Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 TTM 17144ITEM #7 TUSTIN Report to the Planning Commission = __ DATE: DECEMBER 14, 2010 „,,,, , SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN OWNER: CITY OF TUSTIN LOCATION: GENERALLY BOUNDED BY WARNER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, ARMSTRONG AVENUE TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND RED HILL AVENUE TO THE WEST. GENERAL PLAN: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN NEIGHBORHOOD E, PLANNING AREAS 9 THROUGH 12 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) AND ADDENDUM CERTIFIED ON JANUARY 16, 2001 AND APRIL 3, 2006, RESPECTIVELY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MCAS TUSTIN REUSE AND SPECIFIC PLAN, ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES WILL NOT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WILL BE PREPARED. PROJECT: AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144, A SUBDIVISION OF A 131-ACRE SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 LETTERED LOTS FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4164 recommending that the City Council approve an amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for conveyance purposes only. Planning Commission Report TTM 17144 (Conveyance) December 14, 2010 Page 2 of 3 BACKGROUND In 2007, Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 was proposed by Tustin Legacy Partners (Master Developer) as a Sector Level B Map. A Sector Level B Map is a subdivision map that divides a larger parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate conveyance of the property by a master developer to merchant builders or other parties. Since then, Tustin Legacy Partners has terminated its contract with the City of Tustin as the master developer for the remaining undeveloped land within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Accordingly, the City is reorganizing and reassessing the implementation strategies for the development within the master developer footprint. Amendment to TTM 17144 is being proposed as a conveyance map only. No development in conjunction with this map is being proposed. After the disposition strategy has been determined, if approved, Tract Map 17144 would provide for conveyance of individual parcels. Pursuant to Tustin City Code Section 9328, an amendment to a tentative tract map shall be re-considered by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION Site and Surroundings The project site is generally bounded by Barranca Parkway on the south, Red Hill Avenue on the west, Warner Avenue on the north, and Armstrong Avenue on the east within Neighborhood E (Planning areas 9-12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Attachment A -Location Map). Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 Amendment to TTM 17144 is a request to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for conveyance purposes only. Future development of the project site will be subject to approval of a Concept Plan and Design Review which will facilitate the development on the proposed lots consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment to TTM 17144 has been analyzed for conformity to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and standards, applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR, and other agreements with the City of Tustin. In addition, the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and determined that the proposed map is technically correct and would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 et al (Subdivision Code). Review of Affected Agencies In accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act, the City transmitted a copy of the Amendment to TTM 17144 to affected agencies informing them of the proposed Planning Commission Report TTM 17144 (Conveyance) December 14, 2010 Page 3 of 3 amendment. Six (6) agencies provided comments on the amendment to TTM 17144. Comment letters received and responses are included as Attachment C to this report. Generally these agencies provided the City with information relating to their current and future facilities within the area, development standards, and request for information related to future developments. All comments have been addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. An environmental check list was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4164). The proposed project is consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is determined not to result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. A decision to approve the proposed project may be supported by the findings contained in Resolution No. 4164. J ina Willkom Eliza eth A. Binsack Principal Planner Community Development Director Attachments: A -Location Map B -Tentative Tract Map 17144 C -Affected Agencies Comment Letters and Responses D -Resolution No. 4164 S:\CddWCREPORT2010\TfPA 17144 (NE-conveyance).doc ATTACHMENT A Location Map ® ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~~i ~~~ y' / ~ ~ ti 1 ~~~ L ~ _- ' ~ W~ ~ ~~.. ~ _- }. ~ ~ t 3d ~~. I 1 - ~ p ~ ~ i~; .. ~ ~ ~ I ~ r ti F , ~ - - - ~~ , ~., ~ ~,w ~ -11 , o ~. Cl ~' i ll ~i I F- ~~~' ~ ~~ I ~i'- o ( ~ ~ -~ I G ~~ ,'~ l . v -, ~ t . ~~ n..., ~ , °,3. [[ ~ 1VJ ~~ ~ _' hr~ ~,. "' r .~~ ( i ° , it ~, x* ~ -j o ~ - ~ ~ 3 `~ ~ ~_.•a`~` _ _ S ~ i__.i. J~lr '~~~ ,~ ~.,. nr "1'±~ ; r ~~fi Tentative Tract Map 17144 Planning Areas 9-12 Neighborhood E MCAS Tustin ATTACHMENT B Tentative Tract Map 17144 } ~ ~ Q ~ °~ ~ ~~ z e d ~} g p ~ ~ { i S~ e ~~~ L 0 ~ ~~ bi ~i ~ ~r a ~ {` {4 g~ 1 d ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~~ e ~ ~ y ~ Q P ~~ 'f {'p p e~, p~~ ~ ~ ~ < ~y ~ ~ 54e e Ak~~ ' ~ ~ e 5s 4 ~t R -~~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~¢ ~ Y ' ~ i~g~ Z ~~; d8 5 ~o q~ ~ p ~~ ~ m ~ c eS~i~e ~~ `p. 5~ _~e~ e e y @ ~~~. ~ A -~ 4~b e ~_c.. `VY ~ ~dy~~ ~~ ~ ~ q { gggg ~~'X ~~~~~p2 ~`~( ~~~~ re ~~a^ tl~ bBY ~ ~ n x ~gy ~~ h~¢ :B K s ~~~7 t G~d Bp §~. ~~~~r~4Prs~~~e. t8 aaSS ~k ~dPd ~ ~ ~~~F O Z ,p ~ N O F h q ~ O O Z1O as N ~ F h ~ Q O N z,~~ F N ~oF o ~ ---- -.~---_ 4a - ° _ ~-- z ~ N i F N ~ U ~ FO ~~~ ~~ r G1 Z~ONZ ~p^ M N '" ~ '„~, OF- W ~'-~> W it N f O r ~ \ Y i I ~ ~. ~ - - ~ { ~ 9 ~ lanais _ ~~" --- - ~ -~ 3nNanv _ _ _ __ ~\\\ , ~ 2 r ~y`~ ~~~~\ q ~ ~ o ~ kJ ~ (w] ~ ~ Z ~ ~ k N .~ L `I~ ~ U ~F' `r ~-° ,~ i ~ Z N ~ {. \{ F J ~ ~ ~OF- W ) ~~~, I ~`~ 1 Q f f / i i t~ I ~ I ~~ ~ I 3 I .. ~ I I Y 6 ~~j Y ~ c ~ ~ Z aStlHd 30N'd ANO'J i ~ II U O ~ ~ L3SVHd 3~Ntl ~ I I I I 1 I i r.. ~ ~ ~ 133LLLS .3. -t ~;~ ~ o ~r ~ ~ W z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r o I U I I ~~ t r III ~~U 3l .51%4~-A:NOY%q 19ML- ~f1N~~tlTiIFLn v m rim ,. •~ _...._ .. I:~ ... a w z ~~ ! ' y e ~ Y ~3 ~~~9~ I S gg ~ ~ ~E.~~[~~y~R 4F' f -- - - - -~ ._-_-- ~ - i ., arxra~v ~aswav N Q I ~ ~ ~ N W - _ I ~ ~ 0. O ~ __ __. I ~~ ~l y t x y _- I ~ g°~, I I O ZmN I ~I >F-` N O v O ~ ~ pa N J I ~ t0 ~ r_ - ` Q \ ~ ~ 8 N ;yl W W _ _ __-__- 1 ~ °z~ Y ~ ~ 9 Y r ~ s ~ i `L3SY7ld3.lADf _ . _..:. I . 1 i ', m N ~ ~~ I °° 1~ ~a . ~- li ~ ~O gr ~d~ gtY ~ ii~'_ L'fiii ~~~ o v. p~ ~Y~~e~ea ~e= a ~ ~§ ~~~~r~3¢~~~~~Y~~a~~E~~3 N '~I I' III III~I~6SAp qp l211 ~,.,, ~s ILiI ® ~ I E 133HS 33S ` y' \ 9\ -y F ~ ,t (BFB~ ~ ' ~. g 6 ~ Y~s_ s` 1\ s 9p~p `'~ ~ 2~ P y ~~. \ JyFya ~ ~ / y~ /~~ (/A~//. tl : J ~ ~ n W IW -p - ~ .~. __ -==== ~~~~ ~~ - r I ~~ aj.. ~:r-- it r ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ d~ o~ ...u„„.~, „ , ~ R~. E ~~ 0 ' } CO ~ F R RI 4 i' ~ Y_ C '~ I r ~, ~ . L~31318 MO1bY .j .' h„~.i I 'sa ~ r ~i I ~, ~ + i ~~~~~ III ~i~ II Ifs ~~~ TiI I '. ~I! ~ R1 N ++ y I It6 ~ ~~ ~' k ~~~ ~ ~;~ .1-s~ -~ °~ ° {III` f it l~ ~~ I~ ~,~'t ~~~~ll'i ~ I~~'~~ l~ ~ '~I`~~ ~ I iy 'r F~ ~ 11 I. ' ~ ~ ~ I' ~~11~i -- r ~~ --- ~. --- ~,~ { 4a l K it r A M ,~ Y ~~~ [ e ~ f~6 ~1~Y~ iiifi k'.~.SiE ~~~ ~~ ri~r~pp~ ~Y~~b°ea Hwy a Y ~~j !!!!{{ ~96~a~~~4~~aEG t~~~6=~~ ~ ~ f" twwc; t:.wn 3 yy ~~y~ X Q II~I'l(I~IdI~6t Rp ME11Wl k a ~/ 6 j Y ~ y I; ~, ~ w N a ~' ~ ~ ,~ I ? P 6 ( Z F- I'...II ~§~, 4 R3g~ ~- ~ I I yi i ~- ~, w ~ } twit ~` d, le~ 1 ~ I '. ° i o v~~~ o ~ (I Id'~ ~~d o" ~i ., w 7 ~\i .- ~1 ul ~ a ~ ° ~ ~~ zz° r ' i ~ ~~ ~' I _ j a ~ ~~II~ ~ ~# ~; 3 t - r - ~. ~ ~-~ ~~ ~ I ~ \ ~ _ A 6 .._ 1 ' ~ ~ - ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - fi~-~ _--- - - 'ijlf .- y .~ .. ~. -~- - f , 4 O ~ ~ ~ ~F I p ~ F4C„¢, ~,3 - ~~ o ~ Ed a~ \ ~s- IIli ~ I44 ~ ~ '~~ ~~ ,ss°`~ ~¢ '-~,-~~ ~= ,~~'~, , ~ ~~ __~._~ 3 ~' ~ ~ ~ , Ifs ;~., o .a~' ~ _ '1 I"'~ b p ~~, f ~~~ asp ~~ ~.... ~~. ~~~ I~ ~ _~ --- ~ ~~ ~E I~ ,~ 9^ .k, i ..' y .,. ~~ ~~ l: :. ~ ~*'~ ~, ~ , I :~~ ~ # - I ~4 ,. y_ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, i e e ~~ i ° ,_ a o s -~''_- ~ .; >,~.~~ '~~ w, ~ n ~ ~ III '~ LL _ -~, ~_, o ~. a o - ~ i _ ~~ ~~A„, ~ ~ - n- -- . - ~~ ~ S~ ~ ~ ( ~ I~i t ~ a, j ~;. ~~; ,,, A ~~ '~ .. v~ o~ ~ ~. ~~~ t, ~ ~~~ I ~ ~~ 1 .. .~ _ ~~ ~~ ti. ~`i ~~~ ~~~ ~ II ', ~ to ~~~~~ Iggf ~ R~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ` ~ ~~ 1 E i ,r z ~ r ~ o ;'~ ~ ~ a~ a ~ i , ~ ~ ~ ~~; ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~ ~1~ I yL~~ ~ N C'b ids/ ~. r II .~ / o I ~ I~ f.' I € A ; '~ ~ ~. ,-r~~ -- ------ -- - - ---- -~~~ ~ ~ If [.~~I .,,` 3~ ~ ~ dea f II I ~a~;~' ~ Z 13~HS 33S j - ~ ~~ ~~~ I i (II (; -,~--- - o ~ I II N N ~ ,cor n .- ,~7 'r. ` ~ ~~y//~~~~~,~~qq~~~,,. ~ e ~ -- _ e~°- _ l ,[~s i _ ~ ~ , ~ - W ('. __ _ r* _,.. _ o i _~ . ___ u x ~ __. - ~ ~ f .... ..~ .-t _ ''^ if '' ,'- ~-' -" rr~ ~```, r _~ _ .- - pear,„'~~ ,. ~~` ~.~._-~~ ~ ~ '--~~` ~ ~~ W~~ `~ r .-.., > -- ,. -~- -. -~~ (i ~ t11 i r--i4`-1 ` I- ,, . _ - " 1 . - - - i ~ I `~~ e~ep ''~a ~ ~ - ~~~ ~ ~-,~ •Z ~ Z 4~ e ~ o~ e ' ~ ° ~ ~~~ o- ~= ' ,~ W «~~~ X11 i sa ., ~,. ,~ z _ ,~. ~ o~~ a f ~~~ _ 111 '~ ~ \ _ I II ~ . ~ _ 3 ~~ S ~ & pry l < e ,i f) i i ~ j i 1 II ~~ (( ON \ ~~- ~ 23& ~ ~ o ~ n i ~ -- r ~, ~ - -~ s q U 1 ~ ~ ~ ;ae~ ~a ~, ~~ ~ ~i , ,, I ~~ ~ f " ,r,,'` tl ' ~ ~ /~ %v ~ ~ ~~. ~ ' r ~ I ~ I } ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~, ~ p x66 ~i ~i"" O "~ ~ „au ~cwW, ,~~ f ~~ ~, ~a~ v U ----- t? - __ ~-_ ~ ~ a _{"_ [„I,. __I~ ~ `"I ~ ~ ~~ M o- ' ~ I illl I Y ~o ~ YdFyyii/p~4~~~~ , ' I I 'off ~ ~~de' E ' ~0~8~«FE~~3g Z{ , _ ~ ,~f ~~ 16EAq ;f~ I Ar - O~ dd i ~ I , ~ ;U. 4 i ~.. I 'A ~ I~ f, I .,. s, ~ l 1.1 fp I I _ ~ ~ r Y 33csi~ i i I y. I I ~~LF,~~ ..