements, such as building access which is physically separated from street and parking lot traffic, and walk paths. Mitigation measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 require the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, to require projects to implement measures to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants during long-term operation if determined feasible and appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The City, of Irvine can and should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that the measures listed above will reduce the impact, but there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City. of Tustin can and should be adopted. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. DisCos'al and Reuse of I~ICAS Tustin EIS/EIR 13 ' ' SCH No. 94~J71005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF O\;ERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IMPA CT: L¥coNSISTENCY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (sCAB) AIR Q LidLITY /}L'4NA GEMENT PLAN (A QMP) Impact: The proposed project has not been included in the modeling assumptions of the 1994 or 1997 AQMPs, and is therefore inconsistent with the AQMP. Mitigation No feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to less than significant. SCAQMD will need to include the proposed project in the 2000 AQMP, such that the proposed project will be consistent with future AQMPs. However, the project will not be consistent with the existing AQMP, which cannot be amended to include the project at this time. ' Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City. Council, the Cit), Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The Ci~; Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justif3' approval of the project nom, ithstanding this impact as more fully, described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (CHAPTER 5.0 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS[EIR) IMPA CT: CU. MULA TIVE AESTHETIC IMPA CT Impact: Reuse of MCAS Tustin and the possible resultant loss of both. blimp hangars, in conjunction with other development in Orange County (in particular, reuse of the former MCAS E1 Toro), would result in a significant change in the visual setting of the area. Mitigation Mitigation measures to retain both blimp hangars if economically feasible are included in Section 4.6 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) of the FEIS/EIR and are discussed in Section V. of these findings. If not economically feasible, one or both of the hangars may be demolished to accommodate development. If one hangar is demolished, impact would be less than significant. However, if both hangars are demolished, impact on aesthetics due to the change in views would be significant and unavoidable. Within this context, no mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact'to less than significant. Hence, the proposed project in conjunction with other development in Orange County., and in particular the disposal and reuse of the former MCAS E1 Toro, would contribute to significant cumulative visual impacts. DoN, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), the City of Tustin, and the County. of Orange have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the blimp hangars, which is included as Appendix H of the FEIS/EIR. The MOA specifies how the parties will implement the mitigation measures and binds the parties to implement the measures. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 14 ' SCH No. 94071005 ... FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS , .... Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City' Council, the Ci~' Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The Ci~' Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibilit3.; and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, have been adopted by the appropriate agency. Specific economic. legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify, approval of the project now, ithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPA CT: CUMULATIVE CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL IMPACTS Impact: The project would result in irreversibly eliminating most of the two discontiguous eligible historic districts and could result in the demolition of one or both blimp hangars, depending on whether reuse is financially feasible. These actions would c6ntribute to a cumulative loss of World War II United States military.' development, which is increasingly being demolished due to military base closings. Mitigation Mitigation for historic resources included in the FEIS/EIR and in Section V. of these findings will reduce impacts to the de~ee feasible. However, the residual effect will remain significant. DoN, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), the City of Tustin, and the County, of Orange have entered into a Memorandum of A~eement (MOA) regarding cultural and paleontological resources and the disposal and reuse of MCAS T.ustin, which is included as Appendix H.ofthe FEIS/EIR. The MOA specifies how the parties will implement the mitigation measures above and binds the parties to implement the measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the'entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that ' this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The Ci~, Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustih, have been adopted by the appropriate agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of' Overriding Considerations. IMPA C T: CUM UL A TI VE A GRI C UL T URA L RES 0 UR CES IMPA C TS Impact: The proposed project would result in conversion of approximately 702 acres of Farmland. While this conversion is typical in Orange County, the cumulative impact would be significant because this Farmland and other agricultural land being convened in Orange County represents some of the last remaining agricultural 'land in the County. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustir~ EIS/EIR 15 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF C)VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Mitigation No mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures to reduce this impact at the project level were considered in the FEIS/EIR. but rejected as infeasible. Mitigation measures considered were: a) purchase of off-site agricultural farmland (infeasible.due to cost betxveen $210.6 and $421.2 million or 10 to 20 times gteater than the City's annual general fund budget); b) purchase and improvement of non-agricultural farmland (infeasible because cost of doing so would exceed cost of buy, ing agricultural farmland)' c) protecting existing farmland using a~iculrural easements (infeasible due to cost of $105 to $210 million), transfer of development rights (infeasible because City has no power to establish program outside its jurisdiction, and does not have and is not contemplating such a pro.am), right-to-farm ordinances (infeasible because, neither the City nor the Count3.' has adopted such an ordinance, and Ciry"s General Plan does not i~ienrify a~iculture as a long-term use), and/or Williamson Act applied to land elsewhere in county, (infeasible since only short-term protection for existing a~icultural land would be provided, and program is voluntary, preventing Ci~' or County from requiring land owners to enroll). Impact will be significant, irreversible, and unavoidable.. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin CiB' Council, the Cir3, Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The City. Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project nom, ithsmnding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPA CT: CUMULATIVE TRANSPOR TA TION/CIR CULA TION IMPACTS Impact: The analysis of project-level impacts in' the FEIS/EIR consider the project's contribution to cumulative impacts. While most impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020) Mitigation Mitigation for transportation/circulation impadts included' in the FEIS/EIR and in Section V. of these findings will reduce impacts to the degree feasible. However, the residual effect at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under £ull buildout (year 2020) will remain significant. Mitigation measure T/C-9 requires the City of Tustin to enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate traffic effects are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. For improvements identified within the jurisdiction of other agencies, those agencies can and should adopt them. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible Disposal and Reus'e ~f MCXS 'T~stin EIS/EIR 16 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The Cit>.: Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the Cib' of Tustin, have been adopted by the appropriate agency, or can and should be adopted. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justin.' approval of the project not~vithstanding this impact as more full), described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPA CT: CUMULA TIF. E AIR 0 UALITY IMPACT$ Impact: The prQect, when considered with projected growth in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), will contribute to significant air qua!ity impacts. Mitigation Mitigation for air quality, impacts included in the FEIS/EIR and in Section V. of these Findings will reduce, impacts to the degree feasible. However, the residual effect will remain significant. Mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 require the City. of Tustin and the CiD' oflrvine, as applicable, to require projects to implement measures to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants if determined feasible and appropriate on a project-by-project basis. The CiD' oflrvine can and should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City. Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, can and should be adopted by the appropriate agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Dis'b'gsal and R~u'se of MCAS'TusiYn 'EiS/filR' ' ............ 17 ...... ~'CH '~o. 9407100.5 , , a~r OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FINDINGS OF FACT AND STAT£: .... -: , VI. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS- TH.~tN-SIGNIFICANT LEV"ELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPO~TED INTO THE PROJECT The FEIS/EIR identifies significant impacts that are reduced to a "less-than-significant" level by the inclusion in the project approval of the mitigation measures identified in the FE1S/EIR. It is hereby determined that these significant environmental impacts of the project will be avoided or substantially lessened by the inclusion of the identified mitigation measures. LAND USE (SECTION 4.11 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: L4N, D USE Impact: Land use categories would not be consistent with the City of Tustin General Plan. the Tustin zoning ordinance, the City °flrvine General Plan, and the Irvine zoning ordinance. Planned development may have compatibility impacts bem, een land uses. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impact to less-than-significant levels. LU-1 The Ci~: of Tustin shall amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be consistent with planned land uses. Any zoning ordinance shall include site design measures such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to ensure high quality development and compatibility between land uses. The goal is to assure that the overall appearance of development on the site is at least similar in quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other adjacent cities. LU-2 The City. of lrvine shall amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be consistent wittl planned land uses. Any zoning ordinance shall include site design measures such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to ensure high qualiD, development and compatibility between land uses. The goal is to assure that the overall appearance of development on the site is at least similar in quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other adjacent cities. Mitigation measure LU-2 requires the City of Irvine to amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be consistent with planned land uses. The Cit}., of Irvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. , Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council fUrther finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. Disposal and R~use of MCASTuStin EI2/EIR i 8 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMt-N'T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AESTHETICS (SECTION 4.5 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: VIS UAL Impact: There is the potential for visual impacts if landscaping and urban design do not full), address aesthetic considerations; i.e., do not maintain view corridor~, provide screening, or incorporate landscaping. Mitigation Measures The following implementation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These implementation measures will mitigate the impacts to less-than-significant levels. Vis-1 In conjunction with any zoning ordinance amendments to implement the reuse plan in Tustin or Irvine, an urban desi=on plan shall be adopted to provide for distinct and cohesive architectural and landscape desi,~n= , features and treatments, as well as harmony with adjacent landscaping. The urban desi~ plan shall have the following elements: · landscaping concept and master signage plan; · desi~ review and approval process; · limits on development intensity for each specific land use; · limits on height of structures and lot coverage; · minimum site building setbacks; · minimum on-site landscaping requirements; · buffering requirements, including berms, masonry walls, and landscaping; · lighting regulations, including regulations ensuring that exterior lighting does not negatively impact surrounding property; · screening regulations for mechanical equipment and outside storage; and · site signage requirements, including sign'permit approval. Mitigation measure Vis-1 requires the Ciw of Irvine to implement an urban design plan. The Ciw of Irvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.5 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA C T: A R CHA E 0 L 0 GI CA L RES 0 UR CE$ Impact: Grading in the four-acre parcel that has not been surveyed may result in impacts to Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 19 SCH No. 9467 ! 005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEklv. NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS archaeological resources, if they are present. Grading in the reuse plan area ma)' uncover buried archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate' the impacts to less-than-significant levels. Arch-1 Arch-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the four-acre parcel currently outside the boundaries of the Air Station along Harvard Avenue shall be surveyed to determine the presence/absence of archaeological resources prior to grading. . Prior to issuance of grading permits, the cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each require applicants of individual development projects to retain, as appropriate, a county-certified archaeolozist. If buried resources are found during grading within the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would .need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American view point shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. Mitization measure Arch-2 requires the Cir3, oflrvine to require applicants of individual development projects to retain, as appropriate, a count)..'-certified archaeologist prior to issuance of grading permits. The Ciu' of Irvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the CiD' Council finds that' chano_es or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as ident~'fied in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility, and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the Ci~' of Tustin can and should be adopted. IMPA C T: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESO UR CES Impact: Earthwork activities ma3' destroy geological deposits within which unique paleontological resources are buried. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP.. These measures will mitigate the impact to less-than-significant levels. Paleo-1 The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each require applicants of individual development projects to comply with the requirements established in a PRMP prepared for the site, which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are discovered during construction. SCH No. 94071005 -o . .. ~)~isposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 20 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS , , , , Paleo-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project applicants shall provide written evidence to each cit3.', that a coun~,'-certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct salvaee excavation of unique paleontolo~,ical resources if they are found. Mitigation measures Paleo-1 and Palco-2 require the Cir3' oflrvine to require applicants of individual development projects to comply with the requirements established in a PRMP prepared for the site. The CiD' of lrvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin CiD' Council, the CiD' Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project {hat will avoid the significant effects as' identified in the FEIS/EI1L by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility, and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the CiD' of Tustin can and should be adopted. BIOLOGICAL P,.ESOURCES (SECTION 4.7 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) I3:fPA CT: BIOL OGIC4L RESOURCES Impact: Approximately 12.8 acres of jurisdictional waters would be indirectly impacted by channel improvements by OCFCD. Another 16.2 acres of.jurisdictional waters, of which 2.4 acres are classified as vegetated or seasonal wetlands, would be directly impacted by reuse. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impacts to less-than-significant levels. Bio-1 The project proponents of any development affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands shall obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary. A replacement ratio for affected wetland resources shall be determined in consultation with regulatory agencies as part of the permitting process. The actions · proposed on Peters Canyon Channel shall be mitigated by the OCFCD who is the project proponent for flood control improvements. Bio-2 Based on consultations with CDFG, City of Tustin, or project proponent as applicable, an off-site relocation site for southwestern pond turtles caPtured on site shall be identified that is as close to the reuse plan area as possible, and that is sustainable in perpetuity. (No appropriate habitat in the City of Tustin is available for relocation.) Potential relocation sites include but are not limited to an old pond (currently thought d~) located in upper Shady Canyon within the Orange County Nature Preserve that could be improved or restored to serve as a relocation site; or San Joaquin Marsh, which is managed by UC Irvine, Irvine Ranch, and the Orange Count), Water District. Some property owners and public agencies may be adverse to the relocation of species of special concern onto their property or jurisdiction, and it would be speculative to identify actual sites prior to completion of consultation with CDFG and with potential'property owners and/or appropriate public agencies. 'Disposal ~nd Reuse ofMCAS';Fustin EIS/EIR" SCH N'o.' 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE,lENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDER_ATIONS Bio-.3 Permits from the CDFG shall be obtained for live-capture of the turtles and for transporting them to the relocation site. Bio-4 An agreement shall be negotiated with the CDFG. CiD' of Tustin, project proponent, or · other agency or organization as appropriate, for contribution of funds to improve, restore. or create the relocation site as turtle habitat. Mitigation measure Bio-1 requires that project proponents of any development affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and OCFCD replace affected wetland resources at a ratio determined in consultation with regulatou, agencies as part of the permitting process. Mitigation measures Bio-2 through Bio-4 require that CDFG, the Cie' of Tustin, project proponent, or o{her appropriate agency or organization enter into an agreement to improve, restore, or create a relocation site for turtle habitat and that permits shall be obtained for live-capture of turtles. OCFCD, CDFG. and other appropriate agencies can and' should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin Ci~: Council. the CiD' Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The Ci~, Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility, and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION (SECTIONS 4.12 AND 7.2.12 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: SHOR T- TERM TRAFFIC/CIR CULA TION IMPACTS FR OM CONSTRUCTION Impact: There would be potential short-term delay and road closures durinc, construction. There would be decreased levels of ser~,ice at certain intersections and road segments. