HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 01-116
RESOLUTION NO. 01-116
4
A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL RE-
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 FOR THE
ACCEPTANCE OF A QUITCLAIM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE NAVY FOR PARCEL 5 AND THE APPROVAL OF A
GROUND LEASE WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY RESCUE
MISSION
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
to
11
12
13
14
15
16
1~
is
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
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. On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council certified the Joint Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for
the Disposal and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (the
Program EIS/EIR). The United States Navy issued a Record of Decision on
the Program EIS/EIR in March 2001. The MCAS Tustin examined in the
Program EIS/EIR was 1606 acres; and
D. 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-
2
3
4
s
6
s
9
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
1~
1g
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 Commission, 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
E. On December 3, 2001, the Tustin City Council received a request to consider
and approve the acceptance of a Quitclaim for Parcel 5 from the Department
of Navy and for approval of a Ground Lease between the City of Tustin and
the Orange County Rescue Mission to implement a transitional housing use
at the site. Parcel 5 is a 5.1-acre site located at the former MCAS Tustin; and
F. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c), the Tustin City Council must
consider the approved Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS
Tustin, prior to project approval, determine that the proposed acceptance of
quitclaim for Parcel 5 and ground lease to the Orange County Rescue
Mission have been examined in the light of the Program EIR, agree that an
additional environmental document is not necessary and re-certify that the
FEIS/FEIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin is complete and
adequate; and
G. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section
15168, the City of Tustin has completed an Environmental Analysis Checklist
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents
and determined that all effects associated with the implementation of the
project were evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new
effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures
would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not
found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new
mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would
substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and
adopted.
II. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby find that the proposed project is
within the scope of the FEIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, a
-2-
c.
Program EIR approved earlier and that the Program EIR adequately describes the
proposed activities for the purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(e)).
III. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby re-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
IV. The City Council hereby finds that the environmental effects of the proposed
projects identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist For Projects With
Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents FEIS/FEIR have been
substantially lessened in their severity by the imposition and incorporation of certain
previously approved mitigation measures as identified in Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council
held on the 3rd day of December 2001.
to
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E~..~~ ,
~, ~ ~.-PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
~G~/~1
TRACY WILL. WORLEY M
ayor
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. 01-116 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City
Council, held on December 3, 2001, by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COU ILME BER ABSENT:
~{~<
PAMELA STOKER
'~ CITY CLERK
ccresos\quitclaimenv2.doc
Worley, Thomas, Bone, Doyle, Kawashima
None
None
None
-3-
j
Exhibit A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(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 Afr Station (MCAS) Tustin
The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an
earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to
Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title: Implement the Village of Hope (Acceptance of Quitclaim. Deed For Parcel 5 from
the Department of Navy to the City Of Tustin, Execution of a Long-Term Lease
Between City of Tustin and Orange County Rescue Mission, Conditional Use
Permit 01-030 and Design Review 01-037) at the former MCAS Tustin.
Lead Agency: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana Ogdon Phone: (714) 573-3116
Project Location: Parcel 5, Former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: Public/Institutional
Project Description: Acceptance Of Quitclaim Deed For Parcel 5 From The Department Of
Navy To The City Of Tustin, Execution Of Long-Term Lease Between
City Of Tustin And Orange County Rescue Mission, Conditional Use
Permit 01-030 And Design Review 01-037.
Surrounding Uses:
North: Existing Base Property East: Existing Base Property
South: Existing Base Property West: Light CommerciaUlndustrial
Previous Environmental Doc~...~entation: Final Environmental Imps. _ ~ Statement/Bnviroinmental
Impact Report (EISBIIZ) 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
NEGATNE 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 fmd 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 1) 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.
^ 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.
Preparers ~~ ~ ~C3'~'---_
Dana Ogdon, Program anager
Christine A. Shingleton, A tant City Manager
Date f ~ 7 O
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVII20NMENTA .~IPACTS
L 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?
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 maybe 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?
~'
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
o ^
^ ^
^ ^
O O
O ~ ~
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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 substanfial 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?
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?
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
^ ^
O O
^ ^
^ ^
O O
a o
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
(°
t
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 waste water 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 working in the project area?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Sign cant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
D ^
^ ^
^ ^
a a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ O
^ ^
^ ^
a o
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?
VIII. FIYDROLOGY 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)?
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?
f) 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?
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?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
D D
D D
^ ^
^ ^
D ^
D ^
~'
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,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
r 1
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.'I'RANSPORTATION/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?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
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?
