HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 11-01RESOLUTION NO. 11-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 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 City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
The City Council 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. The Planning Commission
Resolution 11-01
Page 1 of 3
adopted Resolution No. 4164 recommending that the City Council approve an
Amendment to Tentative Tract Map 17144.
G. That the map is 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 City Council approves 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 City Council of the City of
Tustin on the 4~" day of January, 2011
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Resolution 11-01
Page 2 of 3
-., STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-01 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of
January, 2011 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCI~MEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
Amante, Nielsen, Gomez, Murra
(4)
None (0)
None (0)
Gavello (1)
P ELA STOKE
City Clerk
Resolution 11-01
Page 3 of 3
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps 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 Apri13, 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 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparers
Willkom, Principal Planner
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Date: 11 /23/2010
Date 11/23/2010
See Attachment A attached to this Checklist
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 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?
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 (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
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
0 0
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
D ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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'?
~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to ~ 15064.5'?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries'?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ a
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 hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ o
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
o a
^ ^
~ ^
a o
^ ^
^ ^
I-1 n m
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:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
o ^
^ ^
o a
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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
Signiftcant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
a ^
^ ^
^ ^
~ ^
^ ^
^ ^
n n ~
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere'?
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools? ~ ~
Parks?
Other public facilities?
XIV. RECREATION -
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'?
XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways? ~ ~
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)'?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? ~ n ~
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)`?
XVL 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?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
o ^
^ a
0 0
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
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 Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEISBIR) 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 FEIS/EIR 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/EIR and Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of
the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent
environmental document is required. For the proposed 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 FEIS/EIR 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 28 lettered 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 FEISBIR
and Addendum for MCAS Tustin.
MitigationlMonitoring Required: None.
Sources: Tentative Tract Map
Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109
through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8)
MCAS Tustin Specific 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
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?
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 FEIS/EIR 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 FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible are
still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant.
There would not be a substantial increase in the severity ofproject-specific and cumulative
impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEIS/EIR 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 FEIS/EIR 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 FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
MitigationlMonitoring 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 FEISBIR and Addendum for
MCAS Tustin.
Mitigation/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 FEIS/EIR 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 FEISBIR 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 FEIS/EIR to require the relocation of the
turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to require the applicant to
obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas on the project
site affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. 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 FEIS/EIR 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
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-
82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28
through 5-40)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (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
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 FEISBIR 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 FEIS/EIR 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 Environmental 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.
Mitigation/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
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-
74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40
through 5-45)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (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 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 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 soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards
(such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and
lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure.
However, the FEISBIR 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 FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigatio~/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 for conveyance purposes.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-
97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46
through 5-49)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (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 FEIS/EIR 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 FEIS/EIR 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/Monitoring Required: Implementation of activities and development at the
project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be
required by law. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for
conveyance purposes.
Sources: Field Observation
FEISBIR 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 FEIS/EIR 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 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.
Mitigatiorr/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would
reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of
insignificance and no mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage
were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS
Tustin 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 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 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
FEIS/EIR 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 FEISBIR 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: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3
to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (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 FEIS/EIR and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required.' 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 (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 TTM 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?
~ 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.
Mitigatiorz/Monitoring Required.• The FEIS/EIR 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 FEISBIR 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 FEIS/EIR for
MCAS Tustin and Addendum.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed Amendment to TTM 17144 does not
change the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR 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
FEISBIR 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 FEISBIR 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.
Schools.
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 FEISBIR, 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 FEIS/EIR and Addendum;
therefore, no substantial change is expected.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEISBIR 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 FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no refinements
or new mitigation measures are required for a subdivision of the site for conveyance
purposes.
Sources: Field Observation
FEISBIR 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 FEIS/EIR
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 FEIS/EIR 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
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56
to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (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 I8
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 FEIS/EIR
and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the
Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at 18 arterial
intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEIS/EIR 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
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-
142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-
127 through 5-147)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (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 FEIS/EIR
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 FEIS/EIR 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 FEIS/EIR 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 FEIS/EIR 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 FEISBIR
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.