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will' mitigate the impacts to less-than-significant levels. T/C-1 In conjunction with the approval of a site development permit, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan within Irvine), shall require each developer to provide traffic operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadway and lane closures, truck hours and routes, and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, shall ensure that the plan would minimize anticipated delays at major intersections. Prior to approval, the City of Tustin or the City of lrvine, as applicable shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. Mitigation measure T/C-1 requires the City of Irvine to require each developer to provide traffic operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activin. DiSposal and'Reuse of M~/~S Tustin EIS/EIR 22 SCH No. 94071005 _ FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA'i .... aNT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDEP~&TIONS The CID.' oflrvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the siznificant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The Cirv Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibili~, and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the Ciu, ofTust, in can and should be adopted. I2'['IP~4 CT: Impact; L ONG-TERM TRAFFIC/CIRCULA TION IMPACTS A number of intersections would be significantly impacted at buildout of the project. Most of these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant. However, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of'~ustin. Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020). These unmitigable impacts are discussed in Section V. of these findings. All other impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. " Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures for long-term traffic/circulation impacts listed in Section V. of these findings are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMKP. These measures will miti_ate the · ~ impacts to less-than-significant levels, except at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway'under £ull buildout (year 2020). Mitigation measure T/C-9 requires the City of Tustin to enter into aereements., with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and' Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitieate traffic effects are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. For improvements identified within the jurisdiction of other agencies,' those agencies have aereed to adopt the measures, or can and should adopt them. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City. Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the sienificant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant lev~Is. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. NOISE (SECTION 4.14 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: LONG- TERM NOISE IMPACTS FR OM OPERA TION Impact: The proposed extension of Tustin Ranch Road could expose existing residences to noise levels greater than 65 dB(A) CNEL. Some existing residential units within the reuse area may experience noise levels greater than 65 dB(A) CNEL. With reuse and future development, noise levels at residential and park locations adjacent.to Warner Avenue may exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL. 23 SCH No. 94071'005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEM£NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS , Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impact xo less-than-significant levels. N-1 N-2 Prior to reuse of any existino residential units within the reuse area for civilian use, the CiD' of Tustin or the CiD' oflrvine, as applicable, and where necessar3, and feasible, shall require the installation of noise attenuation barriers, insulation, or similar devices to ensure that interior and exterior noise levels at these residential units do not exceed applicable noise standards. During design of the gade-separated intersection of Tustin Ranch Road at Edinger Avenue. the CiD' of Tustin shall evaluate potential noise impacts on surrounding properties to the northeast of Edinger Avenue and shall incorporate into 'the design of this intersection noise attenuation measures determined appropriate and feasible by the CID" of Tustin. in order to ensure that these surrounding properties do not experience noise levels that exceed CiD' of Tustin noise standards. N-3 For new development within the reuse area. the Ci~' of Tustin and City of Irvine, as applicable, shall ensure that interior and exterior noise levels do not exceed those prescribed by state requirements and local city ordinances and general plans. Plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity shall be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits being issued to accommodate reuse. · N-4 Prior to the connection of Warner Avenue to the North Loop Road or the South Loop Road. the City of Tustin shall conduct an acoustical study to assess reuse traffic noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors adjacent to Warner Avenue, bem, een Harvard Avenue and Culver Drive. If mitigation of reuse traffic noise impacts is required,'the City. of Tustin and the City of Irvine shall enter into an agreement that defines required mitigation and which allocates the cost of mitigation between the City of Tustin and the City of lrvine on a fair share basis. Mitigation measures N-1 through N-4 require the City of Irvine to take steps to reduce potential noise impacts. The City of lrvine can.and should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that.will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility, and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, can and should be adopted. Disl~°sal and Reuse' ct: MCAS Tustin ElkifflR · " 24 ....... scH No. 94071005 '1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEM£NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,, FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES The FEIS/EIR identifies implementation measures to ensure that adequate utilities and public services and facilities are provided concurrently with development within the reuse plan area. Implementation measures are to be required where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. For these purposes, both implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified and are equally enforceable. It is hereby determined that these implementation measures will ensure that utilities and public services and facilities are provided when needed. UTILITIES (SECTION 4.3 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS~IR) NEED: PR 0 VISION OF UTILITIES CONCURRENT WITH DEMAN. D Need' To support proposed development in the reuse plan area. backbone utiliD.' systems must be provided concurrent'with demand. Implementation Measures The following implementation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP: (a) The Cit), of Tustin or City oflrvine, as appropriate, shall ensure that infrastructure is constructed in phases as triggered by identified thresholds in Table 4.3-1 of the FEIS/EIR. The Phasing Plan provides an organizational framework to facilitate development of the reuse plan area in tandem with infrastructure necessary to support the planned development. This framework reflects the fact that each component of the infrastructure has its own threshold for accommodating additional development toward build-out of the reuse plan area. The triggering mechanisms that identify timing of key infrastructure provisions are summarized in Table 4.3-1 of the FEIS/EIR. (b) Prior to a final map recordation (except for financing and reconveyance purposes), the- development applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin and CiD' of Irvine and any appropriate regional utility agencies, districts, and providers, as applicable, to dedicate all easement, rights-of-way, or other land determined necessary, to construct adequate utility infrastructure and facilities' to serve the project as determined by the ciw, agency, district, or other providers. (c) Prior to any final map recordation (except for financing and conveyance purposes), the development applicant shal'l enter into a secured agreement with the cities of Tustin and/or Irvine, as applicable, to participate on a pro-rated basis in construction of capital improvements necessary to provide adequate utility, facilities. (d) Prior to the issuance of permits for any public improvements or develoPment project, a. development applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin and City of Irvine, as applicable, information from IRWD which outlines required facilities necessary to provide adequate potable water and reclaimed water service to the development. bispo~'al and Ret~ke ofMCAS Tustin EIS/EII~ ' SCH No. 9407100J FINDINGS OF FACT ,AND STAT~,...,'NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (e) (f') (h) (i) (J) (k) Prior to the issuance of the certificates of use and occupancy, the project developer shall ensure thru fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire flow requirements. Prior to the issuance of permits for any public improvements or development project, a development applicant shall submit to the Ci~, of Tustin and City. oflrvine, as applicable, information from IRWD, OCSD. or the Ci~' of Tustin which outlines required facilities necessary to provide adequate sanitary s'exvage service to the development. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or apProval of any subdivision map (except for financing and reconveyance purposes): whichever occurs first, for development within the 100-y, ear flood plain, grading and drainage sy, stems shall be designed by the project developer such that all building pads would be safe from inundation from runoff from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year storm, to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Division or the Irvine Public Works Department, as applicable. Grading permits or subdivision maps generated for financing and reconveyance purposes are exempt. Prior to construction of regional flood control facilities, appropriate state and federal approvals, including agreements and permits, shall be obtained. These include but are not limited to Regional Water Quality. Control Board permits, including NPDES permits; Section 404 permits from the USACOE, and Section 1601 or 1603 agreements from the CDFG in a manner meeting the approval of the Ciw of Tustin and the Irvine Public Works Department, as applicable. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or approval of'any subdivision map (except for financing and conveyance purposes), for any development that is either partially or completely located within the 100-year flood plain of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the development applicant shall submit all required documentation to the FEMA and demonstrate that the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision for changes to the 100-year flood plain is satisfied in a manner meeting the approval of each respective city, as applicable. Prior to the approval of any applicable subdivision map (except for financing and conveyance purposes), the developer-applicant shall design and construct local drainage systems for conveyance of the 10-year runoff. If the facility is in a local sump, it shall be designed to convey the 25-year runoff. Prior to any grading for any new development, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Tustin, City oflrvine, and/or OCFCD, as applicable: A drainage study including diversions (i.e., off-site areas that drain onto and/or through the project site), with justification and appropriate mitigation for any proposed diversion; bi~;'posal and Reuse of MCAi 'Tustin iEi~/EIR 26 SCH No. 94071005 ~. .. .. · · . (2) FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEM=NT OF' OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns would not result in increased 100-year peak discharges within and do~vnstream of the project limits, and would not worsen existing drainage conditions at storm drains, culverts, and other street crossings including regional flood control facilities. The study shall also propose appropriate mitigation for any increased runoff causing a worsening condition of any existing facilities within or downstream of project limits. Implementation of appropriate interim or ultimate flood control infrastructure construction must be included. Detailed drainage studies indicating how. in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, s~ree~ flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding, building pads are made safe from runoff inundation which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. Prior to approval of any subdivision .map (except for financing or conveyance purposes), an a~eement will be executed with the OCFCD that provides for the identification and contribution of a proJect-specific fair share contribution toward the construction of ultimate flood control facilities needed to accommodate build-out of the affected project. · Interim flood control facilities ma>,' be considered for approval provided such facilities meet OCFCD requirements. Nothing shall preclude the City. of Tustin from transferring the obligation onto other project developers within the project area. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City, Council finds that these implementation measures have been incorporated into the project. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Irvine or other agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES (SECTION 4.4 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) NEED: PR 0 VISION OF PUBLIC SER VICES AND FA CILITIES CONCURRENT WITH DEMAND To support proposed development in the reuse plan area, public services and facilities must be provided concurrent with demand. Implementation Measures The following implementation measures are hereby.adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP' General (m) The Ci~, of Tustin and the City of Irvine, each within its respective jurisdiction, shall ensure that adequate fire protection, police protection, and parks and recreation facilities bisposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 27 SCH No. 94'071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (including bikeways/trails) needed tO adequately serve the reuse plan area shall be provided as necessau,. To eliminate an3' negative impact the project could have on each communi¢"s general fund, financing mechanisms including but not limited to developer fees, assessment district financing, and/or tax increment financing (in the event that a redevelopment project area is created for the site), shall be developed and used as determined appropriate by each Ci~. Specifically; (1) Applicants for private development projects shall be required to enter into an agreement with City of Tustin or the Ci~ of Irvine. as applicable, to establish a fair-share mechanism to provide needed fire and police protection ser~,ices and parks and recreation facilities (including bikeways) through the use of fee schedules, assessment district financing, Community.. Facili~' District financing, or other mechanisms as determined appropriate by each respective ci~,. (2) Recipients of property through public conveyance process shall be required to mitigate any impacts of their public uses of propert3.' on public sen, ices and facilities. (n) The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall jointly consult and coordinate with the OCPFRD/Harbors, Beaches and Parks, Program Management and Coordination Division, in preparation of trail designs for the Peters Canyon and Barranca trails within the reuse plan area. Improvements for each of these trails would be installed upon completion of flood control channel improvements and approval of their joint use by the OCPFRD. Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services (o) Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit issuance for development (except for financing and reconveyances purposes), the project developer could be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin' or Ci~ of Irvine/OCFA. as applicable, to address impacts of' the project on fire services. Such agreement could include participation for fire protection, personnel and equipment necessaD' to serve the project and eliminate any negative impacts on fire protection services. (p) Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall work closely with the OCFA to ensure that adequate fire protection measures are implemented in the project. (q) Prior to issuance of building permits for phased projects, the project developer shall submit a construction phasing plan to the OCFA demonstrating that emergency vehicle access is adequate. (r) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a fire hydrant location plan for the review and approval of the Fire Chief and ensure that fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire flow requirements. Police Protection (s) Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall work closely with the Disposal and Reuse ofMcAS TUstin EI~IEIR ' ' ' 2~ ........... SCH No. ~4071005 ':': i-i' ) ,- FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS · respective Police Department to ensure that adequate securir3.: precautions are implemented in the project. Schools (t) Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project developer shall submit to the respective Cit'3..' proof of payment of appropriate school fees adopted by the applicabie school district. Parks attd Recreation (u) (v) Prior to the first final map recordation (except: for financing and rec0nveyance purposes) or building permit issuance for development within the City of Tustin portion of the site. the project developer shall be required to provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the CiB.' of Tustin Park Code. Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit issuance within the City. of Ir¥ine portion of the site, the project developer shall be required to provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the CiD' of lrvine Park Code. (x) Prior to the first concept plan for tentative tract map in the Ciw of Tustin, the project developer shall file a petition for the creation of a landscape maintenance district for the project area with the City of Tustin. The district shall include public neighborhood parks, 'landscape improvements, and specific trails (Barranca only), the medians in arterials, or other eligible items mutually agreed to by the petitioner and the Ci~ of Tustin. In the event that a district is not established prior to issuance of the first building permit, maintenance of items mentioned above shall be the responsibility of a community association. "Prior to approval of any subdivision map (except for financing or conveyance purposes), an agreement will be executed with the following agencies for the associated trail improvements: ao County of Orange Harbors, Beaches- identification of a project-specific fair share contribution toward the installation of necessary regional bikeway trail improvements within Peters Canyon Channel, to be installed in conjunction with the County of Orange's 'other channel improvements; bo City of Tustin - the identification of a project-specific fair share contribution toward the installation of Class II bicycle trails through the project site. For the area of the site northeast of Irvine Center Drive, a separate agreement would be required to ensure the provision of a bikeway right-of-way easement, and design and construction of a bike trial along the SCRRA/OCTA rail tracks from Harvard Avenue westerly to the Peters Canyon Channel. In addition, project developers of the areas of the site southeast of the Peters Canyon Channel would need to accommodate access to both the Peters Canyon Trail and the trail adjacent to the SCRRA/OCTA tracks in any project site design including dedication of any necessary recreational trail easements; Disposal arid Reuse gI'MCAS Tustin EI~/EIR ..... 