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
0 0
a o
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
EXHIBIT 1
EVALUATION OF ENVLRONMENTAL IMPACTS
VILLAGE OF HOPE
(ACCEPTANCE OF QUITCLAIM DEED FOR PARCEL 5 FROM THE DEPARTMENT
OF NAVY TO THE CITY OF TUSTIN, EXECUTION OF GROUND LEASE BETWEEN
CITY OF TUSTIN AND ORANGE COUNTY RESCUE MISSION, CbNDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 01-030 AND DESIGN REVIEW 01-03'~
BACKGROUND
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially closed on July 2, 1999 as a result of 1991,
1993 and 1995 federal Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAG) actions. Prior to and since the
date of closure, the City of Tustin has implemented various planning activities in its Department of
Defense designated capacity as Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin. In
October 1996, the City of Tustin approved a Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin that provides for a future
preferred land uses at the base, in accordance with BRAG law. A Homeless Assistance Plan for
MCAS Tustin was also completed by the City of Tustin in 1996 as required by the federal Base
Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994. The Reuse Plan and
Homeless Assistance Plan provides for the needs of 242 homeless individuals through the efforts of
five homeless providers including the Orange County Rescue Mission (Rescue Mission). As part of
the Homeless Assistance Plan, an Agreement has been approved by the federal department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and executed by all of the homeless providers and City of
Tustin committing to implementation of the Homeless Assistance Plan. Pursuant to the Reuse Plan
and Homeless Assistance Plan, the City of Tustin will accept from the Navy a 5.1-acre quitclaim of
the parcel and then lease the site to the Orange County Rescue Mission (Rescue Mission). The
Rescue Mission is committed to using the 5.1-acre site (Parcel 5) fora 192-bed transitional housing
program, and proposes to rehabilitate/renovate two existing vacant barracks buildings totaling
80,664 square feet as well as to construct two new buildings (Building A and B) totaling 50,930
square feet in size. A 1,400 square feet (approx.) existing mechanical building is also proposed to
be retained/reused that results in a total proposed build-out of 132,994 square feet of potential
development at the site.
In September 1999, the City of Tustin and Department of Navy executed an interim lease for
Parcel 3. The City subsequently subleased Parcel 3 (later renumbered as Parcel 5) to the Orange
County Rescue Mission to permit minor interior remodel of the two existing barracks as part of the
proposed redevelopment of Parcel 5 as approved in the Reuse Plan and Homeless Assistance Plan.
On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified a joint Environmental Impact
Statement/Bnvironmental Impact Report (EISBIR) for the reuse and disposal of all property at
MCAS Tustin (hereafter referred to as the "Program EIS/BIlZ"). The Navy subsequently issued a
Record of Decision on the Program EIS/EIR on March 2, 2001. On August 29, 2001, the Navy
executed a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) which is an environmental clearance
document for Parcel 5 as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to
transfer from the Navy to the City of Tustin. The approval of a Program EISBIR and the FOST
are prerequisites to a number of Reuse Plan implementation actions for the site. The actions are
cumulatively defined herein to be a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Section 21065 and include:
Exhibit l `
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 2
1. Acceptance of Quitclaim Deed/Acquisition of the Site by City of Tustin
2. Execution of Ground Lease Between City of Tustin and Orange County Rescue Mission
3. Conditional Use Permit 01-030
4. Design Review 01-037
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(f) states: "A previously prepared EIR may also be used as an
Initial Study for a later project." Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(4), "Where the
subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or
similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the
environmental effects of the operation were covered in the Program ElR."
A Program EISBIR has been prepared and approved by the City of Tustin for the reuse of MCAS
Tustin, including the subject site. Chapter 7 of the Program EIS/EIR describes the environmental
consequences of the implementing actions. Pursuant to CEQA, the City of Tustin has completed a
checklist (below) and determined that all effects associated with the implementation of the
proposed project has been previously and comprehensively addressed in the Program EISBIR.
The Program EIS/EIR is incorporated herein by this reference.
The following checklist concludes that all of the project's effects were .examined in the Program
EISBIR, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that
no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible,
and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would
substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted.
I. AESTHETICS
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?
The Village of Hope project is proposed to be located within the existing Public and
Institutional zoning designation at the former MCAS Tustin providing the City of Tustin
with control over the urban design elements of the project. The westerly facade of the
proposed project will be visible from Red Hill Avenue and the remaining edges of the
Exhibit 1 ~ - ~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 3
project will be visible from the adjacent "Learning Village" site. There are no scenic vistas,
state scenic highways, rock outcroppings, etc., affected by development of the project site.
