Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 98-112 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 9 10 11 12 13 14 I$ 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 26 2'/ 29 RESOLUTION NO. 98-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CERTIFYING THE FINAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TItE I'NTERIM LEASE AND SUBLEASE OF BUILDINGS 553 AND 554, MCAS TUSTIN, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENWIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The Cit'5' Council of the CIE,' of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao The request to approve an interim Lease and Sublease for Buildings 553 and 554, Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Tustin is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. I1. A Final Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance x~qth CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council, having tinal approval authority over the interim Lease and Sublease of Buildings 553 and 554, MCAS Tustin, has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration, prior to approving the proposed project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public review process, the City Council has found that the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment. However, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration and Initial Study (Exhibit A) have been incorporated into the project which mitigate any potential significant environmental effects to a point where clearly no si~mfificant effect would occur and are adopted as findings and conditions of City Council Resolution No. 98-112. I~ I 11 I 2 3 $ 6 ? 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Resolution No. 9g-112 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 7th day of December, 1998. THOMAS R. ~TAR~LLi MAYOR ,.ff~E L A STOKER U2' crrY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUN'I'Y OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the CiD' 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. 98-112 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 7th day of December, 1998, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERAYES: SALTARELLI, WORLEY, DOYLE, COUNCILMEMER NOES: NONE COIJNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: NO.~E COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ~o~ '2[JAMEI.A STOKER kT-~CLERK DO :kd,ccresos'.98-112.doc POTTS, THO1 AS EXHIBIT A I . [, I H C05IMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial II'ay, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) .573-3100 iNITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND Project Title: LEASE AND SUBLEASE OF 5.8 ACRE SITE ENCOMPASSING BARRACKS 553 AND 554 AT MCAS, TUSTIN Lead Agency: Cib' of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: CHRISTINE SHINGLETON Phone: (714) 573-3107 Project Location: MCAS-TUSTIN Project Sponsor's Name and Address: (SAME AS LEAD AGENCY) General Plan Designation: PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL Zoning Designation: PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL Project Description: LEASE AND SUBLEASE OF A 5.8 ACRE SITE ENCOMPASSING BARRACKS BUILDINGS 553 AND 554 AT MCAS TUSTIN Surrounding Uses: North: Existing Base Property East: South: Existing Base Property. West: Other public agencies whose approval is required: [3 [3 D Orange County Fire Authority Orange County Health Care Agency South Coast Air Quality Management District Other Existing Base Property Industrial Uses Across Redhill Avenue ['-] City of Irx'ine [3 City of Santa Ana [--] Orange County EMA B. ENX, qRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, invoMng at least one i:..,~act that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. [-~Land Use and Planning ["~Population and Housing [-~Geological Problems [-~Water ['-].Mr Quality [-'~Transportation & Circulation [-IBiological Resources [~Energy and Mineral Resources [--]Hazards [Noise ['-]Public Services []Utilities and Service Systems [-]Aesthetics ['-]Cultural Resources [--]Recreation ~]Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLA. P,.~.TION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a si_m'fificant 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 DECLAtLA. IION will be prepared. find that the proposed project MAY have a si~ificant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON.%4ENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a sigrdficant 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 ENWIRONMENTAL 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 EIIL 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 si_m'fificant 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. Signature.~/~~'7--~ ~~ Date /' - 2e~- ~'~' Print Name ff'~. ~'~'/~5 x.~/4~"l/~t Title ~,~'~/~/'rt" ,,~,v,q~Je',~- D. ENVIRON, IENTA.L IMPACTS: I ! Earlier analyses used: A vailablefor review at: Ci.~.'of Tustin Communi,?, Development Department 1. I..&_¥D USE & PL.-MNN'ING- Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with ju:-isd, iction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicini? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minor/t)' community.)? 2. POPULATION & I:tOUSENG- l~buld theproposah ---) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrasu-ucture)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS - I~buld the proposal result in or erpose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic e) Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of land? Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER - Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. 