HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 08-38RESOLUTION NO. 08-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT PURSUANT TO
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2116 AND
SECTION 15168(c) OF STATE CEQA GUIDELINES THE
PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE FINAL JOINT
PROGRAM MCAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS
TUSTIN FEIS/EIR) AND NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED; APPLICABLE MITIGATION
MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE
PROJECT OR WILL BE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON
PENDING ENTITLEMENT APPLICATIONS
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
1. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That Conveyance of a 39.96-acre future high school site on Lots 32 and
35 of Tract No. 17026 (initial conveyance of Lot 35 (38.477 acres) and
leasing of Lot 32 (1.478 acres) and subsequent future conveyance) and
10-acre future elementary school site on Lot 3 of Tract No. 17026 at
Tustin Legacy to Tustin Unified School District is considered a "Project"
pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act;
B. That the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific
Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(FEIS/EIR) was certified by the City Council on January 16, 2001. On
December 6, 2004 the City of Tustin certified a Supplement to the
FEIS/EIR for the Extension of Tustin Ranch Road and on April 3, 2006,
the City of Tustin approved an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR,
the Supplement for the Extension of Tustin Ranch Road, and the
Addendum shall be collectively referred to subsequently as the
"FEIS/EIR". The FEIS/EIR considered the potential impacts associated
with conveyance of property at the former Marine Corps Air Station,
Tustin, including development of a high school and elementary school
within Neighborhoods D and G, respectively; and, C. That an initial study
checklist, attached as Exhibit A hereto, was prepared to evaluate the
potential impacts associated with the Project. The initial study checklist
demonstrates that all potential impacts of the Project were addressed by
the certified FEIS/EIR, no additional impacts have been identified, and all
applicable mitigation measures in the FEIS/EIR will be implemented
through the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project, Disposition and
Development Agreement 04-02 (on file in the City Clerk's Office), or as
conditions of approval of the Project.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 1 of 34
II. The City Council hereby finds the Project is within the scope of the previously
approved MCAS Tustin Final Program EIS/EIR and that the environmental
effects of the Project are within the scope of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR and
were fully examined in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR; that no substantial changes
are proposed in the Project or have occurred with respect to circumstances
under which the Project is being undertaken since certification of the MCAS
Tustin FEIS/EIR; no new information has become available since the certification
of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
2116 and the requirements of CEQA regulations promulgated with respect
thereto including Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and
15168(c), no additional environmental analysis, action or document is required by
the CEQA.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
the 3rd day of June 2008.
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, 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. 08-38 was duly passed and
adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 3rd day of June, 2008, by
the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Amante. Davert. Bone. Kawashima, P lm r f,~l
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0)
PAMELA STOKER
CITY CLERK
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 2 of 34
EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO.08-38
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 91780
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 08-38) takes
into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed
project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section ] 5162
and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): Conveyance of 39.96-acre future high school site (initial conveyance 38.477 acres
and leasing of 1.478 acres for future conveyance) and 10-acre future elementary
school site at Tustin Legacy to Tustin Unified School District.
Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Mrs. Christine A. Shingleton Phone: (714) 573-3107
Project Location: Lot 3 (Elementary School) of Tract No. 17026 within Neighborhood G and Lots
32 and 35 (High School) of Tract No. 17026 within Neighborhood D of the
MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: SP-1 Specific Plan
Project Description: Conveyance of 39.96-acre future high school site (initial conveyance 38.477 acres
and leasing of 1.478 acres and subsequent future conveyance) and 10-acre future
elementary school site at Tustin Legacy to Tustin Unified School District. The
proposed conveyance is necessary to support development of approved uses at
Tustin Legacy, specifically within in Neighborhoods D and G of the MCAS
Specific Plan.