The Tustin City Code requires the project's design to be reviewed and approved by the
Tustin Planning Commission (Tustin City Code Section 9245). The Planning Commission
Design Review process is intended, among other things, to ensure that new uses and
structures enhance the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings, that the
project is harmonious with the surrounding area and total community, and that the project
will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Tustin Planning Commission
design review and approval will ensure that all project related aesthetic impacts are
satisfactorily addressed. The Tustin Planning Commission will also ensure that Village of
Hope designers have complied with the draft Specific Plan's urban design guidelines to
ensure that the project is compatible with future development on the base.
Miti,~atron/Monitorin~ Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations is not
mitigation under CEQA. Consequently, no mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-58
through 3-67, 4-81 through 4-92, and 7-22 through 7-24)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 2-186 through 2-194 and
3-33 through 3-37).
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES
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?
The Village of Hope project site has historically been utilized in support of Marine Corps
enlisted. housing and is currently developed with two existing barracks buildings, a
mechanical building, parking area and landscaping. The proposed Village of Hope project
will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance,
nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract or
involve or cause changes to the environment resulting in conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural use.
Exhibit 1 ` __
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 4
Miti~ation/Monitorin,~ Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-83
through 3-87, 4-109 through 4-114, and 7-27 through 7-28)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
III. AIR QUALITY
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?
Implementation of the proposed Village of Hope project would entail the conversion of 192
barracks units to homeless transitional housing and construction of new administrative
buildings. Historically, the existing barracks units were used to provide housing support for
Marine enlisted personnel. The proposed Village of Hope will not house more than 192
persons who will not operate private vehicles, which should result in a reduction in vehicle-
trip related air quality impacts for the site. Operation of the site by the Rescue Mission will
require compliance with SCAQMD requirements (e.g., emission permits for on-site boilers,
etc.). The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air
quality plan or result in a cumulatively considerable
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?
The Program EISBIR concluded that build-out of the Reuse Plan (including the proposed
Village of Hope project) would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
pollutant Peak Construction emissions for ROC, and PMIO and that Reuse Plan operations
activities (including the Village of Hope project) would produce CO, ROC, and NOx
pollutant emissions that will exceed SCAQMD significance criteria. These construction and
operation activities could expose sensitive receptors, over time, to substantial pollutant
concentrations and potentially create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people.
{ i
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 5
Miti~ation/Monitorin~ Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the Program EIS/EIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-3 and AQ-4
applies to the proposed project and will be required to minimize significant construction air
quality impacts, but would not reduce the cumulative impact below a level of significance.
Program Mitigation Measure AQ-4 was required to reduce operations emissions at non-
TDM projects such as the proposed Village of Hope. However, Program EIS/EIR also
concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and
impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the Program
EIS/EIR has been adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001.
• AQ-1 - If determined feasible and appropriate on aproject-by-project basis, the City
of Tustin and the City of Irvine, 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 according to manufacturers'
specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for four days or more).
- Replace ground 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 the 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 to be infeasible on a
project-by-project basis due to unique project characteristics, the City of Tustin shall
Exhibit 1 °~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 6
require the project proponent to use low VOC architectural coatings for all interior
and exterior painting operations.
• AQ-3 -Prior to the issuance of development permits for 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 City of Tustin and the City of
Irvine, 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 parking 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 workweek, flextime, 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 service such as banks,
restaurants, and small retail.
- Provide on-site day care facilities.
- Establish an employee transportation coordinator(s).
• AQ-4 -The City of Tustin shall require the project proponent to utilize applicable
transportation management measures to be implemented, as determined appropriate
or feasible on a case-by-case basis, as follows:
- Reschedule truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak hours.
- Implement lunch shuttle service from a worksite(s) to food establishments.
- Implement compressed workweek schedules where weekly work hours are
compressed into fewer than five days, such as 9/80, 4140, or 3/36.
Exhibit 1 ~~~ ~- __
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 7
- Provide on-site child care and after-school facilities or contribute to off-site
developments within walking distance.
- Provide on-site employee services such as cafeterias, banks, etc.
- Implement a pricing structure for single-occupancy employee parking, andlor
provide discounts to ride sharers.
- Construct off-site pedestrian facility 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 designated bicycle commuting 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.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/EIlZ for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143
through153, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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?
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 8
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?
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?
The Program EIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan would not result in
impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. Urban
development associated with undeveloped areas of MCAS Tustin would significantly affect
the southwestern pond turtle, a species of special concern, determined to be a significant
impact under CEQA, and also result in the loss of loggerhead shrike habitat although there
would be no overall adverse effect to the population in Southern California.