29 ....... SCH N'o. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE~ .... £ OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CiB, of Tustin- the identification of a project-specific fair-share contribution toward installation of Class I bikeway trail improvements northerly.' of Barranca Parkway after completion of the Barranca Channel improvements. For proposed developments adjacent to Barranca Channel. separate agreements would be required to ensure the establishmem of a bikeway right-of-way easement between Jamboree Road and Red Hill Avenue. Findings Based on the FE1S/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin CID.' Council, the Ci~' Council finds that these implementation measures have been incorporated into the project. The City, Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibili~, and jurisdiction of the CiD, of Irvine or other agency or agencies other than the City, of Tustin can and should be adopted. DispoSal and Reuse of MCP~'S TUstin EIS/EIR " 30 ' ' 'SCH ko. 94071005 ,FI'N, DINGS OF FACT AND STATEMI::NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDEP~TIONS VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091, the City. of Tustin (CID') upon review of the FEIS/EIR, including the comments and responses therein, and based on all the information and evidence in the records, hereby makes the findings set herein: CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "describe a range of reaSonable alternatives to the project or to location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project..." (CEQA Guidelines. Section 15126.6(a)). If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker shall not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternatives infeasible. The findings with respect to alternatives to the project identified in the EIR are described in this section. · '.: .'.'.-.I · .. ... REASON~LE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES The EIS,"EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives, including the DON Disposal Alternative, the LRA Reuse Alternative (described in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 1, for which these findings address), two other alternatives (described in the FEIS/EIR as Alternatives 2 and 3), and the No Action Alternative (described in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 4). The alternatives presented in the FEIS/EIR were developed based on applicable laws and from .extensive public and other public agency input during the reuse planning process (as described in Chapter 2.0 of the FEIS/EIR). These alternatives focused on different programmatic objectives identified by the City., DON, the City's Base Closure Task Force, the public, and other public agencies. Key differences between the three reuse alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The City, as required by federal laws, undertook extensive public outreach to homeless service providers to Solicit and consider conveyance requests, as discussed in Section 2.2.2 of the FEIS/EIR. Also, a number of additional alternatives for the site were considered but rejected, as discussed in Section 2.3 of the FEIS/EIR. .The DON Disposal Alternative analyzes the direct environmental effects of DON's disposal of MCAS Tustin, without consideration of the reuse options, pursuant to DON NEPA guidelines. Since this disposal action is necessary for the three reuse alternatives, it is inherent to each reuse alternative, and is not considered further in these findings. The No Action Alternative evaluated in the FEIS/EIR is in compliance with NEPA. No Action may be defined as the continuation of an existing plan, policy, or procedure, or as failure to implement an action. CEQA also requires a No Project Alternative. The No Action Alternative and the No Project Alternative are equivalent in the context of the analysis in the FEIS/EIR, and are considered together as the "No Action Alternative" in the FEIS/EIR. The reuse alternatives considered in the FEIS/EIR (Alternatives 1, 2, 3) are analyzed in equal level of detail. Table I summarizes the three reuse alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) considered in the FEIS/EIR, and Table 2 summarize the key differences between the three reuse alternatives. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 31 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS , , , Table 1 SummaD.' Comparison of Land Development and Buildout Characteristics of Alternatives , , Characteristic [ Alternative 1 ..... Residential inumt~er of dwelling un'ii~ [DUI) ..... Log' Densib: Residential (1-7 DU/Acre) Medium Densib' Residential (8-15 DU/Acre) Medium to High Density Residential (16-25 DU/Acre) High Densir>' Residential (16-25 DU/Acre) Total Dwelling Units Commereial/Institutional/P, eereational (square footage) Transitional/Emereency Housing Comm ere i a l,rB us in ess Commercial Commercial/Recreation Village Sen, ices Village Mixed-Use Community Core Resen'e Area Golf Village (includes hoteI) Hotel Learnine Villa_oe Institutional/Commercial Cultural Center Communi~' Park .. Urban Regional Park Total Square Feet of Building Floor Area I" Alterna'tive: I "'Alter~'ati've 3 1,701{'1 1,479°) .4.601 13~-~ .~._94 4,305,251 713,412 0 315,592 0 3,630,726 0 280,526 0 1,412,651 0 0 40,531 574,992 11,406,975 1.729 2.132 2.344 6.205 ...... i.460" 1'865 (21 1.015 4_:140 ,, , , 5,623,867 1,258,884 437.560 0 929,420 0 0 0 339,768 0 351,268 570,636 312,543 0 9,214,585 , , , 0 5,142.528 1.219,593 437.560 0 712.467 0 1,702,464 0 283.140 0 467.037 557,568 ~94,_18 0 10,916,575. Area (acreage)(s) and Percentage of Development Residential Comm crc ial/B us iness Institutional/Recreational Roadways/Drainage Total Acreage Approximate On-site Population Approximate Employment(6} Approximate Average Daily Vehicle Trips {~> Includes dwelling units in Golf Village.. {2) Includes dwelling units in Reserve Area. ' 445 .... (28%') 738 (46%) 238 (15%) ~86 (~2%) 1,606 12,514 77,401 215,093 , , 558 739 131 178 1,606 , , .. (35%) (46%) (8%) (~%) '" i6',40'8 67,723 268,130 3;'6 (23%) 915 (57%) 139 (8%) 184 (11%) 1,606 66,454 294,887 ..... (3) Includes dwelling units in Community Core, residential density, consistent with Irvine General Plan Category. (4) Includes dwelling units in Village Mixed-Use, residential density, consistent with Tustin General Plan Category. (-~) Rounded to the nearest acre. {6) Includes direct, indirect/induced, and construction. Note: All acreage figures are estimates only. Figures in the text and the tables are included for discussion purposes. More detailed numbers (tenth of an acre) are provided in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (City of Tustin 1996b) and Errata (City. of Tustin 1998) Disposal and Reu;e Of l~ldA~ TUstin EIS'/I~iP~ ' SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA', 4T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS , Table 2 ~ Key Differentiating Factors Between Alternatives(3) Issue SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS Housing' , Empiovment Unit I Alternative 1 I Alternative 2 '... ?..;.0il ,.' ' ... Construction (Direct) I Jobs' ~ lSirect'(Project) ' I Jo~s Indirect/induced 'i Jobs . (n,.gn' co nstr.u ct i on) .... Total , Jobs ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ....... Aesthetics ,, Impacts to Prominent Blimp Hangars Visual Features ,, Culturai and Paleontological Re.so ,ur..ces Impacts ~o Historic Blimp Hangars Buildings 6.2'0i1 , 37.4'68 i 35.208 24.852 21.380 , ,, 77.4~)1 ..... ' ' If l~oth features' retained, no significant impact. Loss of one feature, not significant: loss of both features si~ificant and unavoidable. Retain botl~ hangars, no significant impact. Logs of one hangar, significant and unavoidable. Loss of both hangars significant and unavoidable. Alternative 3 , ,, Loss of one feature, not significant; loss of both features si~ificant and unavoidable. 4.340 . . 22.080 11.274 66.454 .... , , Loss of one hangar. si~ificant and Loss of one feature, not significant: loss of both features significant and unavoidable. ...... unavoidable. Loss of both hangars significant and unavoidable. ,, , Loss of one hangar, si~ificant and unavoidable. Loss of both hangars significant and unavoidable. Public Services and Facilities Reduce Existing 107 ac. Parkland Deficit . . Indirect Impacts to SAUSD~) .... Traffic/Circulation ...... Number of Significant. Unmitigable Intersections Number of Significant, Unmitigable Intersections ........ Air Qualitym ... INo. of Students Generated V'~a~ 2050 ,CO.. [Pounds/day I ' ' ' ROC { Pounds/dav 'NO'x '. .. I~ounds/dav " . , PM,,, ....... [Po~d$/d~y .... SOx [ P0unds/dav . . O'o 'Dwelling Unit~ 85 56 ' 79 ........ s2 .... ' I~2/509 "67i~37 ' 51 48~ 68/452 ' "~,891 3...940 (54)! . " 0'5) (34) , 2ilI . ' 295 .... 296- ~} Figures represent low/high estimates based on two methods of estimating indirect/induced jobs generated in SA. USD. m At buildout, operations emissions, net from baseline, including mitigation measures. All but PMk, would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. {3~ Information regarding air quality, traffic/circulation, and cultural and paleontological resources presented in this table, derived from Table 2-15 of the FEIS/EIR, has been altered to match the body text of the FEIS/EIR. Disposal and ReUSe ;f MC'Ag Tustin' ~-is/i~IR 33' scH I~I°. 9407100~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEi, it-NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the dispoSal and reuse of MCAS Tustin are: (~) (2) (3) (4) (5) Offset the negative socioeconomic effects caused by the Base Realignment And Closure Act; Reuse these properties under an economically viable and balanced reuse plan; Provide housing and employment opportunities; Solve existing communiD' circulation and recreation parkland deficiencies' and Generate sufficient revenue (properrs..' tax. sales tax or others) to support the investment in infrastructure required to improve the site for civilian purposes. _ ALTEtLNATIVES CONSIDERED DEIS/EIR Chapter 2.0 (Alternatives Considered) describes the project and other alternatives to the project considered during development of the project (see Table 1). DEIS/EIR Chapters 4.0 and 7.0 and DEIS/EIR Table ES-3 compares the potential environmental impacts of the project and the altematives, including the DON Disposal Alternative and the No Action Alternative. With the exception of the DON Disposal Alternative and the No Action Alternative, these alternatives would result in significant impacts in the same environmental impact issue areas as the project, as described in Section V. of these findings, primarily due to the scope of the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. However, the degree of impact for the project and each alternative in some cases differs, as described later in this Section VIII. Except for the significant unavoidable impacts that are common to each alternative, the impacts associated with each alternative can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation (as described in Section 4.0 of the DEIS/EIR). Thus, the alternatives are not clearly distinguished by the number or tS..'pe of significant impact they generate, but by the degree of impact they generate. Compared to the project (described in the FEIS/EIR as the LRA Reuse Alternative or Alternative 1), the alternatives do result in more or less of some of the impacts. , Table I provides a brief summary of the key characteristics of the three reuse alternatives, including the project (which is described in the FEIS/EIR as the LRA Reuse Alternative or Alternative 1 ). A more detailed description of the alternatives is included below. LRA RE USE AL TERNA'TII/E (AL TERNA TIVE I) The project considered in these findings is Alternative 1 of the EIS/EIR, the LRA Reuse Alternative. This alternative proposes a variety of housing, employment, recreation, educational, and community support uses designed to complement the existing urban character of the surrounding area and stren~hen the economic base of Tustin and nearby cities. The development of this alternative would result in the most building space, parkland, and educational uses. Among the three' action alternatives, only this alternative would result in' Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Regional Park developed around the northern blimp hangar (which would be reused if financially feasible)' a large Community Core developed with mixed uses; and specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village campus (see descriptions below). This alternative would permit reuse of some of the existing military structures and facilities, including recreational facilities such as baseball, softball, volleyball, football, and soccer fields plus basketball and Disposal arid Reuse of MCAS Tustin E1S/EIR ..... 34 ..... SCH No.'~}4071005 ..... -... · · · . o. FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE~,c'NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS .-. ,, tennis courts. In addition, the two blimp hangars, which contain 660.416 square feet of floor area, would be adaptively.used if financially feasible. The northern blimp hangar could support regional recreational activities in the form of special events center, sports center, museum, and historical aircraft restorations. The southern hangar could be used for film production, warehouse facilities, or light industrial uses permitted by the plan. Including the hangars, approximately 1.8 million square feet of structures, plus 1.537 housing units, could be reused under this alternative. Key components of the land use plan under this alternative include the followin_~: Residential (LDR, MDR, M_HDR) Residential devel0pmem with 4.601 units are proposed in the northern and southeastern portions ofthe reuse plan area, adjacent to existing neighborhoods in a varieD' of housing types at varying densities. This could include rehabilitation or redevelopment of the existing 1.537 attached military family housing units, if economically feasible. An 8-acre neighborhood park is also proposed. Transitional/Emergenc.s.' Housing (T/EH) Existing military barracks housing would be reused as a 192-bed Transitional/Emergency Housing facili~ for the homeless. Commercial/Business (CB) Commercial/Business use (high-tech research and development, professional office, retail, and other specialized employment/merchandising uses) would be concentrated in the southwestern portion ofthe reuse plan area on approximately 265 acres of land. .. Commercial (C) A regionally oriented commercial district (approximately 55 acres).would be developed within the southern portion of the reuse plan area. The commercial district includes the approximately 17-acre Army Reserve Center parcel, which would be designated as Commercial. Village Services (VS) Local commercial retail and service uses would be provided on 21 acres just northwest of the Tustin Ranch Road extension adjacent to new and existing residential uses. Communi~ Core (CC) The central portion of the reuse plan area would be a Community Core (~pproximately 225 acres), offering the opportunity to maintain .flexibility for future large-scale, mixed-use development to offset high infrastructure and demolition costs. The Community Core would develop as a later or final phase because of the need to remove existing runways and complete hazardous materials cleanup. Opportunities for Residential, and Commercial/Business and Industrial uses in either separate or integrated projects would · exist in this area, along with institutional uses, such as a 40-acre high school. Up to 891 residential units could be built in the Community Core. The southern blimp hangar within this area could be preserved, if financially feasible. Golf Village (GV) The Golf Village, to be located in the eastern portion of the reuse plan area, would include a 500-room hotel and ancillary commercial retail support services (i.e., restaurants, shops, etc.) in conjunction with the hotel, an 18-hole golf course, and residential development. Other uses would include two neighborhood parks and an elementary school. Di'spo~al ;nci Reus'e of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR ....... 35 ........ SCH Nd. 9zi07100S FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEME.~.....~fi- t)VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ..... Learning Village (LV) The 128-acre Learning Village, adjacent to the northwestern boundaD' of the site. would provide a specialized educational environment with a variety, of public-serving uses in a campus setting in the western portion of the reuse plan area. and would also include an elementary school. The majori~: of existing buildings and facilities within the Learning Village area could be reused. CommuniB' Park (CP) Located between the Learning Village and residential areas in the northen portion of the reuse plan area, this approximately 24-acre park xvould provide both a buffer and a link between the activities of both areas. Urban Regional Park (RI') The Urban Regional Park (approximately 85 acres), located in the north-central portion of the reuse plan area. would serve a number offunctions, including open space conservation, historic preservation, recreation, communi~: recreation programs, training, educational and interpretive programs, and supporting uses. The northern blimp hangar is expected to be preserved for adaptive use. if financially feasible. Circulation A street nem, ork would be created to serx, e the reuse plan area and would create through connections that would partially address regional circulation issues. This system (see Figure 2-1 of the FEIS/EIR) would be oriented around Valencia South Loop Road, which would extend from Valencia Avenue on the northwest, Moffett Avenue on the east. Warner Avenue on the southeast, and Armstron~ Avenue on both the west and the north. Armstrong Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road. and Warner Avenue would also be extended through the site. Other streets in. the reuse plan area would connect to the arterial street network and be oriented to efficiently serve on-site neighborhoods and districts. Development Phasing Future development based on this alternative would occur incrementally over a 20+ year time frame. The level of development Within any given phase would be tied to the availability, of the infrastructure necessary to support such development. Table 2-8 of the FEIS/EIR shows the approximate anticipated timing of development. A L TERNA TI VE 2 This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing housing and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. The development of this alternative (see Table 1) would result in the most housing, the least non-residential · floor area, the smallest amount of parkland, and would not contain a Community Core land use designation. A large Cultural Center would be developed under this alternative, and the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated, if financially feasible. This alternative would permit reuse of some existing military structures and facilities. The northern blimp hangar could be reused to support regional cultural activities in the form ora special events center, museum, or other permitted uses. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished under this alternative. Key components of the land use plan under this alternative include the' following: Residential (LDR, MDR, HDR) A total of 6,205 residential units would be located in the southeast (adjacent to existino neighborhoods), in Disposal and Reuse of MCAS'Tustin EIS/EIR 36 ...... SdH No. 940'71605 '.7::7::. ., FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA',. .