~ ~ __ ~__~, ~ p g p ~ ~ ~ -_ - 1 ~, ~6~ae~~€fiA~E ~a ~~ ~ a •~ °` ~ ,~s,~~ ~ I - ~ : 5 ~ Ef ~ EEC I .. Gk a0 a~2 of I y ~e -'g ~~ II f ~,, VIA ~f a, ~ ,~ i ~ , ~ ~ ~` ~s _ ~ ~, ~;.~ ~ ~ N~ w.. 3.vo>a .' 4 , a ---' -'~ ' __. , ,,.„ ~ e " Z F- ! __ t ~~ ~ ~j ., a '~ ;. ~ ~' ~ r - ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~@ r~ - i ~ S ° F, ae ~ fa~ - °~ ~ e~ ~~ ~ m~~ , i~ ~ I ~ ~~ s ~a W ~ i U 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~,.. i ~ -~ W ,~ 0 J ~,~, ~r W __ ~ _ _ 4~ .. ~ ~_ ~'Y . ~ ~ ]~~ _ ~.4 ~ ...o. k ...~ f .__ .~m......w.~...... ..... .a ................... ~....... ... ..c.....z.. ..,,. e... _. ... _ _ _ _ . ~,y., r":.~ YT 4 J1J .~ is Al - ~- .. - _ _ _ _ __ J.. ~~ 1 r" .CI _ _ __~ _ __ __ __ __ .______ _. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~, -------- ------ ~~ry/y A w! ~ e U ~~a I ~~ 'z~ Q ~` r ~ ~ e ~ 'S 9 - ~ _ € Z4 „. -- --- m ~ _ m -- - ~----- _ -- -- ~ ~ _ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ _ ~ E - s ~ d E -- ~s ~ s. _4 ~~o ~ ~ - ~ s .~ _ .~ ~ l _ 1 _ ._ i. ~. ~ ~~€ L 3~f ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ y ~~~ °E~ .~~ - ~ - ~ x ~ - - - ~ ~f , - - - a ~ +ra~ - -- ~ ~ i I '-_ ~~ ~ 5~a ~ ~ '. g ~~~_ _ ~ ~ i p _~ ~~ ' _4 ~~~ a ~-,~ _ r~ i - ( ~~ e T- ;E ~ -! 6 ~ e ~ e w s~ ~~ ! ~ -- ~ - - ~~ .~~~: -- E ~ .M, e ~fl~ -- -- . ~. ~Q~ l~ 6 ~ I ,. ,y ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ 64~~~e ~ ~~ : , _ _~ e~~ ~~ ---- __"g~e a e4~e~~ ~ i ~r! e • -- ---- a ~~ 6 i e ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ e ~!9 1 's- -- ~ e' __ d G - i .s - - .c i . " ~ 'L~~~ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ i ~t _ - ~s I d c a. ~~ 5 M. <~ _ CR~ -_ x __ ~<~ _ _ g Fig ~~~ a ~ ~ ~ ~] § ~7t eE ~ 8~ ~ `@~ le _ - ,I e u i ~"e ~ _ r ~ '~~ $~ °~ 4 .~-~ >i~" - -~. ~ .g _ __ ~5 ~. ^~ - € ~5 _ o 3~ ~e x~~~ ~ ~ ~ e ~~e A ~ ~I ~ ~4p~p ~° _ q~te 3''~fi tee. ~ 4 ~ ~il ~ ~ ~ 7i~ F •s e [~ E 5 E 0 e ~ {. ~ 'p9{b F s 7 s } ~ ~ ~!~ ~ i t3 ~ i~ ~ •} E ~ _.-__..__ ____ __._~___ 6 _- __-___ ._._-_.- _.._ ~ t ~ ~ __-____ [.- ~F t 2~ f es i ______ [i 666PpPpPpE d - --- - s ,~.~ - ,~q~ -__~ _- of ~__ Pp g `P s lf~g I . _ _ ~. ` ~ - ; ~ ~ _ ~~ _ ~~ ~ _ ,~ E ~ ~~ ~ e~ g ~ ~:e E ~ .~ ~F ~ F ~~ Y' S iR -'e 4e~ C• ~Ek - ~R kk~£ '-_ ~ tC ~g~ -fe C ~E~ t m k` ~~ ~~ -~.~ . ~ ~pp ~s,+R . ° ~ ~~ ~ I t ~i `@~ _ eRi e~i p9. e:- _ ~ e~ _.._.. vi I ATTACMENT C Affected Agencies Comment Letters and Responses Reponses to Comments Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 The following are responses to comments received from other agencies. Comments and responses are organized by numbers added next to each comment by each Agency. For example, response to comment by Southern California Edison is identified as SCE 1. Actual letters are attached to this response to comments. 1. SCE 1: Comment noted 2. RSC 1: Comment noted 3. MWD 1: Amendment to TTM 17144 is for conveyance purposes only. No development or construction activities are proposed in conjunction with the subdivision map. The City however will keep the information provided for future reference. 4. IRWD 1: Amendment to TTM 17144 is intended for conveyances purposes only. There is no development proposed or anticipated with the approval of this map. Any changes to the land use from those proposed in the completed Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP) for this area will be coordinated with IRWD. IRWD 2: Well sites on Lots "E," "F," and "K" have been identified in the map as private water well sites. These well sites will be owned by the City and refined in development phase and potential lease sites to IRWD subject to approval of the City. IRWD 3: Easements for access to IRWD proposed well sites will be granted or reserved by separate document at the time of conveyance of the well site or at the time of conveyance of the adjoining lot, whichever occurs first. S. IRV 1: Amendment to TTM 17144 is intended for conveyances purposes only. There is no development proposed or anticipated with the approval of this map. Since there is no development proposed with this map, no impacts related to traffic is anticipated at this time. IRV 2: See response IRV 1 above. No improvements are proposed with the approval of this conveyance map. However, at such time that improvements are considered within the map area, any improvements adjacent to the current improvements at Red Hill Avenue and Dyer Road/Barranca Parkway will be coordinated with the City of Irvine as applicable. IRV 3: Although no improvements are being considered with the approval of Tentative Tract Map 17144, future development and improvements adjacent to Barranca Parkway will be coordinated with the City of Irvine. SOUTHERN C.ALItORNIn EDISOI~~ ti~~ r.ni.~~u;v ~,vn=rr,v-tra~ro v. ~ r~,~~,,~:~~,~. SCE 1 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Attention: Community Development Department Subject: Tract Map No. 17144 RECEIVED Gov a ~ ~o~o COMMUNrfY DEVELOPMENT DEPt November 5, 2010 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Tract Map No. 17144 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any facilities and/or easements held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights, title and interest in and to said easement(s), nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for relocation of any affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facilities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer wilt be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. If you have any questions, or need additional information in connection with the subject subdivision, please contact me at (714) 934-0808. _. _.._ _ , LL~. ~~ /' ~':_. ~ -_ _ ,~ -- ~:_ ~~ ~,, Steven D. Lowry Title and Real Estate Services Corporate Real Estate Department 2 13 l ~Va(nut Grove Ave. 2nd Floor ~~it(e and Real Estate Services ~2o~emead, CA 9070 Willkom, Justina From: Partridge, Robert [Partridge_Robert@rsccd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:01 AM To: Willkom, Justina Subject: RE: Tract Map 17144 Ms. Willkom: Thanks for the confirmation regarding the property uses and that these uses are consistent with the MCAS RSC Specific Plan. The Rancho Santiago Community College District has no comments regarding the proposed subdivision. 1 From: Willkom, Justina [mailto:JWillkom@tustinca.org] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 8:48 AM To: Partridge, Robert Cc: Binsack, Elizabeth; Ogdon, Dana Subject: RE: Tract Map 17144 Hi Mr. Partridge, Currently the referenced map is for conveyance purposes only. Eventually the land will be developed with Commercial, Business/Office parks, R&D Flex/Light Industrial, and Parks consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to email or call me. Thank you. /ustirrrr W'zllko~rc Cl~t~ Of ~Ttlti~lll 714.513.3215 1'horte 714.5 73.3213 I'~ax jzvillkom©tustinca.org From: Partridge, Robert [mailto:Partridge_Robert@rsccd.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:35 PM To: Willkom, Justina Subject: Tract Map 17144 Ms. Willkom: The Rancho Santiago Community College District is in receipt of your Tentative Tract Map as referenced. I do not believe that we will have any comments however, since this property is directly south of our Law Enforcement Academy, I would appreciate if you would provide me with any information regarding the planned uses for the entire 131 acre site. If I could have this information well in advance of the Nov. 17th comment deadline, it would be most appreciated. Thank you. Please note, if you need to contact me regarding this request, I can also be reached at (714) 746-9335. a. !uir~ ~. ~ v, ,~ . ._- ,.,'. : t ~^'~ , %r ` `~''~ ~ t THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT -~ ~<<'' ~;; ~1~ ,,x OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ~r~' ~,` r . t ~~,~ y yr T •'~++H (At~~ ' :i t Y, ` yiWD 1 Offiice of the General Manager November 16, 2010 Justina Wilkom Principal Planner 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Ms. Wilkom: Tentative Track Map 17144 Via E-Mail and Federal Express The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) has received a notice regarding the proposed Tentative Track Map 17144. The City of Tustin is undertaking the conveyance of these parcels. This letter contains Metropolitan's response to the Public Notice as a potentially affected public agency. Our review of the Notice indicates Metropolitan owns and operates a pipeline and related facilities adjacent to, the boundaries of the proposed project location.. Metropolitan's East Orange County Feeder pipeline is a 73-inch-inside-diameter welded steel pipe that runs along Red Hill Avenue and East Dyer Road on the western and southern boundaries of Tentative Tract Map 17144. Please see the attached map for the locations of Metropolitan's pipeline alignment. Metropolitan is concerned with potential impacts to these pipeline facilities that may result from future excavation, construction, utilities, or any redevelopment activities under the proposed Project. Development and redevelopment associated with the proposed Project must not restrict any of Metropolitan's day-to-day operations and/or access to its facilities. Detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of--way may be obtained by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at (213) 217-6564. To assist in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities, easements, and properties, we have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and /or easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of--way. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving the environmental documents on this Project. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. William Fong at (213) 217-6899. 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 54153, Los Angeles, California, 90054-0153 • Telepnane: (213) 217-6000 - 14 - 11, additional i{~~rnstion Should you require additional intarmation, please contact: civil anarfneerinc Samba *++~~••+-• ~ggtion M~trapolitan Water District of Southern Calilarnfa P.O. nox 5~iS3 Los ltisgalss, Calitosnia 9005-0153 (213} 217-6000 JEx/rsRw~lx Rev. January 22; 1989 Encl. - - i N N dJ O U 4A i N W 3A 1. Int___rodnctioa a. The,foilvwing general gni.delines should be followed for the design of proposed facilitiss and developments f.n the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties, and/or easements. b. Me require that 3 copies of your tentative and final record maps - .grading, paving, street im}~rove~aant, landsaape, storm drain, and utility places ba submitted for our review and written approval as thsp pertain to Metropolitan's facilities, fse properties and/or ea:~meuts, prior to the camasncemant of any construction cork. 2. Plans- Parcel and Tract Maps The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the identification of its facilities, fse properties, and/or easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps: a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shun and identified as Metropolitan's on all applicable plans. b. Metropolitan's fse properties and/oz sesame is moat bs shown and identified as Mstxopalitaa's With t~ official reaordiag data on all appliaabls parcel and treat maps. . c. Metropolitan'r fee properties and/or easements and existing survey monuments must bs diiaenaionally tied to the garesl or tract bouadari:r. d. Metropolitan's records of surveys mast be referenced on the parael and tract maps. ~.. -- . - _ -z- 3. Maintenance of Access Alon ,Metro alitan's Ri hts-af-Wa a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent era normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fss properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the us• of conatructian and maintenance equipment, and provide access to its aboveground and belowground f:cilities. b• We require that 16-foot-wide comonercial-type ~tVewaY approaches be constructed on both rides of all streets crossing Metropoolitan's rights-of-waY• Openings are required 3n any median island. Access ramps, if necessary, must be at least 16-feet-wills. Grades of ramps are normally mat allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the rlope- of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent du: to the topography, the ramp must bs paved. Ws require a 40-foot-long level area as the driveway approach to access ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's fee properties, we may require fencer and gates. c. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement deeds normally preclude the building ar ~aaintenancs of structures of nay nature or kind within its easements, to ensure safety and avoid interference with operation sad maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities. Metropolitan must hav: vehicuias accsas along the eass~nsnts at all tines for inspection, patrolling, sad for iesixttenaaae of the pipelines and othex.faailities.on a routine basis. Ws require a ZO-foat-wide clear zone around ali~abovs-ground facilities for this routine access. Ibis cl:ar sons should slope away from our facility on a grads not to exceed .Z percent. Me must also have access along the easements with construction equips~t, ~ example of this is shar+-n on Figure 1. d. The footings of any prapased buildings adjacent to Metropolitan s fee properties and/or easem~eats mns~t not encroach into tbs fee property or ease~msnt or impose additional loading on Metropolitan's pipsiiass or other facilities therein. Atypical sitnatian is sho~ru on Figvse 1. prints of the detail plans of the footings for any building or struoturs adjacent to tbs fss property or easement mast bs submitted far ear review and written approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings :djaceat to the easement or fss property mart not overhang into the fee property or easement area. _. - 3 - e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities, e.g. structures, manholes, equipment, survey noauments, etc. within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected from damage by the easement holder ors Metropolitan's Property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an easement, at ao expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans . for the easement area. 4. Easements o» Metropolitan's Property a. we encouraq: the use of Metropolitan's fee rights- of-way by governmental agencies for public street and utility purposes, providRd that such use does not interfere with Metropolitan's ass of the property, the entire width of the property is s~cceptsd into the agency's public street system sad fair maxket value is paid for such nse of the right-of-way. b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's Right of Way and Zaad Division, telephone f213I 250-6302, concerning easeme~ots for landscaping, street, storm drain, sewer, water or other public facilities proposed within Metropolitan's fee properties. A map sad legal description of the requested aasss~snt~- mast be submitted. Also, written evidence must be snbaaittsd that shows the city or county will accept the easement'for the specific purposes i~ato its public system. The great of the easement will be subject to Metropolitan's rights to nse its land far taster pipelines and related purposes to the same extent as if sash grant had not bean roads. Th,ers will bs a charge for the eass~aeat. Plsass sots that, if entry is required on the property prior to issuance of the easement, an entry peaait mast bs obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit. 5. 7~ndscaping Metropolitan's landscape gnidslinss for its fee properties and/or eaaemeats are as folloWS: a. A green belt may be allowed within Metropolitan's fee property or easement. b. All landscape plans shall show the location and size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other facilities therein. _.z,-- - ----- ---_ ------- -- - 4 - c. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15 Peet oP the centerline of Metropolitan's +axisting or fntuxa pipelines and facilities. d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. 5hallow- rooted trees are the only trees allowed. Tha shallow-rooted trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 fae* from the centerline of the pipeline, and anch trees shall not be taller than 2S feet with a root spread na greater than 20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bashes, vines, and ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes mould not ba planted directly over our pipelines. Turf is acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans far Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (Sea Figure 3). e. The landscape plans mast contain provisions for Metropolitan's vehicular access at all tames along its rights-of-way to its pipelines or facilities therein. Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are required in any fencers across its rights-of-way. Also, any walks or drainage facilities across its access route must be constructed to AAS8T0 H-20 loading standards. f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee properties moat be acquired Eras its Right of May and Land Division. Appropriate entry permits atnst be obtained prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge for say amity permit yr sasaments required. 6. Feac Metropolitan regaires that perimeter fencing of its fee properties and facilities be constraeted•of universal chain link, 6 feet in h:fight aad~topped with 3 strands of barbed wire angled upward and outward at a 4S degree angle or as approved equal for a total fence height of 7 #eet. Suitable substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan. (Please saes Figure 5 for details) . 7. Metropolitan's policy for the alinement of utilities permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and street rights-of-way is as follows: --- -rt------= _ . _ __ - - - _ _ _ . _. - 5 - n. Permanent structures, including catch basins, manholes, power golss, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall not be located within its fee properties and/or eaaemsnts. b. we request that permanent utility structures within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, bat not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline. c. The installation of utilities over or under Metropolitan's pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the requirements shown on the enclosed prints of Drawings Nos. C-11632 and C-957. whenever possible ws request a minimum of one foot clearaacs between Matropolitas~'s pipe and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be reviewed sad approved by Metropolitan. d. Lateral utility crossings of Metropolitan's pipelines mast bs as perpendicular tv its pipeline alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation oar pipeline shall be located manually sad any excavation within two feet of oux pipeline must be dose by hand. This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings. e. IItilitiss constructed longitudinally within Metropolitan's rights-of-sway moat be locatsd outside the theoretical treACt~ priam~fox uncovering its pipeline and must be located parallel to and as close to its rights- of-aay linos as practical. f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked casing or tunnel wider ~letropolitaa's pips, thsre must bs at least t~vo fast of vertical clearance between the bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. we also require that detail drawings of the shoring for the jacking or tunneling Bits be submitted far oar review and approval. Provisions moat be made to groat any voids around the exterior of