The proposed Village of Hope project site is currently developed with two existing barracks
buildings, a mechanical building, parking area and landscaping and contains no natural
biological resources or habitat. The Program EIS/EIR identifies no candidate, sensitive, or
special status species or habitats including riparian, sensitive natural communities, wetlands,
jurisdictional waters or wildlife corridors located on the .site. Development of the site will
not substantially affect historical storm drainage flows off base. There is also no evidence
that the proposed development would have any substantial adverse effect on any sensitive
species or riparian habitat/natural community or have any- substantial effect on federally
protected wetlands. Also, the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances or policies regarding tree preservation, Habitat Conservation, etc.
MitigationlMonitorin~ Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75
through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
i ii
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 9
Two blimp hangars and related landing pads form two discontiguous historic districts that
were eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Implementation of the Reuse Plan
would result in irreversibly eliminating most of the two discontiguous eligible historic
districts resulting in significant impacts to these historic resources. Pursuant to Section 106
of the National .Historic Preservation Act, the SHPO, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, Navy, City of Tustin and County of Orange have executed a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) that addresses measures to mitigate the effects of destruction of portions
of the eligible historic district. The proposed Village of Hope project site is not within the
eligible historic district and is currently developed with two existing barracks buildings, a
mechanical building, parking area and landscaping and would not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of any historical or cultural resource at MCAS Tustin.
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?
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. However, it is possible that previously
unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources at the Village of Hope
project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the
inclusion of a mitigation measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to
cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the Program EIS/EIR. The Final Program EISBIR for MCAS Tustin is
included by reference as the Initial Study for the proposed project. Program EISBIl2
Mitigation Measures Arch-2, Paleo-1 and Paleo-2 will be required to be implemented by the
project proponent to mitigate potential impacts associated with the proposed project.
• Arch-2 -Prior to issuance of grading permits, the City of Tustin shall require the
project proponent to retain, asappropriate, acounty-certified archaeologist. 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 viewpoint shall be considered during this process.
This could include testing or data recovery. Native American consultation shall also
be initiated during this process.
E
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 10
• Paleo-1 -The City of Tustin shall each require the project proponent 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.
• Paleo-2 -Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall provide
written evidence to the City of Tustin, that acounty-certified paleontologist has been
retained to conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are
found.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EISlE1R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68
through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
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 (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 wastewater?
Exhibit l ~ ~ '~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 11
The Program EISBIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from
implementation of the Reuse 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."
The Village of Hope project site is located in an area that may be affected by localized
ground settlement, expansive soil, unstable slope conditions caused during grading or
construction of utility trenches, etc.), erosion, and seismic hazards. However, the Program
EIS/E1R for MCAS Tustin has 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 significantimpacts related to such hazards.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88
through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
VII. HAZARDS AND HA7.ARDOUS MATERIALS
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?
Exhibit 1 ~ ~ .
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 12
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?
The proposed Village of Hope project will create a 192-unit transitional housing project.
Other than household cleaning materials and substances typically found to support such a
use, the project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use or
disposal of hazardous materials, nor is there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions at the property. In addition, the operation of the facility would not emit
hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy has
approved a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (POST) determining that the Navy finds no
existing environmental concerns preventing transfer of the site for the planned reuse. The
project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan,
however, it is at least 4 miles from John Wayne Airport, does not lie within an flight
approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft related safety hazard for
future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger
area.
Implementation activities such as those proposed at the Village of Hope will be conducted
in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations governing the use, handling,
transportation, and storage of hazardous materials, thereby reducing the potential of an
unauthorized release to the environment. Potential impacts would still exist from the
potential for accidental spills or releases and the assumed need for new hazardous material
storage and waste accumulation areas. However, compliance with all federal, state and local
regulations concerning handling and use of these hazardous substances will reduce potential
impacts to below a level of significance.
Miti~ation/Monitorin,~ Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106
through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37)
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (POST) for Parcel s, MCAS Tustin
~~
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 13
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
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)?
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?
Village of Hope construction of buildings and improvements would lead to silt-laden runoff
due to storm events and watering to reduce dust related air emissions. This runoff would
contain relatively high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) and would contribute to
degrading local and regional water quality. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water
quality are anticipated for the proposed project. Construction of the Village of Hope project
will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. No
groundwater removal is proposed and the project proposes the removal of a large, existing
parking surface for new planting areas resulting in the site being more supportive of regional
groundwater recharge activities. The project proposes to utilize historic drainage patterns at
the site and is consistent with drainage master plans prepared by the Orange County Flood
{ i
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 14
Control. District. The project is not located within a 100-year flood area, will not expose
people or structure to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami or
mudflow.
Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area
Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and
the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). 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.
Miti~ation/MonitorinQ Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/B1R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98
through 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37)
FEMA Map (1999)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING
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?