'e) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Potentially Significant Impact Po:eh:icily Sigmficsnt Unless Mir!ga :ion Incor'~,ora~ed ~ess than Significant [moact .Vo lmaact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 3 Change in the quantity of ~ound waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Aitered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amoant of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AI~ QUALITY - l~buld the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? TIL4cNSPORTATION & CIRCLrLATION - Would :he proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficiem par'k/rig capacity onsite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ~ansportafion (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air txaffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not lirnited to plants, fish, imects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY & MIaNER.~L RESOURCES - Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region? Potentially Sign!~cant Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Poter. ziaii;' Significant Unless Mirigc:ion Incorporated Significant Im,vact No Imoact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 4 9. ItAZA.RDS - Wou!d the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides. che:-nicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with emergency response plan o: emergency evacuation plan.? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazarcls? e) Increased fzre hazard in areas with flammable brash, gTaSS, or trees? 10. NOISE - Would the proposal result in: 11. 12. a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? PL"BLIC SERVICES - Would the l~roposal have an q;fect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fh'e protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other government sen'ices? UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the proposal result in a need for nov systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natm'al gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? 13..aESTHETICS - Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic hi,way? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Poten:ia!ly Significant lm~aci . Po:en:i.:i(v Sign~qcant Ur. less Mi:iga:ion Incorvora:ed Less ~]:~n Significant lmvact .% im~ac: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 14. CU'LTL-RAL RESOL~RCES- lFould the proposal?: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION - Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreation21 oppommities? 16. 3I..~NDATORY FI'NDE~'GS OF SIGNIFICA~NCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa f'tsh 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 nnmber or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major pefio~ of California history or prehistory b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) 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 furore projects). d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Po:er.t!ci!v Potentialh, Ur. Jess Less tha:: Significant Mitiga:ion SignOqca~:t Imoact Incoroorated Im.~act .Vo b~:~cc: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] EVALUATION OF EI~WIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Please refer to Attachment A for an evaluation of the environmental impacts identified in Section D above. ATTA C I-kMrENT A EVALUATION OF ENWIRONq~]EN'TAL I'MPACTS LEASE OF A 5.8 ACRE SITE ENCOMPASSING BARRACKS BUll. DINGS 553 AND 554 AT MARl'NE CORPS AIR STATION. TUSTIN BETWEEN THE CITY OF TUSTkN AND THE U.,'NITED STATES OF ASrERICA (GOV'ERN'MENT)..&ND SUBLEASE OF THE PROPERTY .&N'D FACILITIES BY THE CITY OF TUSTIN TO THE ORANGE COUi~TY RESCUE 5FISSION SUM.M4RY Early leasing of property, at a Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) installation to a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) is permitted by federal law, and will spur rapid economic recovery and job creation, and can reduce the Military Department's caretaker costs before the ultimate disposal of the installation property.. The United States Marine Corps/Navy are permitted to lease portions of certain facilities at MCAS-Tustin to the LRA. An interim lease is being prepared for execution between the CiD' of Tustin and the federal government (Government) which would permit use of a 5.8 acre site encompassing barracks buildings 553 and 554 at MCAS Tustin for office space use, accommodation residential dormitory use and a variety of other public uses and special concessions, licenses. The City of Tustin intends to sublease the premises leased from the Government to the Orange County Rescue Mission for purposes which are described in the interim lease and authorized by the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin. For purposes of the lease, sublease includes licenses, use and occupancy a~eements and concession agreements and other similar agreefi~ents. The Marine Corps/Navy will prepare federal environmental documents required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to support a lease of the facilities and property. However, it has been determined that the execution of a lease is also defined as a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15378(aX3). Pursuant to CEQA, an Initial Study has been prepared which shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a si~ificant effect on the environment. Therefore a Negative Declaration has subsequently been prepared and will be considered and adopted prior to City of Tustin City Council action on this item. The Following information is prepared to summarize the justification for finding that there was no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. BACKGROUND MCAS Tustin is approximately 1600 acres in size, is located in south Tustin and is bordered by the cities of Santa Ana to the west and Irvine to the south and east. The project site is shown on Exhibit A and includes buildings and facilities located within the westerly portion of the MCAS, Tustin commonly referred to as the "village." Early leasing of property at BRAC installation to a LRA is permitted by federal law, will spur rapid economic recovery and job c .reation, and can reduce the Military Department's caretaker costs before the ultimate disposal of the installation property. The "proposed project" evaluated below is the lease of a 5.8 acre site encompassing barracks 553 and 554 at MCAS Tustin facilities between the federal government and the City of Tustin and the sublease of the facilities and property by the City of Tustin to the Orange 10-29-98 Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Lease and Sublease of Facilities and Property at MCAS Tustin Page 2 County Rescue Mission. Neither the military, nor the City of Tustin has made or intends to make a commitment to any future use or conveyance of title to the property to any party upon the property's disposal. 