~'T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS the east. in the northeast, and in the central portion of the reuse plan area. including both reuse of existing milita~' housing and construction of new housing. Two eight-acre neighborhood parks and four schools serving the residents would be developed with the residential development. Commercial/Business (CB) High-tech, research and development, professional office, retail, and specialized employment and merchandising uses would be concentrated on approximately 310 acres in the southwestern portion of the reuse plan area. adjacent to similar existino= urban development. Commercial (C) Commercial activities consisting of regionally oriented retail and service commercial uses would be located in the southern portion of the reuse plan area (approximately :78 acres), adjacent to similar existing urban development, and adjacent to the Hotel and Golf Course (described below). This includes the approximately 17-acre Army Reserve Center parcel, which would be developed as Commercial if DOD disposes of the propert3' in the future. COmmercial/Recreation (CR)' A Commercial/Recreation site (approximately 23 acres) would be created west of the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Warner Avenue and could be developed as an entertainment park, sports facilit3', and/or other such attraction. Village Mixed-Use (PI-CB (Village)) A mix of uses, consisting of Public Institutional and Commercial/Business (approximately, 310 acres) and Residential uses (1,035 dwelling units), would be provided in the northwesterly portion ofthe reuse plan area near the Cultural Center and the Community Park, and near commercial, industrial, and residential districts. The majori~, of existing military structures and facilities identified for possible reuse are located within this area and would be incorporated into the Village Mixed-Use development. Hotel (H) A 500-room hotel and associated commercial uses would be developed in the eastern portion of the reuse plan area (approximately 12 acres) adjacent to the Golf Course and Commercial areas. Golf Course (G) A 177-acre, 18-hole golf course encircling Iow density residential development would be developed in the northeastern portion of the reuse plan area. Public Institutional/Commercial (PFC) A Public Institutional/Commercial district (approximately 28 acres) would be created on the eastern edge of the reuse plan area, northwest of the future extension of Tustin Ranch Road. Park (PI (Park)) Located between the Village Mixed-Use area, the Cultural Center, and Residential areas in the northern portion of the reuse plan area, this approximately 47-acre park would provide both a buffer and a link between the activities of these areas.. Cultural Center (PI (Cultural)) A Cultural Center (possibly containing a museum amusement-type rides and/or facilities, interpretive centers, and other similar uses) encompassing 56 acres would be located in the center of the northern portion of the reuse plan area. If financially feasible, the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated into the center DiSpOSa! and Reuse of MeA~ Tustin EIS/EIR' ' '" ~7' ....... ~SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE! ..... T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS through adaptive use. Circulation A street network would be created to serve the reuse plan area and would create throu_~h connections that xvould partially address regional circulation issues (see Figure 2-2 of the FEIS/EIR). This system would be designed in a grid pattern to maximize network efficiency for both local traffic and through traffic. Other streets in the reuse plan area would connect to the arterial grid street network and be oriented to efficientlv serve on-site neizhborhoods and districts. Development Phasing Future development under Alternative 2 would occur incrementally over a 20+ year time frame. The level of development within any given phase would be tied to the availability of the infrastructure necessary to support such development. Table 2-11 of the FEIS/EIR shows the approximate anticipated timing of development. AL TERNA TIV£ 3 Alternative 3 proposes a varie~, of urban uses with a focus on enhancing'employment and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. The development of this alternative (see Table 1) would result in the least housing and the most commercial development. A large Cultural Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and would incorporate the northern blimp hangar,' if financially feasible. This alternative also would include a small, 179-acre mixed-use Reserve Area similar to the Community. Core, in Alternatives 1 and 2 and the largest Golf Course (187 acres) of the three reuse alternatives. This alternative could include reuse of some existing military structures and faciIities. The northern blimp hangar could be adaptively reused for activities related to the Cultural Center. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished. Key components of the land use plan under this alternative include the following: Residential (LDR, MDR) A total of 4,340 residential units (including both reuse of existing military housing and a variety of new housing types and densities) would be developed in the southeastern portion of the reuse plan area, adjacent to existing housing areas; in two pockets surrounded by the golf course; and in the northeastern portion of the site. Residential units would also be developed in the Reserve Area and in the Village Mixed-Use area. Two eight-acre neighborhood parks and two schools would be developed in conjunction with the residential development. Commercial/Business (CB) Commercial/Business uses would be concentrated in the western portion of the reuse plan area, adjacent to similar existing urban development. Commercial (C) Commercial activities(regionally oriented retail and service commercial uses) would be concentrated in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the reuse plan area, adjacent to similar existing urban development. bisposal and Reuse ~f MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 38 SCH No. 9}1'071605 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEM~_,-, r OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Commercial/Recreation (CR) A 23-acre Commercial/Recreation site (theme'park, sports facilit3.', or similar attraction) would be created at the western comer of Armstrong Avenue and Warner Avenue. Village Mixed Use (PI/CB) A mix of uses consisting of Public Institutional and Commercial/Business and Residential uses (1.015 dwelling units) would be provided in the northwesterly portion of the reuse plan area adjacent to the Cultural Center, Communir3.' Park. and Commercial and Residential districts. Reser~'e Area The central portion of the site is proposed for a 179-acre Reserve Area offering the opporrunit3.' to maintain flexibility for furore large-scale, mixed-use development to offset high infrastructure and demolition costs. The Reserve Area is expected to develop later because of the need to remove existing runways and complete hazardous materials cleanup. Opportunities for both Residential and Commercial/Business uses in either separate or integrated projects would exist in this area, along with Institutional uses if desired. Hotel (H) A 500-room hotel and associated commercial uses would be developed in the eastern portion of the reuse plan area, adjacent to the. golf course. Golf Course (G) An 187-acre, 18-hole golf course encircling low and medium density residential development would be located adjacent to the hotel in the southeastern portion of the reuse plan area. Public Institutional/Commercial (PUC) A mixed-use Public Institutional/Commercial area would be created on the northeastern ed_e of the reuse plan area, including institutional and commercial uses serving surrounding residential areas. Park (PI (Park)) A 51-acre Community. Park would be developed in the northern portion of the site at the intersection of Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue between the Village Mixed-Use area, the Cultural Center, the Reserve Area, and Residential areas. The park would incorporate existing facilities and contain picnic areas, community center buildings, multi-purpose rooms, and supporting uses. · Cultural Center (PI (Cultural)) A Cultural Center encompassing 51 acres would be located in the center of the northern portion of the site between the Community Park, Village Mixed-Use, and the Reserve Area. If financially feasible, the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated into the Cultural Center through adaptive use as a special events center (for sports events, cultural events, large concerts, conferences, conventions, etc.), a sports center, a museum, restaurants, picnic areas, a video arcade, or an historic collections facility. The Cultural Center could contain a museum, amusement-t3.,pe rides and/o~ facilities, interpretive centers, and other similar uses. Circulation A street network in a central loop pattern would be created to serve the reu.se plan area and would create through connections that would partially address regional circulation issues (see Figure 2-3 ofthe FEIS/EIR). Existing streets within the reuse plan area would connect to the arterial street network and be oriented to efficiently serve on-site neighborhoods and districts. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR .... 39 ' SCI-i ~o. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STAq. · OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Development Phasing Future development based on Alternative 3 would occur incrementally over a 20+ year time frame. The level of development within any given phase would be tied to the availability, of the infrastructure necessaW to support such development. Table 2-14 of the FEIS/EIR shows the approximate anticipated timing of development. The future market demand forecasted for uses in the reuse plan area and the complexiU' and timing of environmental cleanup efforts would be the primhry.' factors influencing this schedule. AL TER.~:4 TIVE 4: NO ACTION AL TER]~54 TIVE The No Action Alternative evaluated in the EIS/EIR is in compliance with NEPA (40 C.F.R. § 1502.14(d)). No Action may be defined as the continuation of an existing plan, policy, or procedure, or as failure to implement an action. In an)..' case. the No Action Alternative provides a benchmark to compare the magnitude . of the environmental effects of the various alternatives. CEQA also requires a No Project Alternative (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15126.6(e) (1998)). The No Action Alternative and the No Project Alternative are equivalent in the context of this analysis, and will be considered together as the "No Action Alternative" in this document. Under the No Action Alternative, the Marine Corps would retain ownership of approximately 1.585 acres of surplus real property. Except for the existing agricultural and building leases, all buildings would remain vacant and all other facilities would remain in place but would be unused. The Marine Corps property.' would remain under caretaker status as discussed in Chapter 1 of the FEIS/EIR. The area would be fenced off. the unleased buildings ~vould be boarded up, and a military security and maintenance staff of approximately ten persons would be present. The grounds, infrastructure, and buildings would be maintained and repaired as necessau' to prevent deterioration. Site environmental cleanup would continue and be completed. No new construction would occur under this alternative except as allowed by existing lease authorization. Approximately 17 acres of property' would be transferred to the Army Reserve. SUMMARY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES ....... ... . . · Table 2 summarizes the key differentiating factors between the three .reuse alternatives. As shown, in some instances, very little or no environmental impact was projected to occur; in other instances, significant, unmitigable impacts were anticipated. The comparative analysis was structured to focus on key differentiating factors-- instances where the severib' of an impact would be appreciably different among the alternatives. In doing so, it was determined that in several environmental issue areas the impacts were either very minor, or were in essence similar for all three reuse alternatives. These issues included: · Land Use · Utilities · Biological Resources · Agricultural Resources · Soils and Geology · Water Resources · Hazardous Wastes, Materials Substances and · Noise · Cumulative Impacts · Short-term Use and Long-term Productivity · Growth-inducing Impacts · Environmental Justice · Environmental Health and Safety Risksto Children Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 40 SCH No. 94071005 i' FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE ..... T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS In as much as these issues did not contribute to the process of comparing and differentiating between alternatives, they were eliminated from the comparative analysis. However, through the process of elimination described in Section '~.5.1 of the EIS/EIR. the analvsis was able to focus on kev differentiatino impacts from the following issue areas: · Socioeconomics · Aesthetics · Public Facilities and Sen, ices · Cultural and Paleontological Resources · Traffic/Circulation · Air Quali~, It should be noted that. even within these six key issue areas, the focus was on only those specific impacts that served to distinguish among the three reuse alternatives. Following the guidance provided in the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (Cal. Code Re~., Title 14, § 15126.6(d) (1998)), a matrix (Table 2) was developed to display and compare specific discriminating impacts for each of the alternatives. As discussed below, there would be benefits associated .with Socioeconomics and Public Facilities and Sen, ices (parkland only)' the other issue areas are discussed in terms of adverse impacts. SOCIO£CONOMICS Employment is considered a socioeconomic benefit as opposed to an environmental impact and because housing has been identified as a purpose of reuse by the Ci~, provision of housing is regarded as a benefit as well. Alternative 2 would generate the most housing units, with more than 1,500 units than Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would generate 77,401 total jobs consisting of construction jobs, direct jobs in the reuse plan area and indirect/induced jobs (excluding construction). This number is almost 10,000 higher than the next closest alternative (Alternative 2). Given that the primary City goal is to create a reuse that would generate jobs and revenue to allow for other important goals (housing, parkland etc.), the'alternative which best maximizes socioeconomic benefits would be Alternative 1. AESTHETICS Possible distinguishing impacts to aesthetics are related to the blimp hangars which are prominent visual features. Under Alternative 1, one or both of the hangars may be retained if financially feasible. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the southern blimp hangar would be eliminated and the northern hangar would be . retained, if feasible. While there would be a noticeable visual' contrast with the loss of one hangar, the remaining hangar would continue to serve as a landmark and the visual impact would be less than significant. The loss of both hangars, however, would result in significant, unmitigable visual impacts. Therefore, from a visual perspective Alternative 1 may be preferred if at least one of the hangars is retained and if both hangars are eliminated under the other two alternatives. It should be noted that the financial feasibility of retaining the hangars is uncertain, even under Alternative 1, and the impacts may be identical under each. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES As with aesthetics, the key factors under this topic are the historic hangars because the eligible discontiguous historic districts would be eliminated under all three alternatives. Under Alternative 1, both hangars may be retained if financially feasible. This would avoid impacts to these historic features. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 the southern hangar would be eliminated which is a significant and unmitigable impact. If both hangars were to be eliminated there would be a greater relative impact. Therefore, Alternative 1 may have least relative impact to historic.resources, but only if both hangars were to be retained. It is possible that it would not be financially feasible to retain either ofthe hangars under this alternative. If this is the case, there would be irreversible significant impacts to the hangars under each of the alternatives. Disposal ~nd Reuse of MCAS Tustin'EIS/EIR 41 SCH No.' 94071005. FINDINGS OF FACT .AND ST.-\T~ I ,,~F OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS __ , , · , PUBLIC SER I,'TCE$ AN.D FA CILITIES There are two items of distinction under this issue: parkland and the indirect impact of students generated in the Santa Aha Unified School District (SAUSD). The CiD' has identified an existing 107-acre parkland deficit in the CiD' of Tustin. All three reuse alternatives would generate parkland, both a large-scale regional-ser~'ing park and' several smaller neighborhood and communiD' parks. The communiD' and neighborhood parks would generally serve the population associated with the reuse plan area. For comparison purposes, this analysis focuses on the more regional component only. Alternative I would create the largest urban regional park (85 acres) and Alternative 3 would have the smallest (51 acres). While all three alternatives would contribute a substantial amount (over 45 percent) to reduce the existing parkland deficit. Alternative 1 would involve the greatest percentage (almost 80 percent). .. All three alternatives could indirectly induce students into the over-capa¢i~' SAUSD because employment could result in some new £amilies locating within the district boundaries. There is no single method to calculate the amount of induced growth in the district, so a'low and high range is provided in this analysis. The ~eatest number of students indirectly generated would be under Alternative 1. Given the wide range o£ possible fiscal impacts and funding services, should a funding deficit occur, it is anticipated that the SAUSD would not be negatively financially impacted under even Alternative 1. The need for new facilities is not confirmed and there is no facili~, design or location to be analyzed for physical impact in this document. The determination of physical impacts, and mitigation as appropriate, would be the responsibili~, of tt~e SAUSD. TR, 4 FFI C/CIR C UL, 4 TI ON Traffic would be 'generated under all three alternatives that would impact the surrounding circulation sy, stem. Various mitigation measures are recommended at specific intersections to increase the flow of traffic and reduce or eliminate identified impacts. Even with mitigation, some intersections'under all three alternatives would operate below acceptable levels of service. The greatest number of intersections considered unmitigable would be under Alternative 2, with five unmitigable intersections in 2020. Alternative 3 would result in unmitigable impacts at four study intersections in 2020. Alternative 1 would have the least relative traffic impact because it would have ~'o significant unmitigable impacts at the build-out conditions. AIR OUALITY buildout operations air emissions under all three alternatives would excee'd South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds, for all analyzed pollutants except PM 10. The relative emission rates in pounds/day illustrate that Alternative 1 would have the lowest net emissions and therefore the least impact. SUMMARY OF COMPARISON Alternative 1 would result in the greatest number ofjobs and greatest amount of parkland, which are two of the purposes of the reuse project. Further, it would have the least relative impact to aesthetics, traffic/circulation, and air quality. Financfal feasibility may preclude the retention of either blimp hangar; however, under Alternative 1, the land use plan.provides for incorporation of both features while under Alternatives 2 and 3 only the northern hangar is incorporated. While it may indirectly generate the greatest number of students to the SAUSD, the eventual impact to the district is uncertain at this time. On balance, Alternative 1 would result in the least overall adverse environmental impact and is therefore identified as the environmentally superior reuse alternative. Disi~osal and Reuse of MC'~S'T~tin EIS/EIR 42 SCH No. 94071065 , ...... ._ ., FI,NDINGS OF FACT AND STATEM.L . .. D~,'ERRIDING CONSIDERATION~ .... FINDINGS REG.