The proposed project will redevelop the site into a 132,994 square foot "Village of Hope"
homeless transitionaUemergency housing use that will establish a separate and distinct
location that will physically define and set-apart a portion of the former MCAS Tustin, a
previously contiguous and uninterrupted military "community".
The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the
former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space
areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems.
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council approved a General Plan Amendment that
established an MCAS Specific Plan General Plan land use designation for the site, creating a
consistent policy and regulations governing the redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. The Reuse
Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin permits the redevelopment of the subject site (Village
of Hope) as a transitionaUemergency housing use. However, there is a potential for land use
E
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 15
incompatibility with adjacent uses or internally if the proposed development is not
sensitively designed. Individual site-specific compatibility impacts could be addressed by
appropriate site design such as buffering screening, setbacks, landscaping, etc. Although the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan has been prepared to establish new zoning for the site, recently
filed litigation will prevent the ordinance and associated design guidelines from being
implemented. The site's current zoning is Public and Institutional (P&I) which permits the
proposed transitional housing land use through a Conditional Use Permit and design review
approval by the Tustin Planning Commission intended to fully address site design issues
associated with the proposed project. Formal land use and design approval of the project by
the Tustin Planning Commission must occur for Design Review Ol -037 and Conditional
Use Permit 01-030 prior to project construction. Compliance with state and local
regulations and standards would avoid. the creation of significant land use and planning
impacts.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
The proposed Village of Hope project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan.
• Mitigation/MonitoringReguired: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Subnutted Plans
Program EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-
17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-15)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
X. MINERAL RESOURCES
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?
Chapter 3.9 of the Program EIS/EIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur
anywhere within the Reuse Plan area.
The proposed project site is currently developed with barracks and a parking lot and has
been used historically to house military personnel. The proposed Village of Hope
development 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. The Final Program
1
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 16
EISBIR for MCAS Tustin is included by reference as the Initial Study for the proposed
project.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EISBIIt for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
XI. NOISE
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?
Implementation activities closest to major roadways would be affected by noise of 70 dB
CNEL or higher. According to the Program EIS/EIR, on-site properties within 75 feet of
Valencia west of Red Hill are projected to generate noise levels of 68.5 dB at full Reuse
Plan build-out (a 3.3 dB increase over existing noise levels). The Village of Hope project
proposes the reuse of two existing barracks buildings that have been built with noise
attenuation to address Marine Corps helicopter over-flights, vehicular traffic and noise from
John Wayne Airport. The 192 unit barracks typically housed two or more enlisted
personnel per room (approximately 384 or more Marines). The Orange County Rescue
Mission has been approved to house only 192 persons on site and does not allow residents to
drive vehicles to or from the site. This reduction in residency is anticipated to reflect a
reduction in anticipated vehicle trips to and from the site that would result in less traffic
noise being generated from the reuse of the site than previously occurred. The City of
Tustin will ensure that the.project be sound attenuated against present and projected noise so
as not to exceed an exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an
interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms to reduce noise related impacts to a
level of insignificance.
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?
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
{~
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 17
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?
The Village of Hope project proposes to create a transitional housing use for the homeless at
the former MCAS Tustin near the intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Valencia Avenue.
The Program EIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that
would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would
exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the
Noise Elements of the Tustin General Plan. Residences (including the Village of Hope),
schools, libraries, hospitals, and recreational areas are generally considered sensitive noise
receptors. Although the arrival pattern for John Wayne Airport is located in proximity to the
Village of Hope project site, JWA Quarterly Noise Reports indicate that noise levels at the
nearest noise sensor is below the maximum allowable of 65 dB for exterior residential noise
levels. Implementation of the proposed project would also result in incremental short-term
construction noise impacts. However, compliance with state and local regulations and
standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid
unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards.
MitiQation/Monitorin,~ Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the Program EISlEIR. The City of Tustin is required to ensure that Program
EISBIR Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-3 are implemented for this project.
N-1 -Prior to reuse of any existing residential units within the reuse area for
civilian use, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, and where
necessary 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.
N-3 -For new development within the reuse area, the City of Tustin 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.
SouYCes: Submitted Plans
Program EISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to
3-162, 4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 18
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING
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?
The proposed Village of Hope project would convert two existing barracks buildings and
construct new support structures intended to be used as a 192-bed homeless transitional
housing facility. Reuse of the existing barracks to support the Orange County Rescue
Mission's Village of Hope is considered a Public and Institutional use and does not provide
permanent affordable or market rate housing. Historically, the Marine Corps housed 2-3
persons in each of the 192 units at the site. Due to the fact that the Marine Corps voluntarily
vacated the barracks in July 1999, and because the proposed project limits future tenancy
and occupancy to 192-beds, no residents will be displaced and no substantial population
growth is anticipated. There will also be a beneficial effect from the implementation of the
project in that it will provide needed homeless transitional housing to the community. Since
no existing housing would be displaced, no significant impacts to population and housing
would occur.
1Vliti,~ation/Monitorin~ Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/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)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
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:
Prior to base closure, the Marine Corps provided public services to the base's inhabitants
including fire and police protection services, day-care, libraries, recreation facilities, etc. to
the base property (with cooperative agreements with the local community for fire and police
t
Exhibit 1 ~`
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 19
support services). Military dependents of school age typically attended local schools.
Closure and reuse of the base will increase the population at the site which will result in
demands for fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities and
biking/hiking trails.
The Village of Hope is intended to operate as a closed environment, with restricted access
and egress for program participants, staff and visitors affecting the following public services
areas:
Fire protection. The Village of Hope project 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 fire stations in the areas surrounding the site 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. The proposed Village of
Hope project will incrementally but not immediately increase the need for police emergency
and protection services.
Schools. Development of the Village of Hope project could result in occupancy by school
age children. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Tustin Unified
School District (TUSD). However, the number of children generated by the Village of
Hope project will not significantly impact TUSD when compared to the number of
military school age children that previously attended District schools prior to closure.
The Reuse Plan provides for two 10-acre elementary school sites and one 40-acre high
school site within the TUSD to address school needs associated with the build-out of the
Reuse Plan. In addition, the TUSD is permitted to collect the statutory development fees
allowed by State law collected from the Orange County Rescue Mission for this project.
Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only
result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This
relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of
10,000 square feet for a branch library, and would not trigger the need for a new facility. In
addition, three existing public libraries exist within athree-mile radius of the base.
Implementation of the proposed Village of Hope project will not result in an increase in the
demand for and utilization of public services and facilities beyond the existing capacity nor
create a demand that exceeds the available planned capacity of those services.
General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent
Exhibit 1 `
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village ofHope
Page 20
with demand. The Rescue Mission will be required to comply with the following applicable
implementation measures:
General.
• The City 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 (including bikeways/trails) needed to adequately serve the reuse plan area
shall be provided as necessary. To eliminate any negative impact the project could
have on each community'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 City. Specifically;
(1) Applicants for private development projects shall be required to enter into an
agreement with City of Tustin orthe City of Irvine, as applicable, to establish
a fair-share mechanism to provide needed fire and police protection services
and parks and recreation facilities (including bikeways) through the use of fee
schedules, assessment district financing, Community Facility District
financing, or other mechanisms as determined appropriate by each respective
city.
(2) Recipients of property through public conveyance process shall be required to
mitigate any impacts of their public uses of property on public services and
facilities.
Fire Protection/EmergencyMedkal Services.
• 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 City 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 necessary to serve
the project and eliminate any negative impacts on fire protection services.
• 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.
• 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.
• Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall work closely with
the respective Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are
implemented in the project.
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 21
Schools.
• Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project developer shall
submit to the respective City proof of payment of appropriate school fees adopted by
the applicable school district.
Parks and Recreation.
• Prior to the first final map recordation (except for financing and reconveyance
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 City of Tustin Park Code.
• Prior to the first concept plan for tentative tract map in the City 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 City 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.
Miti~ation/Monitorin~ Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/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)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37}.
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?
For parks and recreation, the Tustin General Plan standard for determining capacity is three
acres per 1,000 population. Using this standard, approximately 37.5 acres of parkland
would be required to support the projected on-site residential population at build-out of the
Reuse Plan. The Reuse Plan provides for a new 85.5-acre Regional Park, a 24-acre
Community Park and two 5+-acre Neighborhood Parks along with a significant number of
regional and community riding and hiking paths through the property, a privately owned
159-acre golf course, play areas associated with schools and child care facilities. The
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental .Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 22
provision of these new recreational facilities would resolve almost 80 percent of the City of
Tustin's parkland deficiency which is one of the purposes of the Reuse Plan as a whole.
The Village of Hope is intended to operate as a closed environment, with restricted access
and egress for program participants, staff and visitors. Consequently, it is not anticipated
that the project will significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood, regional parks
or other recreational facilities.
Mitigation/Monitorin,~ Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/ElR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-
57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37)
Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Deparhnent
XV. TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION
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?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The Program EIS/E1R indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created
through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan. A projected 109,804 Average
Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by full redevelopment of the base that, if left
Exhibit 1 ~ . ~ .
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 23
unmitigated, would overburden existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base
property.