Surrounding Uses: North and West: Existing former MCAS Tustin Airfield Facilities
South: Vacant Land (former MCAS Tustin Airfield Facilities)
East: Jamboree Road/Industrial Uses
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 3 of 34
Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact ~ ,„
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine
Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council
on January 16, 2001.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^Land Use and Planning
^Population and Housing
^Geology and Soils
^Hydrology and Water Quality
^Air Quality
^Transportation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Mineral Resources
^Agricultural Resources
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^Hazards and Hazardous Materials
^Noise
^Public Services
^Utilities and Service Systems
^Aesthetics
^Cultural Resources
^Recreation
^Mandatory Findings of
Significance
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects I) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated ,,,,
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 4 of 34
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparer: Date: 5-26-08
Matt West, Redevelopment Project Manager
Date: 5-26-08
Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attached
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 5 of 34
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [~
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [~
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people`I
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 6 of 34
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological intemzption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 7 of 34
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ~ ^
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction'? ~ []
iv) Landslides? ^
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? ~ ^
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? ~ ^
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? ^ ^
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or vi~l~i4h~~fbj~-a~a? ^ ^
Page 8 of 34
No Substantial
New More Change From
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Significant Severe Previous
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation Impact Impacts Analysis
plan?
^ ^
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
^ ^
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
^ ^
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
^ a
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
^ ^
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
^ ^
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
^ ^
~ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
^ ^
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
o a
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
^ ^
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
^ ^
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
^ ^
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
^ a
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 9 of 34
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
Local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE -
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
nec~ssi~tatjn~ the~COns~r~c~i$n of replacement housing
ets ~~ on o.
Page ~10 of 34
No Substantial
New More Change From
Signifecant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ o
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a o
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ^ ^
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools"?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated'?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
Resolution No. 08-38
^ ^ Pie 11 of 34
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 12 of 34
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
a o
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
0 0
^ ^
^ ^
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONVEYANCE OF FUTURE HIGH SCHOOL SITE (INITIAL CONVEYANCE 38.477
ACRES AND LEASING OF 1.478 ACRES AND FOR FUTURE CONVEYANCE) AND
CONVEYANCE OF FUTURE l0-ACRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE AT TUSTIN
LEGACY TO THE TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (TUSD)
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the
Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program for the EIS/EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the
Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences
of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental
impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to
implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The DoN
published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On December 6. 2004, the City of
Tustin certified a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin for
the Extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the Future Alignment of the
Valencia NorthLoop. On April 3, 2006, the City of Tustin approved an Addendum to the
FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR, its Supplement and Addendum shall be collectively referred to
subsequently in this analysis as the "FEIS/EIR.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR analyzed amulti-year development
period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine
if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The agency can approve the
activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. If the
agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new
effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required.
For the proposed conveyance of the future 39.96-acre Tustin High School site (initial conveyance
of 38.477-acre portion and leasing of 1.478-acre portion for future conveyance, and subsequent
conveyance of the 1.478 acre portion to TUSD) and 10-acre Tustin elementary school site at Tustin
Legacy to the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD), the City prepared a comprehensive
Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided below to determine if the project is within
the scope of the FEIS/EIR and if new effects would occur as a result of the project.
PROJECT LOCATION
x„F A, The properties subject to the conveyance are located at Tustin Legacy, which is that portion of
the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 13 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 2
boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years,
approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal
government needs and was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS
Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73
acres lies within the City of Irvine.
Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of
downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa
Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego (I-405). Tustin Legacy is also
served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways
bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine
Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south.
Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles
to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the north
providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and
San Diego counties.
The Properties are located within Neighborhoods D (High School) and G (Elementary School) of
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which are also within approximately 820 acres known as the
Master Developer Footprint currently being development by the City's Master Developer, Tustin
Legacy Community Partners, LLC (Developer) pursuant to the Disposition and Development
Agreement and subsequent amendments between the Developer and the City. Upon conveyance
of the school sites to TUSD, the development of the school sites will be the responsibility of
TUSD. A portion of the Property (1.478 acres) is also currently owned by the Department of the
Navy and is expected to be transferred to the City of Tustin subject to the Navy's issuance of a
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) and deed provisions mutually acceptable to the Navy
and City, which will subsequently be transferred to TUSD.
PRESENT CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY
Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Currently, the
actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim
agricultural out-leasing by the Marines, and also improved with landing strips and tarmac areas.