1. I.AN'D USE & PLAN~'LNG Items a throu,,h e - '~qo Impact": The subject property will continue to be owned and maintained by the federal government. In compliance with existing BRAC law, the community may work cooperatively to lease surplus buildings and facilities for interim (temporary) uses to support more rapid reuse and to offset operations and maintenance cos'.~ associated with the upkeep of those buildings. The City's intent is to sublease the buildings and facilities on a short term basis until closure or until the property can be disposed of by the military.. Pursuant to BRAC law, uses permitted for lease must be approved by the LRA designated by the Department of Defense (DOD). As prescribed by federal law and Department of Defense policy, future use of the property will be consistent with the approved Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin. Because the property is held in ownership by the federal government, and the lease and sublease of the property for interim uses must be approved by the military, all land uses occurring at the site as a result of this lease or sublease would not involve an intensification or a significant use alteration from the military's historical use of the property. For instance, barracks would be used for housing (homeless), office buildings for office, storage, etc. Consequently, the use of the property would still be considered consistent with the existing General Plan and Zoning designated for the property (Publicanstitutionai, Military). In addition, the proposed project would not be in conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project; neither would it be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity.; nor would it affect a~m'icultural resources or operations; nor would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Sources: MCAS Tustin Master Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, October 1996 Field observations Depam'nent of Defense Base Reuse Implementation Manual MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Mitiaation/Monitorina Required: None required. 2. POPULATION & HOUSLNG Items a through c - "No Impact": The proposed project is on a site developed as a militaD' installation. The proposed lease and any subleases would not result in any direct increase in population in that no additional dwelling units would be created. This project would be designed to meet the needs of military to offset operations and maintenance costs associated with a closing 10-29-98 Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Lease and Sublease of Facilities and Property at .'XlCAS Tustin Page 3 o militm-y installation. Because of the short-term nature of the project, it is anticipated that the project would not induce substantial gowth in the area either directly or indirectly; nor would it cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections; nor would it displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. Sources: MCAS Tustin Master Plan MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, October 1996 Field observations Department of Defense Base Reuse Implementation Manual City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Mitigation/Monitoring, Reauired: None Required. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS Items a throm, h i - "No Impact": The subject site is developed with two barracks buildings (553 and 554). The site is relatively flat and has previously been ~m"aded by the military. It is not anticipated that grading activities would occur as a result of this project. Permanent, new structures would not be permit'ted without additional environmental c~nsideration and mitigation as required except for categorical exemptions permitted by CEQA. The proposed would not result in nor expose people to potential impacts involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, including liquefaction; seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard; landslides or mudflows; erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill; subsidence of land; expansive soils, or unique geologic or physical features. Sources: Field Observations City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Master Plan MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, October 1996 MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Mitiuation/Ivlonitorin~; Required: None Required. WATER Items a throunh i - ''No Impact": The subject site was previously graded and developed as a military air station and is not located near any standing or moving bodies of water. As a result, the amount of surface water and direction of water movement is not expected to change. In addition, the surface areas of the project will continue to drain into the base's existing storm drain system and will not substantially contribute to the drainage flow. The proposed project would not result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff; exposure of people or property to water related ha?:ards such as flooding; discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality; changes in the amount of surface water in any water body; or 10-29-98 Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Lease and Sublease of Facilities and Property at MCAS Tustin Page 4 changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements; change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of ~oundwater recharge capabili~'; alter direction or rate of flow of groundwater, impacts to groundwater quality.; or result in a substantial reduction in the amount of~oundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. Source: Field Observations City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Master Plan MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, October 1996 MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Miti~,ation/Monitorim, Reauired: None Required. AIR QUALITY Items a through d - "No Impacts": The proposed project is a lease and subleases for interim (temporary) uses of facilities at closing MCAS Tustin. The project would not result in a violation of any air quality, standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Neither would it alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any objectionable odor or change in climate. Sources: Field Observations City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Master Plan MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, October 1996 MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Miti~,ation/Monitoring Required: None Required. TRANSPORTA~ON & CIRCULATION Items a throur, h e - "No Impact": The proposed project would occur at a current operational Air Station. However, Marine Corps activities at the base have dramatically been reduced as helicopter squadrons and troops have begun migrating off-base. At the time of the original announcement of closure in 1991, the base supported approximately 4,000 servicemen and over 300 civilian employees. Since that time, most of the original 12 have relocated off-base. Interim use of the buildings and facilities would not cause an increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion above that experienced when the base had a full complement of Marines. There will continue to be adequate emergency access and parking on-site. There will be no rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts caused by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not result in hazards to safety from desi~ features or incompatible uses; insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite; haTards or pedestrians or bicyclists; conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. 10-29-98 A:~achment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts kease and Sublease of Facilities and Property at MCAS Tustin Page 5 SOUrCeS: Field Observations Ci~ of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Master Plan MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, October 1996 MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Milieation~,,'Monitofin~ Recruited: None Required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a throu~,h e - "No Impact": The lease site is located within an urban area and is developed with a Marine Corps (helicopter) Air Station. The lease site is fully developed and is not a habitat for any endangered, rare or threatened species of plant or animal life. There would be no negative impact on any wildlife dispersal or mi~m'ation corridors; w'etland habitat; nor locally desi~ated natural communities or locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees). The proposed project would not likely inu'oduce landscaping nor modi~ previously unaltered or un~m'aded areas of the site. Source: Field Observations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Mitk, ation,.Ovlonitorin~ Required: None Required. ENERGY & MENERAL REsoURcES Items a through c - '.'No Impact": The proposed project will not conflict with. any adopted energy conservation plans; use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, nor will it result in the loss of availability of known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region. Sources: Field Obsep,'ations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Miti~,ation/Monitorin~z Required: None Required. 10-29-98 Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts kease and Sublease of Facilities and Property at MCAS Tustin Page 6 9. H.aiZARDS I0. 11. Items a throueh e - "No Impact": The proposed interim use of buildings at the base would not create conditions that negatively affect human health. Since the lease and sublease will not allow major grading or excavation actMties to occur, the proposed project would not involve a rele~e of si~ificant ha?ardous substances or a risk of accidental explosion; interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, create any health ha?nrd or potential health bavnrd, expose people to existing sources of potential health ha?~rds, or increase the fire ba?ard in areas with flammable brush, ~m'ass or trees. Sources: Field Observations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report MitDatiorffMonitorin~ Reauired: None Required. NOISE Items a through b - "No Impact": The proposed project replaces certain village facilities and operations of the Marine Corps with interim public uses and possible short term concession agreements and would not expect to generate increases in existing noise levels experienced at the base when in full operation by the Marine Corps. In addition, because the noise generated by Marine helicopters continues to occur outside of and away from the village, it is expected that distance of base facilities will continue to prevent exposing people to severe noise levels. Activities associated with the project are not expected to expose people to severe noise levels. Sources: Field Observations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Mititation/hdonitorin~, Reouired: None Required. PUBLIC SERVICES Items a throueh d - "No Impact": It is not expected that the proposed project would create significant demands for additional fire or police protection, nor increased service requirements on schools, or maintenance bf public facilities as long as services are continued to be provided by the military. In addition, all sublessees will be required to reimburse the City for any incurred costs. Because the sublease replaces previous Marine occupancy of the site, the demand for public services generated by a tenant would be expected to be no greater than that required by the military during their previous tenancy at the site. I0-29-98 Anachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Lease and Sublease of Facilities and Property at MCAS Tustin Page 7 12. 