However, Vehicle trips generated from the Village of Hope development would utilize
existing on-site and off-site roadways previously utilized when the property was used at full
capacity by the military. The Program EIS/EIR indicates that traffic circulation activities at
MCAS Tustin generated a baseline of 12,400 ADT when the base was fully .operational
(1993). Valencia Avenue (at Red Hill) was an access location that accounted for 4,900 of
these baseline average daily trips.
The Village of Hope will not allow future tenants to operate a vehicle but will generate
employee, visitor and occasional special event traffic. Due to the fact that the base has
closed and realignment of military personnel and families has occurred, previous daily trips
to and from the base have nearly ceased. According to the Specific Plan's Phasing Plan
(Table 4-1), the proposed development of the Village of Hope (192 room transitional
housing) was anticipated to create only 941 ADT within the first phase of development.
These trips will be directed to and from the Valencia Avenue access to the base. A
comparison of the baseline average daily trips to the daily trips generated by the proposed
Village of Hope project (4,900 ADT vs. 941 ADT) reveals that the project would not result
in transportation and circulation impacts other than possible short-term construction-related
impacts including lane closures with short-term disruption to the public.
Closure of MCAS Tustin and the realignment of servicemen and the families have
significantly reduced previously existing MCAS Tustin demands upon public transit
services, airport, parking, and the bicycle trail system. Programs envisioned by the Village
of Hope will be a closed-site program with participants not typically allowed to leave the
site unattended. Consequently, it is not anticipated that the Village of Hope project would
generate demands upon these other public systems.
The City of Tustin will monitor all new development within the Reuse Plan, accounting for
the cumulative ADT generated by development projects (including the Village of Hope) to
ensure the construction of necessary roadway improvements as each ADT threshold is
reached. City of Tustin ground lease provisions requires the Village of Hope to
proportionately pay for municipal services, utilities and infrastructure improvements to the
Premises. The proposed Village of Hope project would not result in a significant
transportation and circulation impact beyond the short-term impacts anticipated during
construction (e.g., lane closures, streebutility construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.).
To address these construction related impacts, the Rescue Mission will be required to meet
Program EIS/EIR Implementation Measures and Mitigation Measure T/C-1 (below). With
this mitigation measure, potential impacts to transportation and circulation resources can be
reduced to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation/MonitorinQ Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council. in the Program EIS/EIR. The City of Tustin is required to ensure that Program
Exhibit 1 ~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 24
EISBIR Mitigation Measures IA-2, IA-3, IA-4, IA-5, IA-7, T/C-1, T/C-4, T/C-5, T/C-6 and
T/C-7 are implemented for this project.
• IA-2 -Table 7-3 of the Final EIS/BIR (see Table 6 at the end of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program) 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.
• IA-3 -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 fmancing 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) identify and assign traffic circulation
mitigation measures required in the EIS/EIR pursuant to the Phasing Plan described
in Table 4.12-10 of the Final EIS/EIR (see Table 5 at the end of the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program); (b) evaluate the effects of either the delay of any
previously committed circulation improvements or the construction of currently
unanticipated circulation improvements; and (c) utilize the circulation system and
capacity assumptions within the EIS/EIR and any additional circulation
improvements completed by affected jurisdictions for the applicable timeframe of
analysis.
• IA-4 -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 Final EIS/EIR
(see Table 5 at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) 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.
• IA-5 - 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 of the Final EIS/BIR (see Table 5 at the end
of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) may be amended, subject to
approval of the City of Tustin and any other affected jurisdictions, provided that the
same level of traffic mitigation and traffic capacity would be provided.
• IA-7 -Each Specific Plan project would contain, to the satisfaction of the City of
Tustin and/or City of Irvine, as applicable, a pedestrian circulation component
showing pedestrian access to regional hiking trails, parks, schools, shopping areas,
bus stops, and/or other public facilities.
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 25
• T/C-1 - In conjunction with the approval of a site development permit, the City of
Tustin 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 shall ensure that the plan would minimize anticipated delays at major
intersections. Prior to approval,. the City of Tustin shall review the proposed traffic
control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction.
• T/C-4 -The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, 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 Final EISBIR (see Table 5 at the end of the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) 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 Final EIS/EIR (see
Table 5 at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) 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
fmancing 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 City of
Irvine, 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 improvements consistent with the ADT generation thresholds
shown in Tables 4.12-7, 4.12-8, 4.12-9, and 4.12-10 (see Tables 2 through 5 at the
end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program).