Permits for demolition of abandoned buildings and obsolete infrastructure on the Property have
been issued and existing facilities are in the process of being removed. The City has completed a
Phase I roadway project, the Valencia/Armstrong project, which included some demolition of
tarmac areas, landing strips, and demolition of some obsolete utilities. The Valencia/Armstrong
project also included the installation of water and sewer Backbone Infrastructure adjacent to a
portion of the Property and interim storm drain retention facilities. Mass grading of the Property
by the Developer is also proposed to begin shortly.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the
Environmental Analysis Checklist.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 14 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 3
AESTHETICS -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed conveyance and interim
leasing activities will not directly cause aesthetic impacts as the currently vacant flat
properties will be developed by the Tustin Unified School District. Development activities
proposed by the Developer and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the
Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the site.
There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed
conveyance would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Although the
project site is not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway, the
FEIS/EIR concluded that the loss of both historic blimp hangars would be a significant
visual impact, the loss of only one hangar would be less than significant. The proposed
conveyance would not change the conclusions of the analysis from the FEIS/EIR relative to
these visual changes since the status of the hangars would not be affected by the proposed
conveyance and development of the high school and elementary school sites.
The proposed conveyance is necessary to support development at Tustin Legacy and would
not modify the land use plan adopted in the Specific Plan. No change is expected from
the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have
been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8)
MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural
v~
resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
..
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 15 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 4
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed conveyance and interim
leasing by the City of Tustin to TUSD has been previously considered within the Program
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and has been found to have no new effects, nor would a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a
result of the proposed project.
The physical impact area for the proposed high school and elementary school sites is the
same as that identified in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would
continue to impact areas mapped (though not used) as Prime Farmland. Designated
Farmland of Statewide Importance within the Specific Plan area is outside of the Master
Developer footprint and is located north of Barranca Parkway, west of Harvard Avenue,
and east of Jamboree Boulevard. The area is currently under development. Additionally,
there are no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in
this area was deemed unwarranted by NCRS. Implementation of the proposed project
would not change the impact conclusions presented in the FEIS/EIR. The loss of Prime
Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and
unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still
infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with
the loss of mapped/designated farmland.
There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would
reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to
urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible are
still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant.
There would not be a substantial increase in the severity ofproject-specific and cumulative
impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR ;however, these
impacts would continue to be significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. The
Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on
January 16, 2001.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as maybe required bylaw. No substantial
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 16 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 5
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin .
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council
adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that
impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation
is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/ElR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10)
Resolution No. 00-90
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied
upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed conveyance and interim
leasing will not directly cause Air Quality impacts. Development activities proposed by the
TLCP and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR
for MCAS Tustin and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the
proposed project.
Consistent with the conclusion reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed project would result
in significant short-term construction air quality impacts; however, the project would not
substantially increase the type or severity of construction related air quality impacts from
those identified in the FEIS/EIR.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 17 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 6
A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City
Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long-term, and
cumulative air quality impacts.
Conveyance of the properties and resulting development at the project site could be subject
to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No
substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin .
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR for operational and construction activities.
However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality
impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16,
2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No new mitigation measure is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143
through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum
Pages 5-10 through 5-28)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 18 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 7
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state
habitat conservation plan?
No SubstantiaC Change from Previous Analysis There would not be any direct physical
impacts resulting from from the conveyance and interim leasing of the properties to the
Tustin Unified School District and any development activities on the school sites by TUSD
would be similar to those identified in the FEIS/EIR . Specifically, impacts to on-site
vegetation and loss of habitat for the loggerhead shrike, a CDFG species of special concern,
would be less than significant. It would be noted that project construction activities would
be completed in compliance with federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). The
MBTA governs the taking and killing of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests.
The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal
species; however, the FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could impact jurisdictional
waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special
concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on
jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin
FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site
habitat, and to require the applicant to obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits
as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or
vegetated wetlands. Therefore, no substantial change is expected from the analysis
previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The proposed
project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin .
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project or as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-
82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28
through 5-40)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 19 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 8
Tustin General Plan
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed conveyance and interim
leasing of the properties to the Tustin Unified School District will not directly cause impacts
to cultural resources. Development activities resulting from conveyance of the properties
have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin .
Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In
1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all
open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources.
Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan
area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried
archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly
impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures
identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential
impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance.
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as maybe required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
CAS Tustin .