the jacked pips, jacked casing or tunnel. If the piping is installed is a jacked casing or tunnel the annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or tunnel must bs filled with grout. - 6 - q. Overhead electrical and telephone line requizements: l} Conductor clearances ors to conform to the California state Public Otilitiea Caaauisaion, General order 95, for overhead Electrical Line Construction or at a greater clearance if required by Metropolitan. Onder no circumstances shall clearance be lass than 35 feet. 2) A marker mast be attached to the power pole sboxinq the ground clearance and line voltage, to help pxev~nt damage to your facilities during maintenance or other work being done in the area. 3) Line clearance over Hetropolitaa's fee properties and/or easements shall be shown on the drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line under the most adverse conditions including aonsideratiou of sag, wind load, temperature change, aAd support type. We require that overhead Sines be located at least 30 feet laterally away from all above-ground structures on the pipelines. ~) When endexgxound electrical conduits, 1.20 volts or greatsr, are installed within Metropolitan's fee property and/or essa:sent, the conduits must bs used in a minimwa~ of three inches of rs8 concrete. Whore possible, above ground warning aigas must also be placed at the right=of-way lines where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way. h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must conform to the California Depart:aent of Healtb Services Criteria for the Ssparatioa of water Mains and Sanitary Services and the local City or County Bealtb Code Ordinana: as it relates to installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressers waterlines. The construction of sewerlines.should also conform to these standards in street rights-of- way. i. Gross sections shall bs providsd for alt pipeline crossings showing Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement limits and the location of our pipelines). The exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their elevations shall be marked on as-built drawings for our information. _. -~- j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipsline is required if the vertical clearance between a utility and Metxopolitan's pipsline is indicated on the plan to be one foot ar less. If the indicated clearance is between one and two feet, potholing is suggested. ldetropolitan will provide a representative to assists others in locating and identifying its pipeline. Two-working days noticQ is requested. k. Adequate sharing and bracing is required for the full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches within the sane shown on Figure t. 1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's fee property and/ox easement shall be plainly marked to help prevent damage daring maintenance or other work done in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities chauld be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility and shall conform to the following requirements; 1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE" 2) Gas, oil, ar chemical pipsline: 1, two-inch yellow warning taps shall bs imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED _..___ PIPELINE" 3) Seller or storm drain pipsline: A two-inch green warning tape shalt be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED ~_ PIPELINE" 4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic sigr-als conduit: A t~ra-inch red warning taps shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT• 5) Telephone, or television conduit: A two-inch oxange warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED ~ CONDUIT" _..__.. - 8 - u-. Cathvdia Protection requirements: 1} It` there is a cathodic p=otection station far Metropolitan's pipeline in the eras of the proposed work, it shall be located prior to any grading or exaavatian. The enact location, description and manner of protection shall be shown an all applicable plans. Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering Section, located at Metsopaiitan's F. E. Weymouth Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno Avenue, I.a Verna, California 91750, telephaAS 1714) 593-7474, for the locations of Detropolitan's cathodic protection stations. 2) If an induced-current cathodic protection aystam is to be installed an any pipeline crossing Metxopolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E. Risser at (714) 593-74?4 or (213) ZSO-5085. He will review the proposed system and determine if any conflicts will arise~witb the existiaq cathodic protection systems installed by Metropolitan. 3) within Metropolitan's rights-vf-way, pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated with an approved protective coating to conform to Metropolitan's requirements, and shall ba maintained in a neat and orderly condition as directed by l~istropolitan. The application and :aonitorinq of cathodic prertectioa on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of the Code of Federal~Regulstions, Part 195. 4) If a steel carri:r Pipe (casing) is needs (a) Cathodic protection shall be provided by nee of a sacrificial magnesium anode {a sketch showing the cathodic protection details can be provided for the designers information). {b) The steel carrier pipe shall be protected with a coal tar enamel coating inside and out in sccardance with A~Pf+1A C203 specification. n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the CALIOSHA Canstrnction 3afetp Orders, Article 6, beginning with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall ba placed in 8-inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction iASTM D698) across roadways and through protective dikes. Trsncb backfill elsewhere will be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction {ASTM D698). 9 - v. Control cables connected with the operation of Metrapolitan's system are buried within streets, its fec properties and/or easements. The locatioaa and elevations of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the area, the cantral cables shall be located and measures shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables is place. p. Metropolitan is a member of Dnderground Service Alert tIISA). The contractor texcavatOr) shall contact II3)1 at 1-800-4224133 tSouthern California) at least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities as a result of the construction. 8. Paramount Right Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be sabject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties and/or easements for the purposes for which they wars acquired. If at say time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the axercise of their rights, find it aecessary to remove any of tbt facilities from the fee properties and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility, 9. Madificatioa of Metropolitan's facilities When a manhole ar other of Metropolitan's facilities must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons- truction, Metropolitan Mill modify the faailitiaS with its forces. This should be noted oa the aonstruatian plans. The estimatsfl cost to pearform this modification will be given to you and we will require a deposit for this asK-unt before the work is performed. Oaas the deposit is received, we will schedule the work. Our foreas will coordinate the work with your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include materials, coastraction, engineering play review, inspection, sad administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be madsT however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for psyment of the additional amount. .., - 10 - 20. Drainage a. Residential or co:mnercial development typically increases and avncsntrates the peak storm water runoff as well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby increasing the requirements far storm drain facilities downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation, obstructed access sad other problems. Therefore, it is Metropolitan's usual practice nat to approve plans that show discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee properties and/ar easements. b. If pater must be carried across or discharged onto Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan will insist that plans fox development provide that it be carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in writing by !letropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be maintained by vthars, e.q., city, county, ha~meowners association, etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan in writing. 11. Construction Coordination During construction, Metropolitan's field representative will make Q~riodic inspections. 1~te regnant that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications for notification of tale one ~)o~5p ~Q~litan'a Operations 8srvices Branch, P , at least two working days prior to any work in the vici~ of ortr facilities. I2. piueline Zoadin4 Restrictions a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary in structural strength, and some are not adequate for AASBTQ H-ZO leading. Therefore, specific loads over the specific sections of pipe or conduit mast be reviewed and approved Metropolitan. Soyreve~c, Metropolitan's pipelines are typic ly adequate for AASETp 8-20 loading Provided that the cover over the pipeline is pot less than font feet or the cover is not snb~atantially increased. If the temporary cover over the pipeline during construction is between three and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which ,_ - - 11 - imposes lands no greater than AASI{TO Fi-10. If the cover is batw~en two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract-type tractor. If the cover is less tban two feet, anly hand equipment may be used. Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than RASATO 5-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications of Hoch equipment for our review and approval at least one week prior to its use. Mors restrictive requirements may apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines 1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the Calorada River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits. b. The +axisting cover over the pipeline shall be maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the pipeliAe or ~ impediment to its maintenance. 13. Hlaatiltg a. At least 2t) days prior to the start of any drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part preliminary conceptual plan shall be subanitted to t~setropol~.tan as follows s b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a complete summary of .proposed transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosions. c. Part 2 shall include the proposed ge,aeral concept for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques sad controls of .noise, fly rack, airblast, and grannd vibration. 14. CEQA Requirements a. i0hen Environmental Documents Have Not Been Prepared 11 Requlatioas implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that Metropolitan have an opportunity to aansult with the agency or consultants preparing any •nvironmental documentation. We are zequirsd to review and oonsider the environmental effects of the project as shown isi the~Negative Declaration or Lnvironmental Impact Report tEIR) prepared for your project before com~aittinq Metropolitan to approve your request. .. 12 2) In order to ensure compliance with the regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is not the Lead Agency, the following iainimuta procedures to ensure caanpliance with the Act have bean established: a) M®tropolitan shall be timely advised of ~y determination that a Categorical Exesaption applies to the project, The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the projeat have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participatinn. b) Metropolitan is to bs consulted during the preparation of the Negative Declaration or EIR. c) Metropolitan is to review and submit any necessary comments on thQ Negative Declaration or draft EIR. d) Matropolitan is to be indemnified for any casts ar liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Enviromaenta3 Quality Act and its iYSplemeating rQquiations. b. ~1hen Environmental Documents Have Hesu pra~ared If enviroosaeatal documents have been prepared for your project, pisses furnish txs a copy for our revisor and files in a timely manner ao that Ns may have sufficient time to review sad eom~asnt. The following steps moat also be accomoplished s 1} The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and athar agencies participating in the projeat have coiaplisd with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan'a_participation. 2) Xou must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, its officers, engineers, and agents !ar any costa or Iiability.arisinq out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limiteS to tha California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. 15. Metropolitan's pl,„~iew Cost a. An engineeriaq review of your proposed facilities and developments and the preparation of a latter response - 13 - giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements and/or approval that will require 8 man-hours yr lass df effort is typically parformQd at no coat to the developer, unless a facility must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If an engin:ering review and letter response requires more than 8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the proposed facility or development is compatible with its facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s) or other facilities sill bs required, then all of Metropolitan's costs associated with thm project must bs paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior rights. b. A deposit of funds will be required from the developer before Metropolitan can begin its 8stailsd engineering plan review that will exassd 8 hours. The amount of the required deposit will be determined after a cursory review of the plans for the proposed developasent. c. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include enginserinq plan review, inspection, materials, Construction, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cast is Iess than the deposit, a refund will bs made= however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an iavoics will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit. 16. Caution we advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and responses ors based upon information available to Metaropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from Metropolitan's failure to eomanerit as any aspect of your project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys and other field investigations as you may deers prudent to assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct. '' ~ ~ { u '~' QC }- ~'"` ~ u ~ :~ -. _ p ~ ~ ~" ~ i ~. iG ~ ~. t} ~ ~ '~ ~ *~ . ~ .w . «. . W.w .~ ~ iat °~ „f .. ,p „1 C~ii A t~ y ~` ± ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~y ~ w m i- 'w ~ ' ` r w ~` .~"' .~ ~ ' .1 t ,~ ~ .~ I ~+r....r...r.~ rr... ~ ~ . • ~ ~ `~' ~• r 1N ~ ' . ~ ~ ~ ~ .. } Zir .~. '~" ~ ~ ~ .~; _ ~ ~ I i i C? 4. L u.N ~aesrai+«~ t-Y+W~ ~~ E a ~~ tVp P~"RMslN~"NT S7'F1l/C7`I.t~ .P£"RMlT7'~"!J At.If;A. PER1t/stNENT RfGHT C?f WdY 1VC7 RG7G7F Q10ERXANG F~'"RMlTT~"p - ~ BulLA1~tG stG-J~tCE~t'T Tl~ ,+~tCN~"` t7F ~'r f"~~TING A/UST A`47" £NCRt?stC'tl fNTO . RtT ~F K'.4Y-.._ l~Y1V/5~t~",~? S1JRfAGE 1 ~```R~'0',UCRELt ~ D~°PTN Cam` ~ FpCi7"'11Vt~` rRJ" ! 7"?'PlCAL ~ E t NpTF': ~ttf.'t~ PtPELlNE' SIZE, FtE'PTX, t DTlGN ANt7 W"tt7~X ~If FE1~?iif,AN~AET RIGt!T f3F' ly~tY V.a~'IES. RFGIITRE~il~`IVTS fGR ~1!!Ll?llilGS ~Nfi FQGf'I~+I/GS .4lJJsiC£Jwt'T T `t9' ~/. W. L?; RlGXT DF W~+QY i ~ y y, i • n W , 1r ~ d O t ~f L '• • ~ ~ o z O L.,, V ~~ ~ 0 ~ i W ~ I ~ ~ w W W tW W .O ~ y~ ~ ~~ Z ~ W ~y y ~~ h W ~~ o ~ o~ O Z oh i a ~~ ,~ W ~ W ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~~.N NsR~Rw.~wTfWMM-f~~ f~ 1 I• ~' ~~ ~~ ;; W --~- i W ,« ~. ti i i ,~~~~ ,c.~x3da~+d a U ! W w Uo ^ r~ _~ _y a.. ~~ ~~ ~~~ti ~ ~~~~ .,~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ iq~~' ~` `'' ~- ~ 4`'., v ~. ~~~a ~•.~ ~~ '~ `~ ••..~ wtxre.+~+-w.e.rw.+w~ s ~' ~ ,~ ., . ~~~~ ,. ~~~ .~~ ~ ~~. r. I q 1 ~~ ~ fi ~~ ~ ' ~~ ,. -• _~- 1 ~+ -_~ ~~~ ~~ ~, ~ ~i ~ r ~~ .~ , ~~ ,~ ~ ~ .. o ti ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ •~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~3~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~r 3~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~j ~ Y~~ ~ ~ Y ria~ f~. ~ tj ~t~l~ f , ~~ ~ t ~ ~ 4 f~ ~~ ~ ~_ ; ~ 6~ ~'' ~~~ 1~' ~ ;.' ~~ ~`~ ~~ -~ ~i ~~ ~~ i~.~~~s~ ~~~~,~~~ ~ ~~~ • ~~ +~ ~[ _, ~~ ~`~ i~ { E1 -~ .~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ w~ ~~ ~ ~- ~ h ~ ~~ E . ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ---- .. r i B-•.~ 't ~ { ~~~ 1 ~GCIf!L~ PlpNtirir ~ ! r' ~/~ ! x ~'~pramvldtd • , . t .. ~~ `~*` ' ~~ « ~ ~ r • •d'Par~'twr ter d~wtc~lir~!' .~ flay Err ir~! t t ,.,. ~..,~ ,......~. ..,, ~ l.iar:~~, -' • ~ ' ~p ttr ~ 'rtl ~-ix~r nrrt ro 1t.~CtiKOr ~r tllrrs r~ethal;Nr ".~."` ,"~ ;` • tvpparr ,rte wit/l t ` ~" ~ ~ . r r: Cc~trC»tt svp,~rf ~vo/l to , hM placed +Ct ~o'iritl trrtdl~r , CR' ' '"S 5~CT1'<7~N . I ~ ,..r.. ..rrrrw, L Sapportia~ ~ralr sActll e~art a flrrrr br-ariny ~ tier ~ wbpraclir and vyraln~t t/i+t side v1 tA+s t.rc~rral/o1r. ~: PtttJrir~fdstf txponslan , jp~pt f//let` per AStAI' D•~f.~!`-v'3 • ! tv De urtd !n srtgaart ~'ar strtl plpt on/,~ 3. tf letnch +rr'dtA i~t d lttt 0r jttytla-~ mtttsttratd o!~ ~« .,~. ! C/~1F1~'Ib`//ltM f7~ ~ ~~ fJ~~j~r~""1`~ ~IFPS7V7 ~` a bt car~truc~-td 4. !l try wldtb Is It~cs that 4 l1MI, Clertttf sat~Cl bcrc~t- : « . ~ ~ ~~ ~~ t~//, rar~pcalyd to 9tl ~i derstt~ lrr oca,~r~s'eracs wrY~ '•~ : ... . . , the pravisl~7rrt t~l' AwTe! Slanda,M D»I'J3T•7p ,}+~ '', ;`.~ ~ , r •: ; • ; fit' ~' !n 11th of the C~iscrtN supper~-/ ~r1/, TYPIG.4L SUPPt?1~T FDR AI:W.D. P1PFC1JVE ~..., ..e.ra..........~..~...... .~ '+t ,t ,~ `~ ~ ~ 'fmJtt ex~anslan ~~ i 1 s r I n... .K~•... a~....rr .... S'E'~'Ttt?N ,4 pec a pratecttos ,~ be regvtred .._ 1~=~~~~ tf tJl,e+~ttJtt,~+ tlrte dl+oat,rJrr 1,e ~reax~er t'h~n Ati~+C~ plp~r ortt' thr 3`Pret'aru~td ,~xponsle~a ~'°"""""'"` J. This rnetAtrd to be•crserl where the '~ M W ~ pia vrititp ii»e fs ,C.t"or greater in ` dta~»eter acrd the ciearaace bet~veea the trtitity~ tint aad A/.if:t~, pipe is t,~''" ar tens. s s ~ r carer aver /he ~rPtlltr tlae to the street surface it nrir~ta~at and there is !2~or iess ttearente #rhreen,iriC!! pips aad tAe altttt,}- tire. 3, Prefartrre~0 +rrponr/arr ibapt ~'t/fee to +CO,fiptyy ~r!#A ASJ'~ a't~tlp~p',074~etrt p~ tT,3t -T.3. M.W. D. requests !.