• T/C-61-The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the
reuse plan area in Irvine), will monitor new development within the reuse plan area,
accounting for the cumulative ADTs generated by development projects within the
reuse plan area. As each cumulative ADT threshold shown in Table 4.12-10 (see
Table 5 at the end of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) is reached,
the roadway improvements listed shall be constructed before any additional projects
within the reuse plan area are approved.
• T/C-7 -The City 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
intensity of permitted non-residential uses as evaluated in the EISBIR.
Table references in the mitigation measures have been changed from the Final
FEIS/EIR to match the correct table numbers in the FEIS/EIR.
F ~
Exhibit 1 {~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 26
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118
through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
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?
Much of the utility infrastructure supporting the former MCAS Tustin was originally
constructed in the 1940's. Subsequent improvements were made by the military in a
piecemeal fashion in support of a military mission with the existing systems now deterniined
to be antiquated, undependable and inadequate to support reuse. Redevelopment of the
former MCAS Tustin requires the construction of new backbone domestic and reclaimed
water, sanitary sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable television
systems. New utility backbone systems will be constructed concurrently with the planned
arterial streets depicted in the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin. Construction of these
backbone systems would be done in accordance with a phasing plan to meet utility needs as
development of the site proceeds. The Program EIS/EIR indicates that a "proposed
development not supported by existing utilities would only be approved when necessary
utilities could be provided and financed as conditions of development approval."
Exhibit 1 ~ - ~-_
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 27
Due to the reduction of utility and service usage caused by base closure and realignment, the
Village of Hope project would not immediately or negatively impact utility service
provider's (electricity, gas, telephone, cable television, etc.) off=site capacity. However, the
existing utilities and public services previously provided at the former MCAS Tustin are
insufficient to permanently support implementation of the Reuse Plan, including the
proposed Village of Hope project. Ultimately, new off-site and on-site backbone utility
systems or supplies are necessary to support the development of the Reuse Plan (including
the Village of Hope site) which will result in adverse changes or alterations to the physical
environment, reduction of existing utility supplies or other negative effects to on-site and
off-site capacity or provision of service to the project. Existing on-site utility systems are
currently owned by the Navy and maintenance of these lines, if temporarily used in support
of the project until the backbone systems are in place, will be the responsibility of the
Orange County Rescue Mission.
Due to the reduction of usage caused by base closure and realignment, implementation of
the Village of Hope project would not immediately result in new landfill service systems or
facilities. However, the Village of Hope project would cumulatively contribute to an
estimated 37,000 tons of solid waste generated by full implementation of the Reuse Plan.
General Implementation Requirements: In support of proposed development at the former
base, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires backbone utility systems to be provided
concurrent with demand. The Rescue Mission will be required to comply with the
following implementation measures:
• Prior to a final map recordation (except for fmancing and reconveyance purposes),
the development applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin and
City 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 city, agency, district, or other providers.
• Prior to any final map recordation (except for financing and conveyance purposes),
the development applicant shall 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.
• 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.
• Prior to the issuance of the certificates of use and occupancy, the project developer
shall ensure that fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the OCFA are
in place and operational to meet fire flow requirements.
~''
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 28
• 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, OCSD, or the City of Tustin which outlines
required facilities necessary to provide adequate sanitary sewage 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-year flood plain, grading and drainage systems 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 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 of Irvine, and/or OCFCD, as
applicable:
(1) 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.
(2) A drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns would not result
in increased 100-year peak discharges within and downstream 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.
(3) Detailed drainage studies indicating how, in conjunction with the drainage
conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street 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.
Miti~ation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Exhibit 1
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 29
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/B1R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35
through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
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?
Based upon the foregoing, the Village of Hope project does not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife
populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the
enforcement of mitigation measures described above, the project does not cause unmitigated
environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly. The program EIS/E1R previously considered all environmental impacts
associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan (including the proposed Village of
Hope project). Consequently, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the
effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. Mitigation measures
have been proposed to reduce this impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement
of Overriding Consideration for the Program EIS/EIIZ has been adopted by the Tustin City
Council on January 16, 2001.
Miti~ation/Monitorin~ Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the Program EIS/EIR. All of the proposed project's environmental effects
have been examined and discussed above and in the Program EISBIR for MCAS Tustin.
Required Mitigation Measures are also specified above. No additional or new mitigation
measures would be required.
t<
Exhibit 1 ~`~
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Village of Hope
Page 30
Sources: Submitted Plans
Program EIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4
through 5-11)
Reuse Plan/Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-33 through 3-37).
CONCLUSION
The summary concludes that all of the Village of Hope project's effects were previously examined
in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new
mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not
found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or
alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have
not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the Program EIS/EIR on January 16, 2001
and shall apply to the proposed project as applicable.
Initialstudyrescueimp3.doc