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City
Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project or as conditions of approval for the project. No refinements need to be made
to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-
74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40
through 5-45)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project:
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 20 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 9
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis There are not expected to be direct
physical impacts resulting from conveyance and interim leasing of the school sites to TUSD;
however, subsequent development activities for the school sites will cause a direct impact
to geology or soil; however, any development activities proposed have been previously
considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and have been found to have
no demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEIS/EIR indicates that
impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional
subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards
(such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and
lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure.
However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with
state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and
techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to
such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the
analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin .
All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin .
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 21 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 10
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-
97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46
through 5-49)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The the conveyance and interim leasing
of the properties to the Tustin Unified School District will not involve the creation of a
hazard or hazardous materials. Any subsequent development activities proposed by
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 22 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 11
TUSD will be subsequently reviewed. The proposed conveyances and interim leasing
would result generally in the same types of land uses being developed within the project
area. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, these uses would generate and use small amounts of
hazardous materials for operation and maintenance activities.
The FEIS/EIR and its addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then-
current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan
area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration
programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR
concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant
environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property
during construction or operation since the DoN would implement various remedial actions
pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially
hazardous substances in soils and groundwater.
As identified in the FEIS/EIR ,the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The proposed
conveyances and grading activities would not result in changes to height limitation included
in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or
workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as maybe required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin .
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Implementation of activities and development at the
project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be
required by law. No new or modified mitigation is required for the project.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-
117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49
through S-SS)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST)
Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL)
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
Tustin General Plan
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 23 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 12
or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard
delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or
redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed conveyances and interim
leasing will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. Development activities
proposed by the Developer and City of Tustin have been previously considered within the
Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no
demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site.
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with all applicable
regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from anydevelopment activities to
a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed conveyances would not result in
new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously
identified in the FEIS/EIR. The amount of impervious surface proposed for grading would
not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to
impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not
changed substantially. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed;
therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patters, drainage facilities, and
potential flooding would result from the project.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 24 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 13
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of
insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage
were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS
Tustin; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or
as conditions of approval for the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-
105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56
through 5-92)
MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) -Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project would not alter the
land uses proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to
communities within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing
development and development on-site would not physically divide an established
community.
Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project
site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required
. by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the
FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no
~° ~ significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed project does not increase the
severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR; therefore, no
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 25 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 14
refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures
are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3
to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The FEIS/EIR indicated that no mineral
resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project
will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being
present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is
expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR .
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and
Addendum (Page 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XI. NOISE -Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 26 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Yage 15
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis:. The proposed conveyances and interim
leasing would not modify the development previously identified in the FEIS/EIR .
Any short-term noise impacts of subsequent development activities by TUSD would be
subsequently evaluated and would be required to comply with adopted mitigation measures
and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering
procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise
impacts.
As discussed in the FEIS/EIR, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site.
Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project site is not
located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed conveyances and
interim leasing would not involve the development of any uses that would expose people
to excessive noise related to aircraft operations.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR concluded that with implementation of
identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The proposed
DDA Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not increase the severity of the
noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no
refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation
measures would be required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3-
162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING -Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 27 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page l6
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis No additional new housing, removal of
existing housing, or displacement of any people to necessitate construction of additional
housing are proposed with the conveyances and interim leasing activities beyond the
number of units already analyzed in the Specific Plan and previously approved FEIS/EIR.
Similar to the conclusions reached in the FEIS/EIR, the proposed conveyances and grading
activities would not have an adverse effect on population and housing.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required bylaw. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Because no significant impacts were identified, no
mitigation was included in the FEIS/EIR related to population/housing. The proposed DDA
Amendment, DA, and Specific Plan Amendment do not change the conclusions of the
FEIS/EIR and no new mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4-
14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-lOlthrough 5-112)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
The FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation
of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation
facilities, and biking/hiking trails; however, new facilities will be provided within the
Master Developer footprint to which the applicant will contribute a fair share.
Fire Protection. Any proposed development activities by the Tustin Unified School
District on the school sites will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire
Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency
access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and
other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of
uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services
to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site and a
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 28 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 17
future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will meet
the demands created by the proposed project.
Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of
resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Conveyance of
the high school and elementary school sites and interim leasing would not increase the need
for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and
Addendum.
S ch ~~l S.
The conveyance of the future high school and elementary school sites from the City of
Tustin to the Tustin Unified School District is necessary to facilitate construction of two
of the required school sites identified in the Specific Plan. Consistent with SB 50, the
City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures that require the Master Developer to
pay applicable school fees to the TUSD ,Irvine Unified School District (IUSD), and the
Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) to mitigate indirect and direct student
generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits associated with development
at Tustin Legacy.
The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide
"full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on
school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB SO provides that a state or local agency
may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on
the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that
established by SB 50.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County
Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the
Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public
facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area.
Developers or private property within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair
share contribution to a portion of the development costs of the library expansion.
To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public
services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR concluded
that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs
as development of the site proceeded. The proposed conveyances and interim leasing
activities would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the
previously approved FEIS/EIR but rather facilitate the construction of new schools to
accommodate new students generated by the development of Tustin Legacy.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no
~'~`"" significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed conveyances and
grading activities would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 29 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 18
public services beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR but actually contribute to the
construction of new schools that will accommodate new students at Tustin Legacy.
Therefore no new mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-
56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
The proposed conveyances and interim leasing activities would not result in new or
substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared to conclusions of
the FEIS/EIR.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR concluded that there would be no
significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed
conveyances and grading activities would not result in a substantial increase in the severity
of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR . Therefore no new
mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56
to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 30 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 19
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The FEIS/EIR concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the
Specific Plan. The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific
Plan would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips. The o
Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to
analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by
neighborhood, including the construction of a 40-acre high school in Neighborhood D and a
10-acre elementary school site in Neighborhood G. The proposed conveyances and interim
leasing activities would occur on sites that do not exceed the land areas identified in the
Specific Plan; any evaluation of any development activities by the Tustin Unified School
District will need to be subsequently evaluated for consistency with the trip budget
analyzed in the FEIS/EIR .
The conveyances and interim leasing of the school sites are consistent with the locations
analyzed in the Legacy Park. No Significant changes to on-site circulation would occur with
the proposed project as previously evaluated by Austin Foust Associates, Inc. as identified
in the Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis -March 2007 (On file with the Tustin Public Works
Department), which shows that the proposed Legacy Park land use and arterial circulation
changes within the TLCP footprint have not resulted in new significant impacts that would
require mitigation. Therefore, there are no changes at this time and in conjunction with the
project to the previous traffic findings included in the original FEIS/EIR . Moreover, the
proposed on-site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance
with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has
reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the revised analysis.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts
would result from the proposed .conveyances and interim leasing activities than were
"'~"W originally considered by the FEIS/EIR . Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures
are required.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 31 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 20
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-
142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-
127 through 5-147)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust
Associates, Inc.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or
may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
The proposed conveyances and interim leasing activities will not directly cause impacts to
utilities and service systems. Development activities proposed by the Tustin Unified
School District were previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS
Tustin . The FEIS/EIR analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems required
for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed development, including
water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste
management. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and
local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site,
and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR , no unavoidable significant impacts
would result. The proposed conveyances and interim leasing activities would not result in
new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 32 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 21
Mitigation/Monitoring Required.' No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts
would result from the proposed conveyances and grading activities; therefore, no new or
revised mitigation measures are required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3-
46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147
through 5-165)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively
-~ considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects
of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the
proposed conveyances of the future high school and elementary sites to the Tustin
Unified School District. With the enforcement of the FEIS/EIR mitigation and
implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project (the conveyances and interim leasing activities) or as
conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental
effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly
nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife
populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address
cumulative impacts, a Statement of Ovemding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was
adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for
issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural
resources, and traffic/circulation. The project does not create any impacts that have not
been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11)
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 33 of 34
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Conveyance of Future High School and Elementary School sites to TUSD
Page 22
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan and Addendum
Resolution No. 00-90
Tustin General Plan
CONCLUSION
The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS
Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be
required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in
fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project
that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project.
Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to
subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial
change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin.
Resolution No. 08-38
Page 34 of 34