~'"mt»i~rryir, ci~drance whenever passAte. r CRt7S5' SEC'TlC1N 28000 MARGUERITE PARKWAY, MissioN ViE~o, CA 926923635 949.582.4999 FAX 949.364.2726 WWWSOCCCD.ORG SADDLEBACK COLLEGE IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE • ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY & EDUCATION PARK DECEIVED NOV 19 2010 OOMMUt~ITY QEVELOPMENT DEPT SOCCCD 1 November 17, 2010 Ms. Justina Willcom Principal Planner City of Tustin Community Development Department 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 Dear Ms. Willkom: We received your letter dated Nov. 2, 2010 requesting our comments and/or recommended conditions of approval for the Tentative Tract Map 17144 proposal. The South Orange County Community College District offers its support for Tract Map 17144 as part of our ongoing efforts to partner with the City and others to build Tustin legacy into the dynamic urban center that was envisioned to serve the needs of the community. We continue our commitment and planning to create innovative educational and workforce development opportunities with the development of our 68-acre Advanced Technology and Education Park in Tustin Legacy. Sincerely, /ham %7S - ~~ ~~-~ Dixie Bullock Acting Chancellor SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES Thomas A. Fuentes, William O. lay, David B. Lang, Marcia Milchiker, Nancy M. Padberg, Donald P. Wagner, John S. Williams • Eve Shieh, Student Tnutee Dixie Bullock, Acting Chancellor An Equal Opportunity Employer REDEIVED ~VOV 19 2010 >>~ WAT~DE41WICt ~.OMMUNITY bEVEI.OPMENT DEPT II~~iI11lJ RA~Cg W~T~R DISTRICT 15600 Sand Canyon Ave., RO. Box 57000, livine, CA 92619-7000 (949) 453-5300 November 17, 2010 Ms. Justina Willkom City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Subject: Irvine Ranch Water District Comments on Revised Tentative Tract Map 17144 Dear Ms. Willkom: Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) received your letter dated November 2, 2010 regarding the revised Tentative Tract Map 17144. Per your request, the following comments are provided: 1) IRWD 1 2) IRWD 2 3) IRWD 3 In Apri12008, a Sub-Area Master (SAMP) for this area was completed. Any changes to the land use from those proposed in the SAMP will require an update to the SAMP. Based on the documentation submitted, it is unclear as to whether or not there are changes. As information becomes available, the developer will need to coordinate with IRWD. Failure to coordinate with IRWD may result in delays to required approvals. On Sheet 2, "General Notes," Note 6, the proposed (IRWD) well sites are listed as "E," "F," and "K." Notes should be added to Sheet 3 indicating these are proposed (IRWD) well sites. The attached figure identifies a proposed exclusive easement that Il2WD is negotiating with the City of Tustin for Well TL-1. This information should be noted on the tract map. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Mr. Eric Akiyoshi at 949-453-5552, or the undersigned at 949-453-5553. Sincerely For Michael J. Hoolihan, P.E. Principal Engineer MJH/EA/clg Enclosure: Exclusive easement figure cc: Eric Akiyoshi Malcolm Cortez Gregory P. Heiertz F:/grm/wrd/dep[71 /ea/2010/TTM 17144-A(Tustin).docx r~ r1 l ~~ SCALE. 1 " = 40 ' l ~~~ r) ~~ >> ~' ~~' S 49°19'41" E 100.00' g EXCLUSIVE o ESMT. TO IRW o `~ z ~I ~ w ~ I a a Q w x ~ I CITY OF TUSTIN P.Q.C. CITY OF IRVINE BARRANCA PARKWAY - - ~- _ S 49°19'41" E 1546.72' EXHIBIT ~Bn SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR WATER WELL PURPOSES TO IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT N 49°19'41" W 100.00' T`.P.~.B. 0 rn, o 00 o '' o o `~ ~~ 1_ oI 0 W o~ a- 0 -~ i ~t - - EASEMENT AREA: 5000 S.F. t SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT ~~ J 15600 SAND CANYON AVENUE, IRVINE, CA 92619 D2VDI6 &NCH TA78B DISTRII.T DECEMBER 8, 2009 PROJECT 11419 WELLESMTEXB.DWG -l ~ ~ ~'4 L V '~ ~ ~ ~~~ m i i; Community Development i's~1tlr.rr ~,C)r,r~~~~:c~~~~n~erl'I~_~~3.P ~.,ox1~+';i5, tine ~;;<<iit~>rnirz)'~;23-'.)F,7,> ~~JV `' r~ 2610 IRV 1 November 22, 2010 Ms. Justina Willkom Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Sent via USPS and email to' iwillkom(a~tustinca orq RE: Tustin Legacy Tentative Tract Map 17144 Dear Ms. Willkom: ~'~MMUNITY c3EV~~OPMENT DE~~" Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Tustin Legacy Tentative Tract Map 17144. The City of Irvine has reviewed the project and has the following comments. 1) Please provide a phasing implementation plan for the development proposed under this map, as well as a phasing implementation plan for the construction of the internal roadway network including Armstrong Road, Valencia North Loop, Legacy Road, Tustin Ranch Road, and the connection of Warner Ave to Tustin Ranch Road. Should development be phased, City of Irvine staff suggests preparation of an interim-year traffic analysts to confirm that there is adequate infrastructure to support development phasing. Additionally, please provide any traffic analysis that has been conducted to address interim conditions without some or all of the internal network connections in place. A traffic analysis was prepared in 2007 to address impacts related to the build-out of the map in 2025; however, it is unclear whether the improvements proposed for the 2025 condition also support the interim condition. For instance, if the development is built without certain network connections in-place, (i.e., Armstrong Road extension to Valencia and Warner Avenue extension to Legacy Road), deficiencies could result at Aston &Barranca and Armstrong &Barranca that may require extended left- ~ar.N~N.city~hr~ine_c~r~~ Ms. Justina Willkom November 22, 2010 Page 2 IRV 2 turn pockets, extended right-turn lanes or conversion of single- to dual-left- turn packets to mitigate interim impacts. 2) Please coordinate with the Irvine Public Works Department to ensure consistency between the CIP improvements being proposed and the improvements at Aston &Barranca being proposed as part of the TTM 17144 approval in order to avoid negative impacts to the CIP project currently underway for intersection improvements at Red Hill & Dyer/Barranca 3) Please coordinate with the Irvine Public Works Department regarding all street improvement plans and signal modification plans related to TTM 17144 IRV 3 along Barranca Parkway. Please forward copies of all additional documentation associated with this project for our review. If you have any questions, please contact Sun Sun Murillo at (949) 724-6262 or via a-mail at smurillo@cityofirvine.org. Sincerely, /~ Bill Jac s, AICP Principal Planner cc: (via email) Shohreh Dupuis, Manager of Transit and Transportation Kerwin Lau, Project Development Administrator Dave Mori, Project Development Administrator Sun-Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst ATTACHMENT D Resolution No. 4'164 RESOLUTION NO. 4164 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES ONLY TO SUBDIVIDE A 131-ACRE SITE INTO 12 NUMBERED LOTS AND 28 LETTERED LOTS LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING AREAS 9 THROUGH 12 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDED BY BARRANCA PARKWAY ON THE SOUTH, RED HILL AVENUE ON THE WEST, WARNER AVENUE ON THE NORTH, AND ARMSTRONG AVENUE ON THE EAST. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That a proper application for an amendment to Tentative Tract Map No. 17144 was initiated by the City of Tustin to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for conveyance purposes. The site is bounded by Barranca Parkway on the south, Red Hill Avenue on the west, Warner Avenue on the north and Armstrong Avenue on the east; B. That the proposed amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 is in conformance with the Tustin General Plan land use designation of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan which designates the project sites (Planning Areas 9-12) as commercial business which provides for future development of offices, retail and service commercial, public and institutional, and light industrial uses; C. That on November 13, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended and on December 4, 2007, the City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 17144, a request by Tustin Legacy Community Partners to subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for the purpose of development of approximately 1,267,324 square feet of commercial business, open space, public streets, and flood control facilities. D. That Tustin Legacy Community Partners terminated its contract with the City of Tustin as the master developer for the project site. E. That to acquire ownerships of parcels that had been conveyed to Tustin Legacy Partners, an amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 is proposed as a conveyance map only. F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on December 14, 2010, by the Planning Commission; Resolution No. 4164 TTM 17144 Page 2 G. As conditioned, the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); H. That the Public Works/Engineering Department has reviewed the map and determined that it is technically correct; That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR and its Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The FEIS/FEIR and its Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin; and, J. That the proposed subdivision is for conveyance purposes only. No development rights are associated with approval of this conveyance map. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been prepared, attached hereto as Exhibit A, and concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes, or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve an Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144 for the subdivision of an approximately 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for conveyance purposes only. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 14th day of December, 2010. JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4164 TTM 17144 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4164 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 14t" day of December, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 4164 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously CertifiedlApproved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Tentative Tract Map 17144 (Conveyance) Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3115 Project Location: Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-1 Specific Plan), Neighborhood E Project Description: Tentative Tract Map 17144, a subdivision of a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 28 lettered lots for conveyance purposes only. Surrounding Uses: North: Warner Avenue/vacant lots East: Armstrong Avenue/vacant lots South: Barranca Parkway/Commercial and Business Parks West: Red Hill Avenue/ Business Complexes Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006. 