13. Item e - "Less than Siv_nificant Impact": Thc execution of a lease bet~veen the Government, the CiD' and any sub-lessees could require staff support by City staff. All direct and indirect costs associated with the provision of this support would be offset directly by deposits and revenues collected from Subleases as stipulated within the provisions of the lease. Sources: Field Observations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report b~rILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a throueh q - '~o Impact": The project site has been previously served with all necessary utilities including power, natural gas, telecommunications, sanitary sewer, storm drain, solid waste, and water which may be required for the project. The proposed project does not require the need at this time for additional utilities to serve the site except for installation of meters (cost to be borne by Sublessees). Any sublease and lease a~eement will require the tenant to install utility metering devices prior to occupancy so that actual costs associated with interim uses of the facilities can be accurately identified and offset. In addition, the proposed project would not at this time result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to utilities such as power or natural gas; communications systems; local or regional water treaunent or distribution facilities; sewer or septic tanks; storm water drainage; solid waste disposal; and local or regional water supplies. While the military is not required to provide utilities or common services, provisions of the lease provide for termination of the lease in the event that utilities and services are not provided by the military. SOUrCeS: Field Observations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Miti~,ation/Monitorin~ Required: None Required. AESTHETICS Items a throu~,h b - ','No Impact": The proposed project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. Other than parking and some general staging activities, no activities are proposed that will have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the site. In fact, sublease tenants who will provide maintenance of facilities will ensure the site does not deteriorate from neglect. 10-29-98 Attachment A -Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Lease and Sublease of Facilities and PropertT at MCAS Tustin Pate 8 14. 15. Item c - "l.ess than Si_,2nificant Impact": Historically, the Marine Corps has installed and utilized lighting within the project site to illuminate their actMties and for safety and securit3'. The execution of a lease could result in some additional li~ting of buildings outside parking and staging areas. Because of the significant distance of the base from other uses (both military.' and cMlian), the possible creation of additional light and glare would be a less than si~maificant impact. Sources: Field Observations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Mitio_ation/Monitorint, Reouired: None Required. C L,'LTL'R.acL RESOURCES Items a through d - '2qo lmt~act": The project site includes no historic or cultural resources hangar. The grounds at and surrounding the site have previously been disturbed since the time of its original improvement in 1942. Also, it is anticipated that all lease activities will be to utilize the building and grounds in an "as-is" condition and construction of permanent structures will not be permitted except for small temporary structures as exempted by the lease. The State Office of Historic Preservation has determined that no paleontological or archaeological resources exist at MCAS Tustin. Consequently, the proposal will not disturb paleontological or archaeological resources. In addition, because no religious or sacred uses currently exist within the potential impact area, no resu-iction on these actMties would be incurred through the implementation of the proposed project. Source: Field Observations Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report National Prese,wafion Act (Section 106) Mitieation/Monitorinel Reauired: None Required. RECREATION Items a and b - "No Impact": The proposed lease will replace Marine Corps occupancy of barracks buildings 553 and 554 with the Orange County Rescue Mission. Consequently, there will be no impact to existing recreational opportunities in the community. Sources: Field Obsewafions Proposed Site Plan City of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report 10-29-98 Anachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Lease and Sublease of Facilities and Propert).' at MCAS Tustin Page 9 16. Miti~ation...~lonitorin~, Reauired: None Required. M.&NDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNI.FIC.~NCE Items a through d - 'no Impact": The project does not have the potential to degrade the quali~' 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. In addition, the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals. Also, the proposed project does not have impacts that are indMdually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Neither does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Source: MCAS Tustin Master Plan City. of Tustin General Plan/General Plan EIR MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan/Specific Plan, October 1996 Field observations Department of Defense Base Reuse Implementation Manual MCAS Tustin Environmental Setting Report Miti~ation/Monitorim, Rec~uired: None Required. CAS :DO:kd~c.~s\en v ironirnpa~-oc,-escue.doc 10-29-98 Exhibit A 0.1 +1320' 0.7 PA 1-A 1.0 AC. '-' "' 0.8 AC. · ~' 2 AC.