~~G ALTERNATIVES LRA RE USE AL TERJ~M TIVE (AL TERNA TIVE I) The project considered in these findings is Alternative 1 of the EIS/EIR, the LPg& Reuse Alternative. This alternative proposes a varieD, of housing, employment, recreation, educational, and communit3' support uses designed to complement the existing urban character of the surrounding area and stren~hen the economic base of Tustin and nearby cities. The development of this alternative would result in the most building space, parkland, and educational uses. Among the three action alternatives, only this alternative would result in' Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Regional Park developed around the northern blimp hangar (which would be reused if financially feasible); a large Community Core developed with mixed uses; and specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village campus. This alternative would permit reuse of some of the existino military itructures and facilities, includino recreational facilities such as baseball, softball, volleyball, football, and soccer fields plus basketball and tennis courts. In addition, the two blimp hangars, which contain 660,416 square feet of floor area, would be adaptively used if financially feasible. The northern blimp hangar could support regional recreational . activities in the form of special events center, sports center, museum, and historical aircraft restorations. The southern hangar could be used for film production, warehouse facilities, or light industrial uses permitted by, the plan. Including the hangars, approximately 1.8 million square feet of structures, plus 1.53 7 housing units, could be reused under this alternative. AL TER2VA TIVE 2 This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing housing and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. The development of this alternative (see Table 1 ) would result in the most housing, the least non-residential floor area, the smallest amount of parkland, and would not contain a Community Core land use designation. A large Cultural Center would be developed under this alternative, and the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated, if financially feasible. This alternative would permit reuse of some existing military, structures and facilities. The northern blimp hangar could be reused to support regional cultural activities in the form of a special events center, museum, or other permitted uses. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished under this alternative. Findings The City Council finds that Alternative 2 is infeasible within the meaning of PRC {} 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental or other considerations. Alternative 2 would create additional significant environmental impacts.and'would not meet the project objectives 'to the degree of Alternative 1' As discussed on page 2-40 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 would result in 9,678 fewer jobs than Alternative 1 (see Table 2). , As discussed on page 2-42 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 could result.in the removal of both blimp Disposal and Reuse of MC/~g Tustin EIS/EIR ' SCH No. 940'}1065 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMr-NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS . hangars, unlike Alternative 1, which would retain both blimp t~angars if financialt,v feasible (see Table 2). ., As discussed on page 2-42 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 would not result .in reducing the Cir>,"s parkland deficit to the degree as Alternative 1 (see Table 2). As discussed on page 2-4'3 of the FE1S/EIR. Alternative 2 xvould result in si=m~ificant unavoidable impacts at more intersections than Alternative 1 in both 2005 and 2020 (see Table 2). o As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 would result in greater emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), oxides of nitrogen ('NO.0, suspended particulate matter (PM10), and oxides of nitrogen than Alternative 1-(see Table 2). AL TER~"A TIV-E 3 Alternative 3 proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing employment and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. The development of this alternative (see Table 1) would result in the least housing,= and the most commercial development. A large Cultural Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and would incorporate the northern blimp hangar, if financially feasible. This alternative also would include a small, 179-acre mixed-use Reserve Area similar to the Communi~ Core. in Alternatives 1 and 2 and the largest Golf Course (187 acres) of the three reuse alternatives. This alternative could include reuse of some existing militao, structures and facilities. The northern blimp hangar could be adaptively reused for activities related to the Cultural Center. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished. . . . · - · . . . Findings The City Council finds that Alternative 3 is infeasible within the meaning of PRC {} 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental or other considerations. Alternative 3 would create additional significant environmental impacts and would not meet the project objectives to the degree of Alternative 1' .2. . As discussed on page 2-42 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would result in 10,947 fewer jobs than Alternative 1 (see Table 2). As shown on page 2-41 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would result in 261 fewer housing units than Alternative I (see Table 2). As discussed on page 2-42 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 could result in the removal of both blimp hangars, unlike Alternative 1, which would retain both blimp hangars if financially feasible (see Table 2). As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would not result in reducing the City's parkland deficit to the degree as Alternative 1 (see Table 2). 5. As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would result in significant unavoidable Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 44 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEM, aF OVERRIDING CONSIDEtL~TIONS impacts at more intersections than Alternative 1 in 2020 (see Table 2). o As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR. Aliemative 3 would result in greater emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), oxides of nitrogen (NO.0. suspended, particulate matter (PM I 0), and oxides of nitrogen than Alternative 1 (see Table 2). AL TERArA TltZE 4: NO ACTION AL TEtLNgl TIVE Under the No Action Alternative, the Marine Corps would retain ownership of approximately 1,585 acres of surplus real property. Except for the existing agricultural and building leases, all buildings would remain vacant and all other facilities would remain in place but would be unused. The Marine Corps prope~, would remain under caretaker status as discussed in Chapter I of the FE1S/EIR. The area would be fenced off, the unleased buildings would be boarded up, and a military securi~, and maintenance staff of approximately ten persons would be present. The grounds, infrastructure, and buildings would be maintained and repaired as necessary to prevent deterioration. Site environmental cleanup would continue and be completed. No new construction would occur under this alternative except as allowed by existing lease authorization. Approximately 17 acres of property would be transferred to the Army Reserve. Findings The Cit).' Council finds that Alternative 4 is infeasible within the meaning Of PRC § 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental or other considerations. Alternative 4 xvould create additional significant environmental impacts and would not meet the project objectives to the degree of Alternative 1' o As discussed on page 4-30 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would result in continued land use incompatibiliw between MCAS Tustin and surrounding areas. o As discussed on page 4-30 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not address economic development needs and thus would not meet the federal objectives stated in Public Law '103-160, concerning public need and revitalization of closed militau installations. As discussed on page 4-30 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not meet the principles of the "Report of the California Military Base Reuse Task force to Governor Pete Wilson: A Strategic Response to Base Reuse Opportunities, January 1994," in that no reuse would take place and no new jobs would be generated. 4, As discussed on. page 4-31 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not provide additional housing opportunities. Specifically, the No Action Alternative would provide 4,601 fewer dwelling units than Alternative 1. o As discussed on page 4-31 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not provide additional employment opportunities. Specifically, the No Action Alternative would provide 77,401 fewer direct, indirect/induced, and construction jobs than Alternative 1. 6. As discussed on page 4-31 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not offset the negative socioeconomic effects caused by the Base Real.ignment and Closure Act. 7. As discussed on page 4-79 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would preclude the beneficial Disp°sai'a'nd 'Reuse'of ~CAS Tustin EIS'/I~IR' 45 ScH No. 94071005 . . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATI--. .~T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS effec~ associated with development of parkland, which is a purpose and need of the reuse plan. As discussed on page -,-9_ a '~ of the FEIS/EIR... reduced staffing and inactiviw, would effect the character of the site in that once busy neighborhoods and buildings would be under-utilized. There is also the potential for reduced maintenance to effect the visual qualit3, of the site. aboveground utilities would remain, and the beneficial impact due to reducing urban clutter under Alternative 1 would not be realized. As discussed on page 4- l 01 of the FEI'S/EIR. the potential for further deterioration throu__.h.a..~n_ wou2' 2 Id persist. As discussed on page 4-108 of the FEIS/EIR, proposed improvements to Peters Canyon Channel in the vicinity of the reuse plan area are separate from the proposed action' such improvements and associated mitigable impacts on biological resources could occur if OCFCD pursued the project independently. As discussed on page 4-128 of the FEIS/EIR. agricultural production on the leased land would continue to affect water quality with runoff containing pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other common chemicals used for a~riculture. As discussed on page 4-137 of the FEIS/EIR, hazardous wastes, substances, and materials cleanup efforts would not be accelerated pursuant to the President's fast-track cleanup directive. As discussed on page 4-204 of the FEIS/EIR, implementation of the No Action Alternative would prevent the extension of Tustin Ranch Road/Von Karman Avenue, Valencia Avenue,rMoffett Avenue. and Warner Avenue through the reuse plan area, which would contribute to the elimination of existing circulation deficiencies, which is a purpose of the reuse plan. As discussed on page 4-204 of the FEIS/EIR, the. continued closure of the reuse plan area would eliminate opportunities for improved transit sen, ice with direct routing of bus lines across the reuse plan area. Additional circulation improvements will be required to accommodate full buildout of local General Plans. As discussed on page 4-205 of the FEIS/EIR, development associated with reuse, or additions to the CiD, of Tustin and City. oflrvine Capital Improvement programs; as applicable, would be required to extend arterial roadways through the reuse plan area to avoid traffic circulation impacts. ... . · . Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 46 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE ,., ,,.: NT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDER.~TION5 IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDEtL4TIONS SUMMARY OF OVERRIDING CONSIDEtLATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a decision-maker, in this case the Tustin Cit)..' Council, to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in. determining whether to approve the project. If the Tustin City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects through approval of a pro. ject, it must state its specific reasons for so doing in writing. Such reasons are included in the "statement of overriding considerations." Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the following requirements for a statement of overriding considerations' (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 proposed project oum, eigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) 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 substantiall.x.' 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. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overridino 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. The City of Tustin (hereafter referred to as "City") adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts identified within the Final Environmental Impact Statement/EnVironmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. In adopting Resolution , the Tustin-City Council ac'knowledges that it has weighed the benefits of the identified LRA Reuse Alternative (know as Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR) against the adverse significant impacts that have not been avoided or substantially lessened to less-than-significant leveJs through mitigation. The Tustin City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the LRA Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1 ) outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the project should be approved. The Tustin Cir3.' Council finds that to the extent that the identified significant adverse impacts have not been avoided or substantially lessened, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations which support approval of the project. SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE IMPACTS Unavoidable or potentially unavoidable significant environmental effects ofthe project identified in the Final EIR/EIS and Findings of Significant Impacts include the following' Dispolal a"nd Re'use ol; MC'kS Tustin EIS/EIR .... 47 ' '' scH N'~. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STAI ,_ .... ,..,£ OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The loss of both hangars would be a significant unmitigable visual impact. All of the two discontinuous historic districts would be eliminated. The intent is to retain both han_~ars, if financially feasible, but one or both of the blimp hangars could be eliminated. Existing farmland would no longer be cultivated. Project development will result in the conversion of approximately 682 acres of Prime Farmland and 20 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance for a total of 702 acres of Farmland to non-agricultural use. There would be decreased levels of service at certain intersections and road se_~ments. With feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (>,ear _0.;0). Peak reduced emissions of suspended particulates (PM~0), reactive organic compounds (ROC), and oxides of nitrogen (NO.,) due to construction activities would exceed South Coast Air QualiW Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance during some or all phases of the project. Long-term operation emissions from mobile (vehicular) and stationaw sources would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, NO.,, and ROC. The proposed project has not been included in the modeling assumptions of the 1994 or 1997 AQMPs, and is therefore inconsistent with the AQMP. Reuse ofMCAS Tustin and the possible resultant loss of both blimp hangars, in conjunction with other development in Orange County (in particular, reuse of the former MCAS El Toro), would result in a significant change in the visual setting of the area. The project would result in irreversibly eliminating most of the ~,o discontiguous eligible historic districts and could result in the demolition of one or both blimp hangars, depending on whether reuse is financially feasible. These actions would contribute to a cumulative loss of World War II United States military development, which is increasingly being demolished due to military base closings. The proposed project would result in conversion of approximately 702 acres of Farmland. While this conversion is wpical in Orange County, the cumulative impact would be significant because this Farmland and other agricultural land being convened in Orange County represents some of the last remaining agricultural land in the County. The analysis of project-level impacts in the FEIS/EIR consider the project's contribution to cumulative impacts. While most impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, significanttraffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020). The project, when considered with projected growth in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), will contribute to significant air quality impacts. '.?; .'.-.: - -! '..-.. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 48 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEIx .... T OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ,, ADOPTION OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Cit>..' specifically adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that: a) as part of the approval provisions, the LRA Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1) has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible; b) other mitigation measures to mitigate the effects associated with the project are within the jurisdiction of other public agencies, and. c) the remaining unavoidable impacts of the project are acceptable in light of the environmental, economic, legal, social. technological, and other considerations set forth herein, because the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and adverse impacts. The Cia..' finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the LRA Re:use Alternative (Alternative 1 ) outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval ofthe L1L4 Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1). These matters are supported by substantial evidence in the record. FINDINGS OF 0 VENDING CONSIDERATIONS The adoption of the project (identified in the FEIS/EIR as the LRA Reuse Alternative. or Alternative 1 will enable the Ci~, of Tustin to offset the negative socioeconomic effects caused by the Base Reali_mament and Closure Act (B1Lz~C) and the resultant closure of MCAS Tustin to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. Specifically, the project will provide the greatest number of jobs. The Cirs.' finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. .'.7.'.:3.:. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to reuse the reuse plan area under an economically viable and balanced reuse plan to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to provide a substantial amount of both emplo.~'ment and housing opportunities. Specifically, the project will provide 77,401 jobs, the greatest number of jobs of the alternatives, as well as provide over 4,600 housing units. The Ci~ finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to solve existing communi~ circulation and recreation parkland deficiencies to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. The project will result in approximately 85 acres of parkland, the greatest amount of parkland of the alternatives. The project will connect local and regional thoroughfares and will result in significant unavoidable impacts at two intersections, the least of the reuse alternatives considered. Thus, the project will provide the greatest amount of parkland and least number ofunmitigable traffic impacts. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to generate sufficient revenue (property tax, sales tax or others) to .support the investment in infrastructure required to improve the site for civilian purposes to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will result in the least overall relative environmental impact of the. alternatives considered. Specifically, the project will result in the least relative impact to aesthetics, traffic/circulation, and air quality. Moreover, the project could provide for incorporation of both blimp hangars, while 'Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin EIS/EIR ..... 49 ' SCH No. 94071005 .. FINDINGS OF FACT .AND ST.:, ,J£ OVERRIDING CONSID~R.'\TIONS Alternatives 2 and 3. would retain onlx' the northern blimp hangar, if financially feasible. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. L:\env\700S\731 \finding.wpd Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 50 SCH No. 94071005 1 Exhibi.t B to Resolution 00-90 Mitigation Monitoring Report for Final EIS/EIR Resolution No. 00-90. Mitigation Monitoring and-Reporting Program for Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report For the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin scH No. 94071005 citY of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Date Adopted by Tustin' December 18, 2000 This lvlitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California £nvironmental Quali~~ Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6. Its purpose is to provide for accomplishment of mitigation measures required by the Final Environmental Impact Sra~emenffEnvironmenral Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the disposal and reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse.Number 94071005), located in the Ci~' of Tusrin and the CiD' of lr¢ine, in the Count: of Orange (see Figure 1). The Ciu' of Tustin has adopted the mitigation measures included in the Final EIS,qEIR in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. Prior to approval of any discretionau: approval in Irvine. Irvine will adopt the measures. This program has been desired to ensure compliance during project implementation. ' Mitigation measures and implemenJation measures identified in the Final EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin have been incorporated into a checklist. Each mitigation measure and implementation measure is listed separately on the checklist with appropriate spaces for monitoring the progess of implementation of each measure. Implementation measures are required where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. For these purposes, both implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and are equally enforceable. The followin~ information is identified for each measure listed in the checklist' The timing of implementation of the mitigation measure or implementation measure. The appropriate agency to enforce the mitigation measure or implementation measure. The mitigation measures and implementation measures in the table are listed by environmental impact area in the same order as they are listed in the Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Management The disposal and reuse ofMCAS Tustin is a long-term program that includes a number of mitigation measures. Some of these measures are applicable at the individual development project level, and others are applicable to the overall pi-ogram or plan. In order to coordinate implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a regular review of the progress of the program is required. Annual Review Of Mitigation Monitoring and Reportbtg Program The overall management of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be managed by the City. of Tustin. as applicable to the City' s jurisdiction. The City. will undertake an annual review of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as applicable to Tustin and prepare a brief progress memorandum based on that review. The City of Irvine will prepare a similar EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MC, AS TUS~N BDUNDARY REUSE P:~ A.~.-~., BOUNDARY CITY DF SANTA ANA CFi'Y O.=' I,=W'INE SANTA ANA iTUSTIN ..: .,, ... .,o · · Norlh No Scale 'Figure 1 Reuse Plan Area EIS/EIR./'or tt~e Disposal and Reuse o. f MCAS Tustin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program memorandum. The memoranda from each CID.' should be transmitted 'to each respective agency's CiD' Council for acceptance after completion. The reviewer, the CommuniD' Development Director or designee, will check each mitigation measure in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to determine whether or not that implementation measure is complete. If the mitigation measure has been completed for the project, the reviewer should line through the mitigation measure on the form. initial and date the line indicating that the mitigation measure has been completed. For measures that require a report, prog-ram, or plan, the reviewer should determine if that report, program, or plan is due based on the progress of implementing the program ~o date. If the report. pro.am, or plan is timely, that fact should be reported in the 'review memorandum ro the head of each agency. If' no such pro.am is necessao' at this time, the memorandum should so state. For measures that are ongoing measures, the memorandum should report whether these measures are actively being pursued, and if not, what action is appropriate. If the measures are no longer appropriate or necessao' because the environmental effect is no longer an issue, then that fact should be reported in the review memorandum, and the discontinuation .of the mitigation measure recommended. If measures are not being implemented 'adequately, recommendations should be made ~o improve the application of the mitigation measure. For measures that apply at the project level, the memorandum should report whether or not such measures are being actively applied to individual projects. If the measures are no longer appropriate or necessao.~ because the environmental effect is no longer an issue, then that fact should be reported in the review memorandum, and the discontinuation of the mitigation measure recommended. If measures are not being implemented adequately, recommendations should be made to improve the application of the mitigation measure. Implementation of Program-Level Mitigation Measures Program-level mitigation measures are measures that do not apply to individual development projects, but which apply at the overall program level. They are.implemented through the regular actions of the City of Tustin Community Development Department, City of Irvine Community Development Department, or other applicable departments within both cities' discretionary project review. These measures are reviewed' and monitored through the annual program review discussed abo~,e. · Implementation of Project-Level Mitigation Measures Project-level mitigation measures are monitored through the appropriate City's (Tustin or Irvine) planning review process and discretionary project review. When a development project within the Reuse Plan Area is submitted for planning review to each City, each respective planning reviewer will have a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist including all pages that contain-measures applicable to that project. Before approving plans, the planning reviewer will ensure that all mitigation measures are incorporated into'building plans, site plans, public improvements plans, etc. EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (i.e. those that are not project-design mitigaion measures). Project-Design Mitigation Measures A project-design mitigation measure is a measure that needs to be incorporated into the project design as part of any project approval; for example, traffic improvements or exterior lighting plans. Such measures may be normally shown on the building plans, site plans, public improvement plans, specifications, or other project documents. The mitigation monitoring checklist will be used to check off those mitigation measures required. If a mitigation measure is not shown on the appropriate plan sheets, plans will be sent back for incorporation of those mitigation measures or approved equivalents. Plans will not be approved until each mitigation measure is incorporated into the project design. After plans are approved, and before any component of design is approved as complete by the appropriate City. in its inspection, the project proponents will submit proof that each mitigation measure shoxam on the plans has been installed or incorporated into the constructed project. Verification of compliance will then be noted on the monitoring checklist and signed off. completing the process for this catego~ of mitigation measure. The monitoring program for measures to be incorporated into project design is the same program that is currently used to verify compliance with applicable City codes in design and construction. No additional staffing is required, except that training may be appropriate to alert inspectors to the new requirements and the use of the monitoring checklist. In case of some specific unique or unusual mitigation measures, it may be appropriate or necessary to contract with consultants for inspection or verification of mitigation measures. Construction Mitigation Measures Construction mitigation measures are measures designed to reduce the 'impacts of construction, and in general are required to be maintained in operation continually during construction. Monitoring will be verified by building, public works, or grading inspectors as appropriate during their regular visits to the sites during construction, and reported to the Public Works D'irector or designee. Reporting of compliance with mitigation measures should be required at least monthly, with reports of violations made immediately to the appropriate department. Operational Mitigation Measures Operational mitigation measures are intended to verify the impl'ementation of mitigation measures that will continue after the project is occupied and in operation. These mitigation measures should be verified on an annual basis, and if problems are noted, reinspected on a more regularbasis until the measure is operating effectively. Monitoring of such measures may be certified by the a~)plicants/operators with verification bythe applicable Ci~. In that event, each applicable City shall exercise its independent judgement in verifying compliance. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures X'ersus Implementation Measures The Final EIS,.'rEIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin identifies both. mitigation measures and implementation measures. Implementation measures are to be required where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. For these purposes, both implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. and equally are enforceable. . AvailabiliB: of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro.am checklist will be retained in each pro.am and project file and will be available for public inspection on proper request. Monitoring Program Fees For major projects for which the mitigation monitoring effort is substantial, i't may be appropriate to charge mitigation monitoring fees to support the actual costs of project-level mitigation monitoring. In such cases, the appropriate City will charge and collect from the project proponent a fee in the amount of the anticipated actual cost to the City' for monitoring all mitigation measures. including consultant sen'ices and costs of administration, for a project as described in this program. A deposit may be required by the City to be applied toward this fee, if established by City resolution or ordinance. Any unused portion of the deposit will be refunded. In the case of a project where the applicant will not be associated with the project after Construction, the City will charge the anticipated cost of operation of the Mitigation Monitoring and. Reporting Program for an appropriate period in advance. San ctio ns/P enalties The applicable City may lexg, sanctions or penalties established by resolution or ordinance for violations of conditions listed in the monitoring program. These sanctions and penalties may include: o Civil penalties/fines according to City codes. "Stop work" orders. Revocation of permits. Holding issuance of Certificate of Occupancy until completion of work. Forfeiture of performance bonds. Agency implementation of measures with appropriate charges to the applicant based on Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program agreements. EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MC,4S Tztstin 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Dispute Resolution In the event of a disagTeement between the Ci~: and prOject applicants/operators regarding the monitoring prog-ram, including manner of payment, penalties for noncompliance, and financial security, arrangements, the following procedure, or other appropriate procedure as provided for in the applicable Tustin or Irvine Municipal Code. or CEQA Guidelines. will be followed: The applicable City's representative will attempt to resolve the disa~eement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, the applicable City's representative will prepare a report documenting the source of the dispute and the City's position. · The applicable City' s representative will take the report before the Communiu: Development Director, who will determine the resolution of the disag-reement. The decision oft.he Community Development Director may be appealed to the City Council on payment of the Civ,."s standard fee for appeal. The decision of the CiD' Council shall determine the outcome of the appeal. " -, ¥..,..,'.. EIS/EIR xfbr the Disposal and Reuse of MC,4S Tustin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program t --"" -- , -- '-" m-- ~ :'-" '-'~-- ._~ --- '-- o, r.m '~ ~ r,,m I '-- ~ ~! '-- c~ ,-- ,.< ~_- ....... '-' · ~ ~ "' '" -- I -- > I I > > · - 5 ; "~ I 'U ..... '-- ?' I '-- ~ ~ '-- ._. ._o ~ ..- ~ I --- I 1 - "' "' = I ' '-- '-- ~ I .... :'~ ~'~ o ,_, > I ,- .~ :_. o = , _ -- , ;-.~ ~ =-- ·.-- ;,,,( ~ -:- ~ ~ ._ ;... ._' ~ --" ~" :-' I ~..T. -'~ --. .......... I i -- ~ ~-- -- U '-- = U ~ E I E.=---'o ! ~ =_~_ mOO.- ~ .... _..--. .._. --- -- _~. I-- ~- 0 '-' ~ ~ cm 0 '- [--' -- '-' ~' ~ =_ = ~ ~ '~-~ ~ '~ ~' ~Z '-'~ o ~- = ~ ~ ,o ~ = ~ ~ ~ o - o ~--'- -~ _% ~ x >~ ~ ~_=.- ~ ._ ~ ~ · -- ~ .--~-- .-- '-- ~- .~_ ~-_ o~ ,~ ~ = _ ~ 0 ;- m- ~ .,,... --- -- 0 o ~ _ ~- o ~ o~ ~ = ---- i = ._ ~ ~. ~ o ~ =- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =- ~o >~° _o ~ =~-~ o > = ~ o ~- o = ~ o > = _ ~ = ~ i - o o ~ ~ .... ~ ~._ = · · o ~ o ~0 ~~ ~ ~~ -~'- ~ ~.~ ~ o ~ o~ .= -- -= ! .... ,. ........... · :':7. - · ..:. ::'..::'.['.:..'..: · . . .. . -. ... . · · ... __. I ~, ;;> 0 '-- "-- ~" ~ 0 I "-- 0 '"- , . '- ""='-"- "'" '- ~ '-' ._ ~ ~ .-'.- u _ ~_ o I -~ ~ ~F_. ~ ~ '- · -,4_~ - o = ~.o ,~ . .,. ~4~_6 ,~ ~ ~ .y,;, o_~ _. = > -._ = _o_,~ ~- ._o _ .~ ~..= - _~ -_o-s ._ ~ __.~ -=== .....~ ~>. = ~-~.~ --'a ~ ~ = ~= o ~-'m'= = o'- · -~ .~ .~ -~ = - ~ ~ , _ -- ~ ~ = = -.-. = o ~ ...... _ _ ._ -- ~ ._ -~o b~_ ._ = o ~ o '-- ,o ~-0 ~, ......... i ................. I , ..... ,'-': :'-','- i:i.".'. ' ... . . · . ... .., .. ..% ~ I o a, : .3.,;,.=· = ~ i - . '=,?., -"'~ i i= ' =-.- I - '" _. - .- I i * = t = . -= i '"- I '"' i r..,n I I ,._ ~ ! '"' i =..-= . Z i Z ' ' ~"=..- ~ I ~ i ,..... -',,: ~ -- i -- I · -'-._ =~ i ~_ i ..-.F_ I --' ~:: ~1 -..- I '"' '~'"' c¢i '~ ic.,' i :%-.. , i -= 21 ,.... t '"' ",,,-' o j o -..~, , = =io_ I ~ . , ~ . I ' = .:.:. > ~< ~ ~["-' ~ o .'"' ," ,, S,,.,. =l · -- ~ ~. ~ 0>~ .- > ' o ~= ~ =~_0 ~ -- ~ >~- ~ ~ ~-- · - ~o~._ ~=-~=.-~ ~_! ~ =-.- ,_.= =~ = ,..,, I <~ 'u~ $...~,= ~ .~_ ~,.,.:, .="-""°== '-'~.o_... '- =,_. ~=I ~ < -,..., o"" -- -~ ~ ~ ._ ~ >~o------ > ~ .- = > ='- = ~ ~ ~' '~ ~ ._ ~ _,- ~ r~O --- ~ ~ '- ~ ~ ..o '-- ~ .~..=- ~- ~ ~-~ ==',~ =- _ = = .-. ~ _ ~- ~ ~'~ =__ -- ~_ ~__. :... ~ '"' ..- .- -=- - < ~ ~ u°.-~ ~"~ . , = ~--~ =-~ ~ o< = i ..... i ' I !- I ' .m .__. i ? _.T.. ..T. I < , I i , , · . ... . . -- :---- F-.-~ , ' i =---- i Z Z ' Z i _..~ ,i .: .-- -- cD I .-. · ,-.- O ,-.- .= .-'= o ~ F~ co -,, = I o~1 ar.."-,.., , , i , ._ ~- _ ~ ~ o ~r--.. o-~. ~,_,., ~,,.,=,., -~, ,,.., ~"' ._~ . '~ .~ ,.., ~,.,?. ~ ~ = ,.. -< = ,.., ,- ~_ ~-- '=-~= ' ~ ~ 8'--~ ~~:~.~-~-- i ~~j - =m ~'-~ ~- "~ ='~ ~ ~ = o-~ .- 8 _o '~ ~ z= ==~- ~,-,- = ~ ~, = ~ =~'-~ - = * = '"' ~' > '"' "" "- -- ,- .-- -- -- '-- ,-. ,- '~"~ '[~.. ~ -- '- -- ~ 0 ~ 0 ,.., ~'- ~.~:,,., o".'r__.==,_.=~=.,.-x..- · '- '-- '""~ -~ 0 ,.- -- .= = -.- ._ .- > = ._ _ ._~ .__==--- _ o'F. ;k--o ¢, = -- · . ~ = ~-~ ~'~ ~'- 1- ~ '- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~'~'- , · I " i ' / ,-- ! · ...... , , --- ~ ~ . ,-. ,- _.= ~. - ~ I = I i · . I ~, r~ ' I '-= '~i '-- '-- '-- ~ -~, ~ -I ~ - i =o - ~ ? ~ = .~ o "' ' ._ ~ E _- .~ -.-_ p ~ --.-,_ '= ~ ~ r. F-L~ ~ ~ P ~ -'-- P~ ,- .,'" '- D_ ~ ,- i ' ~ ."~-- · F-' ~ .~ ,_ 0 '- ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.,4 ~ ~ .o ~_a ~, ~ = = _ .o ---- · ~ ~ ,.- "'~ P ~ o · "~ '~--'" ~ ,,n "" ='- a o o~ , .- ~__~ .. __ ~_ = o ,,, ..=_~_o :~ ~ o~ ,.- .... ~1 '-' ,_ .- .~. ~ ~ ~ ~.~ -- - .==._ ~. -~_ ~ =._--~ ~- ~ ~.-.= ~ L~~'= "0 :- = .._'~ 0 = > ~- o o ~-o'= ~.=_ '~=.~ o o- ~ >'::::3= '=~ -_'--~ o0.-~ = o ~ r~....a_ = ~~~ >,~ .~_ ~.E. = ~.~__ ~ ~ -' '"a'"= 5""=,-~. o --_ -- ~ -- -~-- '-- '-~ ~ ~-- .~ ~- 0 -~ ~ ._ __ ~ m_ .~%---= ° = '--- ~'~''-'- '8~ ~ ~ ...= .~ = = .- __ -.E ~ ~ :"' o-o - .=- -- = ~- __ r-, .--. -~- ~ ~= o ~ ~ ~ ~ o~_ o - ~ = - I o 6 6 ...... ..... · ..-, 0 r,,_) ~, ,..., -' o ~-..= ,-. o .-,= -- ~...=_ ~ -- ,- -- ~'"~ ~ '- Or,~ --- 0 ~'~-- :> 0 ~ ~, ~ ~ -- · - > o - ~ o,... ~ _,.. ~"n o >- ~ r~ 0 ~.. "~ -- ._., ~._. ='~ 8-5"=~ ~.~ . ... · . , · . . I . ~: cD' o~.~ ,. . . _ _ _ ,_ ~ = · -- 0 ~ .,, _..-- ~--.---~ =~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ .....~. ~ ..... ~ . . ~ ~---- '~ m ~ ~ ~ ~- =~ -~--~~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ '-- 0 · . ~- o~~'~. ~ .~ ~- _~ -- - ~- ~ - ~ -~ - - _ ._ ~ ~ ~, o :.~ ~-'-,~ ~-- ~ ~ ~ - --- ~ - _ ~._~.~ ~ - = - '- =~ ~ o ~ = ~.= ~ ~o - ~ -- - .-=~ oe.= ~ .= ~'= _ ._ ~ . ~ ~- I I .... , , . . .. .. .-. m ~ ,,-., --- ~ "~ . ,.., ,,.,,~,. , ~,- :.. ~ ~ -~.='= =,- <__ = ,- - --~ = o.~...;. ~ ,,,, _ = ~ 0'=...% "-' ,-- "~ -- m ~ o ,~,0 ' -- ~,_.~ ,--. ,.,-, ,-' C'~ 0'~ > o-~~ ~ ~[ ;-'"-' 0 ~m o,',' :_. ~.~ o._-_. .- ._ ~ ~ o m u ~ ~ o ,. = -- -.¥ '~ ~ o .,::., .... '"" "" '-- ._ ~~ ~ 9~ ~= = ~..=~~ ~ :,,..~ =.~ ~..= ~ ~ ~,o , , ! _ , , .... ........ . o . . , · I I ---- ! · · .-....; .....'..' . . ... ..-:;.; ::'. . ... . i ' -.:.': .'..: ':.;: .. · o ell '-2:" -:. Attachment 8 Resolution No. 00-91 Approving General Plan Amendment 00-001 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 RESOLUTION NO. 00-'91 ' A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING GENERAL pLAN AMENDMENT 00-001, AMENDING THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF THE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS)TUSTIN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows' A. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin has been determined surplus to the needs of the federal government and has been approved for disposal by the United States Department of the Navy (DON)in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission approved by the President and accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and, B.. The City of Tustin has been approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA)for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for preparing a Reuse Plan describing the reuse of the 'installation and providing recommendations 'to the DON for disposal of the former base to various public agencies and the homeless. The goal of base disposal and reuse is economic redevelopment and job creation to help replace the economic stimulus previously provided by the military installation. The LRA submitted the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense in October 1996, and an Errata amending the Reuse Plan .in September 1998; and, C. The City of Tustin intends to implement the Reuse Plan through the approval or adoption of.a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adoption of a Specific Plan and other discretionary actions: and, D. California State law requires each City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for its own physical development and for any land outside its boundaries which bears a relationship to its planning activities. The General Plan must be periodically updated to ensure that the Plan accurately reflects City policies, conforms to State law, reflects current court decisions, and provides an integrated and internally consistent set of .goals and policies designed to reflect any changed characteristics or growth of the community. The closure of MCAS Tustin and implementation of the Reuse Plan would necessitate amendment of the Tustin General Plan; and, -1- ]0 ]] ]2 ]3 ]4 ]5 ]6 l? 2O 2] 22 2.3 24 25 F_.. The Tustin City Council has received a request to consider General Plan Amendment 00-001 that is intended to amend the following General Plan Elements in support of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin' 1. The Land Use Element which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of. public and private uses of land; and 2. The Housing Element which consists of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and 3. The Circulation Element which consists of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation rOutes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the. plan; and 4. The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element which describes goals and policies for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic forCe, fOrests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources; and, describing goals and policies to secure open space for preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation and for the public health and safety; and 5. The Public Safety Element which describes goals and policies for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced' surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards, and other geologic hazards; flooding; and wiidland and urban fires; and 6. The Noise Element which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community; and 7. The Growth Management Element which describes goals and policies to ensure that growth and development is based upon the City's ability to. provide an adequate traffic circulation system; it guides Tustin's participation in interjurisdictional planning efforts and establishes a goal that the provision of jobs and housing be balanced; and -2- ~0 12 2O 2! 22 24 25 · .o · · :.:_; .'.; .' F. On March 16, 2000 the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified that they had reviewed and approved the Housing' Element revisions proposed in this action, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b); and G. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. et. seq. 21000) and the State Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Department of Navy have completed the following actions in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR): I . On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. o On July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments on the NOP for the EIS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. J On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR was released for a 60-day public review and comment (SCH No. 94071005). The Document assessed the significant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and Irvine, California and the subsequent reuse of those , properties and other adjacent properties. . On February 5, 1998, EIS/EIR. a Public Hearing was held on the initial Draft On July 8, 1999, a revised Draft EIS/EIR released for a 45-day public review and comment. A copy was also filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State ~;iearinghouse. The comment period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. ,, On August 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. A Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/FEIR) was then prepared. ,, On December 23, 1999, the FEIS/FEIR was. released for a 30-day public review and comment. The 'comment .period on. the FEIS/FEIR closed on January 24, 2000. The FEIS/FEIR provides the required written responses to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). -3- ' ]0 14 2O 21 22 23 24 25 8. Although not required by CEQA, on November 17, 2000, a Response to Comments document on the FEIS/FEIR was released. The Response to Comments on the FEIS/FEIR has been prepared and distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the FEIS/FEIR. , Prior to approving the proposed action, the City Council must certify that the FEIS/FEIR is complete and adequate and that all impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the FEIS/FEIR have been reviewed and considered, mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified in the FEIS/FEIR and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the project and against the project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding on each significant impact identified in the FEIS/FEIR. Findings of Fact and Statement of .Overriding Considerations supporting such findings are comprehensively listed in Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 00-90 which is incorporated herein by reference; and all mitigation measures contained in the FEIS/FEIR Mitigation Monitor Reporting Program for the FEIS/FEIR were also adopted'as Exhibit B of City Council Resolution No. 00'-90 and will b.e incorporated as conditions of approval of subsequent discretionary actions at the appropriate level of project implementation. H. On November 28, 2000, the Tustin Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to provide a further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001. · At the conclusion of the Public Hearing the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001; and On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council has received, reviewed' and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001, held a Public Hearing on the matter and considered the testimony, evidence and comments made at the public hearing, and the FEIS/FEIR and has made the following Findings: 1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin General Plan be amended prior to the adoption of implementing actions that will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes. 2. That the City of Tustin has prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with Section 65302 of the California Government Code to address changes associated with planning for the reuse of MCAS Tustin. -4- 10 11 12 13 .-....-.. . 15 16 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 il. 3. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00- 001 will result in a General Plan that will serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development,, preservation and conservation of open- space land natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan. 4. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00- 001 will result in the General Plan, its elements and Parts thereof being integrated, internally consistent and compatible. 5. That the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. The Tustin City Council does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan as identified in "Exhibit A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 16th day of January 2001. TRACY WILLS WORLEY, Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CiTY OF TUSTIN ) !, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do 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. 00-91 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on January 16, 2001, by the following vote' COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK -5- Exhibit A General Plan A mendment O0 -001 · . . · o . . G N RAL PLAN AM NDM NT 00-001 WAS PR VIOUSLY DISTRIBUT D o.. }' U n �za- z ��Qm�0 D�0O� z Q�z0 W��Ez — �,11JH� E-• 03 cs < -- 1 <DWQc, 2 w H r% i < < u_ (cs 2 < r STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, ANNE J LOGIE, the undersigned hereof, declare that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California, that I am over the age of eighteen years, and that my business address is. 300 Centennial Way, Tustm, California The attached letter from the City of Irvine arrived at 5 56 p m on January 16, 2001 at the facsimile machine located in the reception area of the City of Tustin (see attached facsimile log) On the morning of January 17, 2001, I received a true copy of the attached letter in my in- basket at the City of Tustin On Tuesday, January 16, 2001, the City of' Tustin closed at 530pm I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed at Tustin, California, on January 18, 2001. FORMS: \afiadvrtiam r V /'V I/fiL ANNEJ LOG) 714 535 8664 G3ESR 714 535 8664 G3ESR 714 535 8664 G3ESR 714 535 8664 G3ESR tY g ******************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 1 1 1- 1 N ■• r1 (1) N .-4 .-1 N N V V r1 CO r4 N N N N .-i ti 4- N CO m m N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3j3EEEE in * ti N O O O y O O O O y O O b y 0 0 0 O O y y y O y O O yy O y O N g co 141 NV •-1 V N m V co V) m V) V to R en V r1 in N V ..-1 ID ID ci m Cl co m' m N0 0 .+ 0 .-1 0 ■ 0 0 .-1 (�I 0 0 .-1 .y .v (� m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 m 0 0 0 0 m 0 00 0 0 N 0 0 ri m 0 9494613511 G3ESR 7142823107 G3ESR 949 724 6045 G3ESR D_ a a a a a a a CO to ID m 0 rr V ID m 0 0 m m N 0 0 'n 8189911096 GSESR 614 854 8866 213 485 7705 G3ESR (Nce ) 0)) tsj l7 l7 213 485 7705 EZEE cc a CC If/ m 00 m 0 0 ti ti 08.35RM VI* F *' OD BSD SALES GSEST 213 485 7705 213 485 7705 BI -TECH G3EST N i- BI -Ttfl F3V M *flItt 213 485 7705 G3ESR 714 692 7409 G3EST N II 9494613511 GSESR 949 380 +0942 G3EDR Q a �d �a �d a a a a a .N-1 .t-1 N N III m r1 V m m 0 m 0 m m a Ni .N-1 5) 5) 0 0 03 05PM VI* F *1 949 768 4436 G3ESR 7143741557 G3ESR i2 NNNNNIN 213 236 1041 9497291637 213 485 7705 213 485 7705 213 485 7705 a a a a a E E E E ti m n 41 V' N[ Cr) v m r1 V) 0 CO 0 m .-1 N .1 In V m m m m N N m 2 CO Z. 1-)CE ***************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, ANNE J. LOGIE, the undersigned hereof, declare that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; that I am over the age of eighteen years; and that my business address is: 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The attached letter from the City of Irvine arrived at 5:56 p.m. on January 16, 2001 at the facsimile machine located in the reception area of the City of Tustin (see attached facsimile log). On the morning of January 17, 2001, I received a true copy of the attached letter in my in- basket at the City of Tustin. On Tuesday, January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin closed at 5:30 p.m. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Tustin, California, on January 18, 2001. FORMS:WfiadvitJam ANNE J. LOGIE� 9494613511 G3ESR ****************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 N 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 m m m m m m m Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n CD 0 N N[ m N 0 m N Q m r D M m m m N Ifl V .� V m [tl V V In m 1!1 m [Tl V .� In Vl V .+ In In M 7142823107 G3ESR 0 .8 mmmm28 8 2 8823088088282m088 949 724 6045 G3ESR " 10 LO m m r LO I.01- ' — 0 0 6) 0 0 `0 0 0 8189911096 G3ESR 10 m n 614 854 8866 213 485 7705 213 485 7705 E 0D 0 m 08.35RM V)* FP) OD BSD SALES G3EST 213 485 7705 213 485 7705 N V m w '. r+ In In [11 IT m m m m m .. B) -Ttt7 F*9 M* *)tt G3EST mW I(.N N l7 In m 0 m h 82 m [14 ., ., N [- 9494613511 G3ESR p N may m m m CL. 0 N O m (t1 0 0 03 05PM V)* F *'1 949 768 4436 G3ESR 7143741557 G3ESR 213 236 1041 G3EDR 9497291637 06' 17PM V)* Fi'l 213 485 7705 G3ESR 213 485 7705 G3ESR E 0) - v -0 0 fl ti H ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** r • I1 A ?le ALLISON H HART, City Manager City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza, P 0 Box 19575 Irvine California 92623 9575 (949) 724 6000 January 12 2001 Mr William A Huston City Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan FEIS/E]R Dear Bill Thank you for your December 15, 2000 letter clanfymg Tustin's commitment to the transportation/circulation mitigation measures in the Joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Envuonmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) As you know, we raised two fundamental issues durmg the comment penod of the MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR in three previous letters (dated March 2, 1998, January 28, 2000, and May 5, 2000) To date, the City of Tustin has not adequately addressed these issues and the City's FEIS/EIR remains invalid under the California Environmental Quality Act, Pubhc Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq ( "CEQA ") • First, we were concerned that the roadway improvements identified in Irvine's 1991 environmental impact report for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) may not ultimately be required because IBC development has lagged behmd projections Furthermore, all of the IBC roadway improvements were estabhshed without knowledge of the impacts to be caused by a shuttered MCAS Tustm adjacent to the IBC The Tustin Reuse Plan now proposes to generate 216,445 average daily traps under the civilian reuse plan as compared to the military operations of approximately 15,000 average daily traps assumed at the tune the ffiC zoning was approved and mitigations set Slower than expected development m the IBC, coupled with the approval of the MCAS Tustin civihan reuse plan, necessitates a review of the phasing, funding and implementation of roadway improvements m the proiarnity of the former MCAS Tustin Specifically, the timing of roadway improvements shown in Figure 3- 5 Committed Circulation System Improvements and Table 3-4 Roadway System Committed Improvements of the FEIS/EIR Traffic Technical Report may not be realized • Second, we have suggested numerous changes to the EIS/E1R's Mitigation Measure T /C -9 to address a cooperative process leading to agreements between and among the cities of Irvine, Santa Ana, and Tustin, as well as Caltrans and OCTA, to ensure that both on and off -site roadway improvements are provided in a manner commensurate with development so that PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER in,A. 040 /L4 Mr. William A. Huston January 12, 2001 Page 2 CITY OF IRVINE • 7 • idQ 0 0 J roadway level of service standards are not exceeded. Your December 15, 2000 letter provides clarification of the intent for Mitigation Measure T /C -9, but such clarification is not in the mitigation measure itself. Additionally, as you concede, this mitigation measure lacks a triggering mechanism tied to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the referenced agreements are executed before development occurs. As a result, this mitigation measure is does not qualify as a mitigation measure under CEQA and must be modified accordingly We agree with your assessment that the mitigation measures for IBC circulation improvements are part of the "committed roadway network" and should be considered probable future projects. However, as noted in previous correspondence and meetings with Tustin staff, the IBC EIR was prepared with the assumption that MCAS Tustin would r -main a military base. The MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan has changed that underlying assumption. The MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan has substantially increased the intensity of development within the Reuse Plan area from that analyzed in the IBC EIR. In addition, the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan significantly changes the future circulation system in the vicinity of MCAS Tustin and the IBC in a manner not assumed in the IBC EIR. For example, Von Kannan will become a through street connecting with Tustin Ranch Road and providing a new conduit for traffic not considered in the IBC EIR- Although the impact of these changes in the basic land use assumptions has been analyzed in the FEIS/EIR final traffic study, Tustin's EIS/E]R incorrectly assumes that Irvine's IBC improvements will be constructed when MCAS Tustin is developed (2020). It is most probable that the "committed roadway network" of IBC improvements will not be in place when development of the Tustin Reuse Plan occurs, because of slowed development within the IBC. Tustm's erroneous assumption will then likely result in deficiencies in the circulation networks of the two cities. In 1992, the Irvine City Council adopted the IBC Circulation Improvements Funding and Development Phasing Program to ensure that circulation improvements occur commensurate with development in the IBC. In accordance with this Program, the City periodically conducts a "sliding interim year analysis" to analyze IBC development projections and network performance in the ISC. The findings are used to determine the need to initiate design and construction of the remaining =constructed IBC mitigation improvements. This analysis is supplemented by biennial monitoring to identify any deficient intersections in the IBC. Taken together, these periodic monitoring programs are used to ensure circulation capacity and to prioritize area -wide IBC circulation improvements. The City of Irvine has established a traffic level of service standard "E" for intersections in the IBC and level of service `D" elsewhere. Mitigation would be required for any intersection that exceeds these levels of service because they would be considered as failing to accommodate the traffic using the intersection. In the FEIS/EIR, the following Irvine intersections are listed- as being impacted in some manner by the Tustin Reuse Plan. This table updates the FEIS/EIR information to show 2000 data on existing level of service conditions. The bold intersections are at or near non - compliance with adopted City of Irvine standards, even without the Tustin Reuse Plan. d4 V Mr. William A. Huston January 12, 2001 Page 3 (,iii r ixv.. 2004 ntersection AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS 80. Red Hill and MacArthur 0.81 D 0.89 D 81 Red Hill and Main . 0.34 A 0.63 B 82. MacArthur B1vdJMain.Street 0.63 B 0.92 E 85. MacArthur Blvd./Michelson Drive 0.87 D 1.09 F 86. Von Karman and Barranca 0.59 A 0.65 B 89 Von Karman and Michelson 0.54 A 0.72 C 95. Jamboree and I -5 SB Ramps 0.79 C 0.86 0 98. Jamboree (SB) and Walnut 0.63 B 0.46 A 99 Jamboree (NB) and Walnut 0.37 A 0.49 A 103. Jamboree and Barranca 0.71 C 0.88 D 106. Jamboree Road /Alton Parkway • 0.96 E 0.97 E 108. Jamboree Road/I -405 SB ramps 0.92 E 0.84 D 118. Harvard and Alton 0.68 B 0.59 A 120. Harvard Ave./Michelson Drive 0.75 C 0.92 E 128. Culver and Wamer 0.73 C 0.67 B 130. Culver and Alton * 0.76 C 0.86 D *Not an IBC intersection; maximum acceptable level of service standard is `D" Therefore, it is likely that development of the Tustin project will cause at least the highlighted intersections to exceed levels of service and require mitigation before incremental development within the City of Irvine triggers that need. As noted above, we appreciate the clarification of intent for Mitigation Measure TIC -9. However, neither the changes we requested, nor your December 15th clarifications, are included in the Final EIS/ER. We understand your desire not to change the final document in order to expedite the transfer of the property for the benefit of our cities. However, memorializing the clarifications in some form of written document (other than your December 15th letter) is necessary in order to engage in a cooperative process leading to agreements prior to the issuance of building permits, which appears to be the intent of Mitigation Measure T /C -9 Irvine is requesting that a written agreement be prepared supplementing Mitigation Measure T /C -9 to ensure that the analysis of "project" and 'fair share' improvements includes all impacted and potentially improved locations, particularly the highlighted intersections outlined above. The agreement should include the following points: • A methodology for determining the specific scope of improvements, costs, timing, and funding levels for such improvements will be mutually agreed upon prior to the issuance of the first building permits, for private development in the Reuse Plan area. Mr William A Huston January 12, 2001 Page 4 l 441 U LP • The draft construction cost estimates for specific intersection improvements, previously prepared by Tustin, is recognized as not being the final hst of obligations for the Reuse Plan Regarding your reference to the 1992 lBC agreement between Irvine and Tustin, to the best of my recollection, an exchange of letters between my predecessor and your office deferred Irvine's compliance regarding obhgations for determuung traffic capacity on Red Hill Avenue We look forward to meeting with you expeditiously to address these remaining matters Sincerely, ALLISON HART City Manager AH/PH/gdw C Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, ANNE J. LOGIE, the undersigned hereof, declare that I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California; that I am over the age of eighteen years; and that my business address is: 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The attached letter from the City of Irvine arrived at 5:56 p.m. on January 16, 2001 at the facsimile machine located in the reception area of the City of Tustin (see attached facsimile log). On the morning of January 17, 2001, I received a true copy of the attached letter in my in- basket at the City of Tustin. On Tuesday, January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin closed at 5:30 p.m. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Tustin, California, on January 18, 2001. ANNE J. LOG FORMS.\aNedvitldm ******************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** m m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 m m m m 0 m m m m 0 m m 0 m m m H Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y � Yy O O YO O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O *] N Ian V V m (Tl V m FR V (r) "s' V N N .N-1 a, m iv - N 0 0 .-4 0 0 0 '+ N mm 0 m 0 .+ 8 ,-1 0 .-1 0 mfr7 00 * O N 0 —nisi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01.7'9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m 0 m 0 * } * * H * * * L 0 * U * Q .-r N In m CO m CO m (~*l 10D V Ki K1 � ti N C- V v c v m i m •-• ■-• N N N N Dom) L ZEEEEZEE lh pa l� > (al N m 0 0 -+ <T Li) mmammmmm co (n m 0 w ti ± m 01 01 um 1 0 0 cori Loa ri EA IN- m 0 N 2 N .i t 8 N v m V m P° r v In Al 1D to IN- m I@ v 2 CO v m A .m-1 m N. CO y o� m m n m (D N N O N N O (` PUN A A N N N N I* N N N U1 4. 1 Ni. L H L. L. 1 N. a) 1 H. 1 N s E 0) � 1. E 0) W 0) E j ti ID N � N- 0) ( 't 1 ti tO 0) fl m In 7 m mm -1 m -1 v4 In In In 0 .-1 V 0 m m (.r-l1 1!) 0 11nn ��a 0 ��.pp1 N .-1 N mV 0 m m m 0 m m m m ti ti .N-1 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 m .N-1 m 0 m no .-1 .-1 CO .-1 �{ Z ti y Q ************************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** In Ui /10/V1 i, mu iAa o.o ,. v.. OF It mALLISON H HART, City Manager January 12, 2001 City of Irvine, One Civic Center Plaza P 0 Box 19575 Irvine California 92623 -9575 (949) 724 6000 Mr William A Huston City Manager City of Tustm 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject ' MCAS Tustm Reuse Plan FEIS/EIR Dear Bill Thank you for your December 15, 2000 letter clanfying Tustin's commitment to the transportation/circulation mitigation measures m the Joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FFTS/EIR) As you know, we raised two fundamental issues during the comment period of the MCAS Tustin FTS/EIR in three previous letters (dated March 2, 1998, January 28, 2000, and May 5, 2000) To date, the City of Tustin has not adequately addressed these issues and the City's FEIS/FTR remains invalid under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq ( "CEQA ") • First, we were concerned that the roadway improvements identified in Irvine's 1991 environmental impact report for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) may not ultimately be required because IBC development has lagged brhind projections Furthermore, all of the IBC roadway improvements were established without knowledge of the impacts to be caused by a shuttered MCAS Tustm adjacent to the IBC The Tustin Reuse Plan now proposes to generate 216,445 average daily trips under the civilian reuse plan as compared to the military operations of approximately 15,000 average daily traps assumed at the tune the IBC zoning was approved and mitigations set Slower than expected development m the IBC, coupled with the approval of the MCAS Tustm civilian reuse plan, necessitates a renew of the phasing, funding and implementation of roadway improvements m the proxmuty of the former MCAS Tustin Specifically, the timing of roadway improvements shown in Figure 3- 5 Couumttcd Circulation System Improvements and Table 3-4 Roadway System Committed Improvements of the FEIS/EIR Traffic Technical Report may not be realized • Second, we have suggested numerous chances to the FTS/EIR's Mitigation Measure T /C -9 to address a cooperative process leading to agreements between and among the cities of Irvine, Santa Ana, and Tustin, as well as Caltrans and OCTA, to ensure that both on and off -site roadway improvements are provided m a manner commensurate with development so that PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ine boa /24. \¢ CITY OF IRVINE Mr. William A. Huston January 12, 2001 Page 2 IJ 003 roadway level of service standards are not exceeded. Your December 15, 2000 letter provides clarification of the intent for Mitigation Measure T /C -9, but such clarification is not in the mitigation measure itself. Additionally, as you concede, this mitigation measure lacks a triggering mechanism tied to the issuance of building permits to ensure that the referenced agreements are executed before development occurs. As a result, this mitigation measure is does not qualify as a mitigation measure under CEQA and must be modified accordingly We agree with your assessment that the mitigation measures for IBC circulation improvements are part of the "committed roadway network" and should be considered probable future projects. However, as noted in previous correspondence and meetings with Tustin staff, the IBC EIR was prepared with the assumption that MCAS Tustin would remain a military base. The MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan has changed that underlying assumption. The MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan has substantially increased the intensity of development within the Reuse Plan area from that analyzed in the IBC EIR. In addition, the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan significantly changes the future circulation system in the vicinity of MCAS Tustin and the IBC in a manner not assumed in the IBC EIR. For example, Von Karrnan will become a through street connecting with Tustin Ranch Road and providing a new conduit for traffic not considered in the IBC EIR. Although the impact of these changes in the basic land use assumptions has been analyzed in the FEIS/EIR final traffic study, Tustin's E1S/EIR incorrectly assumes that Irvine's IBC improvements will be constructed when MCAS Tustin is developed (2020). It is most probable that the "committed roadway network" of IBC improvements will not be in place when development of the Tustin Reuse Plan occurs, because of slowed development within the IBC. Tustin's erroneous assumption will then likely result in deficiencies in the circulation networks of the two cities. In 1992, the Irvine City Council adopted the IBC Circulation Improvements Funding and Development Phasing Program to ensure that circulation improvements occur commensurate with development in the IBC. In accordance with this Program, the City periodically conducts a "sliding interim year analysis" to analyze IBC development projections and network performance in the IBC. The findings are used to determine the need to initiate design and construction of the remaining unconstructed IBC mitigation improvements. This analysis is supplemented by biennial monitoring to identify any deficient intersections in the IBC. Taken together, these periodic monitoring programs are used to ensure circulation capacity and to prioritize area -wide IBC circulation improvements. The City of Irvine has established a traffic level of service standard "E" for intersections in the IBC and level of service "D" elsewhere. Mitigation would be required for any intersection that exceeds these levels of service because they would be considered as failing to accommodate the traffic using the intersection. In the FEIS/EIR, the following Irvine intersections are listed as being impacted in some manner by the Tustin Reuse Plan. This table updates the FEIS/EIR information to show 2000 data on existing level of service conditions. The bold intersections are at or near non - compliance with adopted City of Irvine standards, even without the Tustin Reuse Plan. Mr. William A. Huston January 12, 2001 Page 3 111 \.11 1 Ur 1 x 1 1.t.. /.A 004 • ntersection AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS 80. Red Hill and =Arthur 0.81 D 0.89 D 8) Red 1111 and Main ' 0.34 A 0.63 B 82. MacArthur Ely . JMain. Street 0.63 B 0.92 E 85. MacArthur Blvd./Michelson Drive 0.87 D 1.09 F 86. Von Karman and Barranca 0.59 A 0.65 B 89 Von Kerman and Michelson 0.54 A 0.72 C Inil A 95. Jamboree and 1 -5 SB Ramps 0.79 C 0.86 98. Jamboree (SB) and Walnut 0.63 B 0.46 99 Jamboree (NB) and Walnut 0.37 A 0.49 A 103. Jamboree and Barranca 0.71 C 0.88 ID 106. Jamboree Road /Alton Parkway 0.96 E 0.97 E 108. Jamboree Road/I -405 SB ramps 0.92 E 0.84 D 118. Harvard and Alton 0.68 B 0.59 A 120. Harvard AveJMichelson Drive 0.75 C 0.92 E 128. Culver and Warner 0.73 C 0.67 2 130. Culver and Alton * 0.76 C 0.86 D *Not an IBC intersection; maximum acceptable level of service standard is "D" Therefore, it is likely that development of the Tustin project will cause at least the highlighted intersections to exceed levels of service and require mitigation before incremental development within the City of Irvine triggers that need. As noted above, we appreciate the clarification of intent for Mitigation Measure T /C -9. However, neither the changes we requested, nor your December 15th clarifications, are included in the Final FIS/EIR. We understand your desire not to change the final document in order to expedite the transfer of the property for the benefit of our cities_ However, memorializing the clarifications in some form of written document (other than your December 15th letter) is necessary in order to engage in a cooperative process leading to agreements prior to the issuance of building permits, which appears to be the intent of Mitigation Measure T /C -9 Irvine is requesting that a written agreement be prepared supplementing Mitigation Measure T /C -9 to ensure that the analysis of `project" and "fair share" improvements includes all impacted and potentially improved locations, particularly the highlighted intersections outlined above. The ageement should include the following points: • A methodology for determining the specific scope of improvements, costs, timing, and funding levels for such improvements will be mutually agreed upon prior to the issuance of the first building permits, for private development in the Reuse Plan area. Mr William A Huston 7anuary 12, 2001 Page 4 • The draft construction cost estimates for specific intersection improvements, previously prepared by Tustin, is recognized as not being the final list of obligations for the Reuse Plan. Regarding your reference to the 1992 1BC agreement between Irvme and Tustin, to the best of my recollection, an exchange of letters between my predecessor and your office deferred Irvine's compliance regarding obhgations for deteinuning traffic capacity on Red Hill Avenue We look forward to meetmg with you expeditiously to address these rem mug matters Sincerely, ALLISON HART City Manager AH/PH/gdw C Christine Slungleton, Assistant City Manager OF �RL le m January 12, 2001 ALLISON H. HART City Manager Cip of Irv.ne One Civic Cent 'iezz. °O Eiz ,x575, Ir in, Ca'cornia 9262 t;575 (949) 72i -6000 Mr William A. Huston City Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Wav Tustin, CA 92780 Subject MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan FEIS/EIR Dear Bill. ADMINISTRATION JAN 2 2 2001 RECEIVED Thank you for your December 15, 2000 letter clarifying Tustin's commitment to the transportation/circulation mitigation measures in the Joint Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report ( FEIS/EIR). As you know, we raised two fundamental issues during the comment period of the MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR in three previous letters (dated March 2, 1998, January 28, 2000; and May 5 2000). To date, the City of Tustin has not adequately addressed these issues and the City's FEIS/EIR remains invalid under the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq ( "CEQA') • First, we were concerned that the roadway improvements identified in Irvme s 1991 environmental impact report for the Irvine Business Complex (IBC) may not ultimately be required because IBC development has lagged behind projections. Furthermore, all of the IBC roadway improvements were established without knowledge of the impacts to be caused by a shuttered MCAS Tustin adjacent to the IBC. The Tustin Reuse Plan now proposes to generate 216,445 average daily trips under the civilian reuse plan as compared to the military operations of approximately 15,000 average daily trips assumed at the time the IBC zoning was approved and mitigations set. Slower than expected development in the IBC, coupled with the approval of the MCAS Tustin civilian reuse plan, necessitates a review of the phasing, funding and implementation of roadway improvements in the proximity of the former MCAS Tustin. Specifically the timing of roadway improvements shown in Figure 3- 5 Committed Circulation System Improvements and Table 3 -4 Roadway System Committed Improvements of the FEIS/EIR Traffic Technical Report may not be realized. • Second, we have suggested numerous changes to the EIS/EIR's Mitigation Measure T /C -9 to address a cooperative process leading to agreements between and among the cities of Irvine, Santa Ana, and Tustin, as well as Caltrans and OCTA, to ensure that both on and off -site roadway improvements are provided in a manner commensurate with development so that PRINTED ON RE CYCLED ° - :"ER treId asnag ugsny, 041 lnoglim uana `splepuEls autni1 Jo AID paldope gllm aouEgduloo -uou tEau 10 12 am suOtlaaslalut ploq aiy suogipuoo aounlas Jo lanai 2u9sixa Uo gip 000Z MOUS 01 UOIIEUUOJUI 2IIg /Sigd 041 sal2pdn algE4 silt' -uffld asnag ugsny aqi Act lauuew autos ui palaedun 5uiaq SE palsq 012 suogoaslalui au[n4 Sulmollo3 alp `2IIg /Slgd agl ul •uogaasialui aql nuisn agie11 all al2poUnuo3O2 01 duguE3 se paiaptsuoo aq p'nom ,Ca11 asneoaq goings 3o signal asap spaaoxa 1211 uogo0s1O1ut AIM io3 pannbai aq mom uoi1E$Ai Ai -ala4mas'a Q, aat.uas Jo lanai puff 3gl agl ui suotlaasialui 103 3, pnpu2 ;s aouuos 3o lanai °13211 2 pagsggElsa s24 aUA113o X113 a4y •sluatuanoJduli uo1121n0na 3gl apim -2012 azuuoud of pue Xpa2dea uoge'nono ainsua o; pasn ail sw21goid Suuoquow oipouad asagl `1ag1a&1 ua)12y Dal all in suollaaszalut luaiogap Atte ^3iluapi 01 •uuolluow lentuaiq Kg paluawalddns s1 sis,Cleue slgy •sluawanoldwi uo1agiw palarulsuooun duwl2wal ail Jo uoilarulsuoo pue uSisap a1241u1 01 paau alp auluualap 01 posn 012 s5ulpur3 an 3gl 041 u1 aaunuuojaad )110"lau pue suogoaCoid luawdolanap 3gl azXl2u2 01 sts,Cl2u2 magi ulualui �uipils 2 slonpuoo Xllnaipouad F1!3 agl `u1E1do1d sup 411m aauwpl000E ul •3 l 041 u1 IuawdOlanap minx al2lnsuauiwoa imago sluawanoidwr uogelnalia 1241 amsua 01 UIBJZoid •ulseld IuawdolanaQ put utpun3 sluawanoJdwl uog2lnanC 3811 ag1 paldope liouno3 ,C1t3 au!nll all `Z66 I uI sagta om1 a41 3o s)I1o"lau uo1lelnano all in satouarogap u1 llnsaz Alain uagl Ill" uogdwnssE snoauolla s ugsny, 3gl agl uiglr" luawdolanap pa"ois Jo asnuoaq `slnaao u2ld asna2I ullsny alp J0 luawdolanap U04M 00Uld ui aq lou'irm sluawanoldwr 3m jo )l.to"lau ,CEmp2O1 pa111ww0o, a41 -i p1 alg2goid ;soul si ;I •(OZOZ) padolanap si ugsny, SV3YAI uaim palarulsuoa aq rpm sluawano1dw! 3 s auinll 1241 saulnssn X'1oa11oout HIgimig s ullsny ogpii Tug 2IIg /SIg3 041 ui pazXlnuE uaaq seq suogdwnssn asn puff' 01st(' all u1 sa2uE4o asap jo ;a2dwr aql gpn0glld '2IIg 381 041 ui paiaprsuoa ;ou 01-1.1E11 103 linpuoa MOU 2 Surpin01d pue peo21 tlau221 ugsny 411" 5Pupoauuoo 1aa11s 43non112 awooaq 1'I" u2UU2}l uon `aidw2xa 1od '2IIg 3m aql w pa unss2 log 1aw12w e u1 3gl 041 pue ugsny Sy3NJO X4LUIOIn 041 ut walsXCs uog2'nono amlrg all sa &1240 JCIluEagups u2'd anal' ugsny Sy3IAI ail `uopippE uI •2IIg Dal 041 u1 pazz(l2u2 1241 mo13 2012 uu'd asnag 041 urgum luawdolanap 3o Cpsualui 041 pasealaui ,Cl'2guE1sgns 524 uEld asnag ullsny S'd3IN 041 uoildwnsse Sup(papun 1e41 pa�uffio se4 geld asnag ugsny, SVDInl 041 •asEq Amiquu 2 umaulal p'no" ugsny Sd3Ini 1241 uoildwnss2 a41 glim paindaid sem gig 3H1 041 'Avis ugsny 111" sSugaaw pue aouapuodsa.uoo snoinald ur palou se `lana"oH •sloaCoid am1n3 algngo.id palapisuoo aq p1no1s pue ,)po"1au A2"pffoi paglwwoo ag13o 11ed 012 sluawanoldwl uog2inano 3gl 101 samsEaw uoiEiigiw ail 1241 luawssass2 inoX 411m aaM'u aM Xi2uipl0002 pagipow aq lsnul pue yag3 lapun amsnaw uogtgiliw 2 s2 X311Enb log saop s[ alns2aw uoqugg1w 5111 `1411501 2 sy 'shag° luawdolanap aaolaq palnaaxa am sluawaa& paaua1aja1 041 1241 amsua o1 sliuuad Siuip'mq Jo aau2nssl 041 0l pail wsiuEiaaw Suua8Sul 2 slO21 0.1115201.1.1 uog25glw sup `apa0U00 noX 52 `XIIEUOilippy 3ias11 ams2aw uogagiw 041 u1 tog si uog2agU21O Lions 1nq `6 -3 3, alns2alnl u0i12$i ini 1ol lualu! a41 3o uog2OgUE'a sapinoid 104101 000Z S I lagwaoaQ moX •papaaaxa log 012 spl2puels 001A10s Jo lanai X2mpEO1 Z a2d mot `Z 1 X12nuEl uolsull wffgllM IIAI Mr William A. Huston January 12, 2001 Page 3 • Intersection AM PM ICU LOS ICU LOS 80. Red Hill and MacArthur 0.81 D 0.89 D 81 Red Hill and Main 0.34 A 0.63 B 82. MacArthur Blvd. /Main Street 0.63 B 0.92 E 85. MacArthur Blvd./Michelson Drive 0.87 D 1.09 F 86. Von Karman and Barranca 0.59 A 0.65 B 89 Von Karman and Michelson 0.54 A 0 72 C 95 Jamboree and I -5 SB Ramps 0 79 C 0.86 D 98. Jamboree (SB) and Walnut 0.63 B 0.46 A 99 Jamboree (NB) and Walnut 0.37 A 0 49 A 103 Jamboree and Barranca 0.71 C 0.88 D 106. Jamboree Road /Alton Parkway 0.96 E 0.97 E 108. Jamboree Road /I -405 513 ramps 0.92 E 0.84 D 118. Harvard and Alton 0.68 B 0.59 A 120. Harvard Ave. /Michelson Drive 0.75 C 0.92 E 128. Culver and Warner 0.73 C 0.67 B 130. Culver and Alton * 0.76 C 0.86 D *Not an IBC intersection; maximum acceptable level of service standard is `D' Therefore, it is likely that development of the Tustin project will cause at least the highlighted intersections to exceed levels of service and require mitigation before incremental development within the City of Irvine triggers that need. As noted above, we appreciate the clarification of intent for Mitigation Measure T/C 9 However, neither the changes we requested, nor your December 15th clarifications, are included in the Final EIS/EIR. We understand your desire not to change the final document in order to expedite the transfer of the property for the benefit of our cities. However memorializing the clarifications in some form of written document (other than your December 15th letter) is necessary in order to engage in a cooperative process leading to agreements prior to the issuance of building permits, which appears to be the intent of Mitigation Measure T /C -9 Irvine is requesting that a written agreement be prepared supplementing Mitigation Measure T/C 9 to ensure that the analysis of `project' and `fair share improvements includes all impacted and potentially improved locations, particularly the highlighted intersections outlined above. The agreement should include the following points: • A methodology for determining the specific scope of improvements, costs, timing, and funding levels for such improvements will be mutually agreed upon prior to the issuance of the first building permits for private development in the Reuse Plan area. Mr William A. Huston January 12, 2001 Page 4 • • • The draft construction cost estimates for specific intersection improvements, previously prepared by Tustin, is recognized as not bginoe the final list of obligations for the Reuse Plan. Regarding your reference to the 1992 IBC agreement between Irvine and Tustin, to the best of my recollection, an exchange of letters between my predecessor and your office deferred Irvine s compliance regarding obligations for determining traffic capacity on Red Hill Avenue. We look forward to meeting with you expeditiously to address these remaining matters. Sincerely ALLISON HART City Manager AH/PH /gdw C Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager THOMAS W WILSON SUPERVISOR, FIFTH DISTRICT ORANGE COUNTY HALL OF ADMINISTRATION 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA, P 0. BOX 687, SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 92702-0687 PHONE (714) 834 -3550 FAX (714) 834 -2670 WEB SITE: http: / /www.00,ca gov /suoes /fifth EMAIL twIison @dIst5.co.orange.ca.us January 16, 2001 The Honorable Tracy Wills Worley Mayor City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 ADMINISTRATION JAN 182001 RECEIVED Dear Mayor Worley While I am unable to attend the January 16, 2001 public hearing on the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan General Plan Amendment and EIS /EIR, I want to let you know of my support for the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan. The County of Orange, as well as a countywide community of interests, will be well served by the Reuse Plan. A variety of housing and employment opportunities as well as numerous community serving uses have been incorporated into the Plan. I believe that the process used to develop the Reuse Plan has been fair and inclusionary Even though the County is recommended to receive several parcels at MCAS Tustin, I know there were many other County requests that were denied by the Reuse Task Force. And I also believe that the Task Force deliberations were fair and were guided by a clear set of criteria based upon community input. The County's public benefit conveyance requests that have been approved address many critical facility needs and will serve a diverse population and variety of interests. The County has been recommended to receive property to support critical programs, including: • 4 acres to accommodate a 60 -bed campus of cottages for children under 6 -years who have become wards of the County in a 'family- centered' and homelike environment • 10 acres for a Regional Law Enforcement Training Center • 84 acres for an Urban Regional Park which will host the following uses: • One of the huge historic blimp hangars • Archeological /Paleontological Curation and Storage to update and supplement current capacity • Youth and Family Resource Center which will provide training and counseling services • Classroom space for the Regional Law Enforcement Training Center I support the County's vision in implementing the programs made possible through the Reuse Plan. I urge you to approve the items before you to pave the way for these and the many other community serving uses to be located at MCAS Tustin. Sincerely Su\ THOMAS W. WILSON Supervisor Fifth District • • 0 NOTE: FINAL VOLUMES 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN ARE LOCATED IN THE VAULT, IN THE CORNER METAL FILE CABINET (3 VOLUMES, BLUE/WHITE COVERS, BLACK BINDING)