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 ^Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^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 DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects I) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ 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 tl ~ Date: ~ 11/23/2010 Ju na Willkom, Principal Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Date 11/23/2010 See Attachment A attached to this Checklist EVALUATION OF ENVIltONMENTAL IMPACTS I. 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 may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Signiftcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 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. CULTLIRAI. RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defimed in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or ofF site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property'? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS 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 hazazdous 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 Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ o a ^ ^ a ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 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: No Substantial New More Change From Signifzcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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 a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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? a a ^ ^ D D D ^ ^ ^ XN. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? a a ^ ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES NEIGHBORHOOD E OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact StatemenbEnvironmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EISBIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The DoN published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEISBIR and Addendum analyzed amulti-year development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the planning agency is required to examine individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The planning agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/BIR and Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. For the proposed amendment to Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17144 project, the City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist and the analysis is provided below to determine if the project is within the scope of the FEISBIR and Addendum and if new effects would occur as a result of the project. PROJECT LOCATION The Property is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also known as Tustin Legacy. TTM 17144 consists of approximately 131 acres of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within Neighborhood E of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Planning Area 9-12). Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 2 Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego (I-405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the north providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. PRESENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY Historically, the Property was used as a Marine Corps helicopter training facility. Currently, the actual footprint of the Property is largely undeveloped land that was previously used for interim agricultural out-leasing by the Marines and also improved with landing strips and tarmac areas. Demolitions of abandoned buildings, tarmac areas, and landing strips have substantially been completed. Interim earthwork and mass grading have commenced. Rough grading in the area of Red Hill Ave. and Barranca Ave. as well as the installation of storm drain pipelines and retention facilities have also commenced. The City of Irvine is currently widening Barranca Ave. near Red Hill Ave. and providing underground storm drain facilities in this area. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17144 In 2007, TTM 17144 was proposed by Tustin Legacy Partners (Master Developer) as Sector Level B Map. Sector Level B Map is a subdivision map that divides a larger parcel into additional parcels (development units) that will facilitate conveyance of the property by a master developer to merchant builders or other parties. Since then, Tustin Legacy Partners has terminated its contract with the City of Tustin as the master developer for the remaining undeveloped land within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Accordingly, the City is reorganizing and reassessing the implementation strategies for the development within the master developer footprint. To acquire ownerships of parcels that had been conveyed to Tustin Legacy Partners, an amendment to TTM 17144 is being proposed as a conveyance map only. No development in conjunction with this map is being proposed. Amendment to TTM 17144 would subdivide a 131-acre site into 12 numbered lots and 281ettered lots for conveyance purpose only. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 3 I. AESTHETICS -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources; including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development plan is proposed with the subdivision and therefore the project will have no substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista. The proposed project has no potential for substantially damaging scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character, or create a new source of substantial light or glare. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.' None. Sources: Tentative Tract Map Field Observations FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IL 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 (199' prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is associated with the project. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. The Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 4 project site was leased as interim agriculture sites. All agricultural activities on the site and Navy out leases were terminated in phases by the Navy prior to the closure of MCAS Tustin in July, 1999. The physical impact area for the proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 is the same as that identified in the FEISBIR and Addendum. Although not proposed at this time, implementation of the proposed project would continue to impact areas mapped but not used as Prime Farmland. Additionally, there are no areas subject to a Williamson Act contract, and conservation of farmland in this area was deemed unwarranted by NCRS. The loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEIS/EIR are still infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with the loss of mapped/designated farmland. There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEISBIR determined to be infeasible are still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. There would not be a substantial increase in the severity ofproject-specific and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEISBIR and Addendum; however, these impacts would continue to be significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project. The Tustin City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISBIR on January 16, 2001. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISBIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEISBIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) Resolution No. 00-90 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 5 b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The conveyance tentative tract map has no potential to violate air quality standards, or contribute to a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for the project region. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentration or create objectionable odor. On January 16, 2001 and April 3, 2006, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, respectively, for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (FEIS/EIR). Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. Mitigatior~/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for operational and construction activities. However, the FEISBIR and Addendum also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 6 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEISBIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to require the applicant to obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. Appropriate permits have been obtained and are subject to conditions listed in the respective permits. Future implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISBIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for future developments. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 7 Sources: Field Observations FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-1.08, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project has no potential to change the significance of a historical resource, or destroy a unique paleontological resource. Future development activities have been previously considered within the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. There is no new technology or methods available to reduce the identified significant unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts to historical resources associated with the removal of Hangars 28 and 29 to a level considered less than significant. Although these unavoidable project-specific and cumulative impacts would not occur with the proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 (for conveyance only and affects Neighborhood E only), the future development of the Master development footprint could present impacts to these resources. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISBIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address potential significant unavoidable impacts to historical resources resulting from the removal of both blimp hangars. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Evaluation of )Jnvironmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 8 All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigatiorr/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISBIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for future developments or as conditions of approval for future developments. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substa~ttial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEISBIR and Addendum indicate that Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 9 impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive sails, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISBIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.' Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site far conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 10 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEISBIR and its Addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEISBIR and Addendum concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the DoN would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and the Addendum, the project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Amendment to TTM 17144 does not propose changes to height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose anaircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monito~ing Required: Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 11 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas 1, 2, 3,and4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The project site is located within the Barranca Channel Master Drainage Area. A master drainage hydrology study (San Diego Creek Flood Control Master Plan, Barranca Channel Update, dated September 28, 2007) was prepared and approved by the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFD). The study identifies a detention basin to be located within Lot H of TTM 17144. The detention basin has been included in TTM 17144. As concluded in the FEISBIR and Addendum, preparation of a WQMP in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 12 development activities to a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed Amendment to TTM would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEISBIR and Addendum. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISBIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin and Addendum; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program or as conditions of approval for future projects. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change fYOm Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The proposed subdivision would not alter the land uses proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific Plan area. The project site area is surrounded by existing development and future development on-site would not physically divide an established community. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISBIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 13 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The Amendment to TTM 17144 for conveyance purposes does not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISBIR and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.• No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observation FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE -Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to 7"['M 17144 (Conveyance) Page 14 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 excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no noise impacts are anticipated. The proposed subdivision will not increase the severity of the long-term traffic-related noise impacts more than previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. With respect to the short-term noise impacts, future development would be required to comply with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise impacts. As discussed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 is for conveyance purposes only and would not expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. Mitigatiort/Monitoring Required: The FEISBIR and Addendum concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The Amendment to TTM 17144 does not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3- 162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 15 XII. POPULATION & HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts to population and housing are anticipated. No new housing, removal of existing housing, or displacement of any people to necessitate construction of additional housing are proposed with the Amendment to TTM 17144. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 would not have an adverse effect on population and housing. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISBIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 does not change the conclusions of the FEISBIR and Addendum, no refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/E1R for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-lOlthrough 5-112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts public services are anticipated. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 16 libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. New facilities will be provided within the Master Developer footprint upon development of the site. Fire Protection. Future development will be required to meet Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site and a future fire station proposed at Edinger Avenue and the West Connector Road will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Future implementation of the project site in compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. As a condition of approval, future development projects would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at plan check. ~ch~nl~_ The impacts to schools resulting from future implementation of the proposed Tentative Tract Map would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures that require future developer to pay applicable school fees to the SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits (Neighborhood E is located within the SAUSD boundary). The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide "full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50. Other Public Facilities ~Libraries~. Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area. Developers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a portion of the development costs of the library expansion. To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 is for conveyance only and would not increase the demand of public services Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 17 more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEISBIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is expected. Mitigation/MonitoringRequhed: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEISBIR and Addendum. Therefore, no refinements or new mitigation measures are required for a subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137} Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEISBIR and Addendum. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 is for conveyance purposes only and no development is proposed. Therefore, the proposed Tentative Tract Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services compared to conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEISBIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 for conveyance purposes would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observation FEISlEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 18 Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either 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 proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEISBIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the Specific Plan. The FEISBIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEISBIR for a complete list) and the levels of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no-project condition. The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips. The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non-residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve future development. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from amendment to TTM 17144 than were originally considered by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEISBIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5- 127 through 5-147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 19 Tustin General Plan Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater. treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEISBIR and Addendum analyzed new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed development, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEISBIR and Addendum, future development of the site is required to pay a fair share towards off-site infrastructure and installation of on-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site, and water availability. As concluded in the FEISBIR and Addendum, no unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 for conveyance only would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from the proposed Amendment to TTM 17144; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 20 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEISBIR and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed Amendment to TTM 17144. With the enforcement of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project or as conditions of approval, the proposed project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISBIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 for conveyance only does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) and Addendum Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to TTM 17144 (Conveyance) Page 21 CONCLUSION The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the project. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum.