The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17404Agenda Item Reviewed.' AGENDA REPORT City Manager Finance Director ' ~ J MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 17404 PROPERTY OWNERS: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 DEPARTMENT OF NAVY 1455 FRAZEE ROAD, SUITE 900 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 SUMMARY: APPLICANT: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92780 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17404 is a subdivision of a 627.9 acre site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots for conveyance and financing purposes only. On July 26, 2011, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4177 recommending that the City Council adopt Tentative Tract Map 17404. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 11-60 approving Tentative Tract Map 17404 to subdivide a 627.9 acre site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes only. FISCAL IMPACT This is a City initiated application. Fees related to the preparation of TTM 17404 have been appropriated in the current budget. City Council Report September 6, 2011 TTM 17404 Page 2 DISCUSSION Site and Surroundings The project site is generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Road to the west. The project area is located entirely within Tustin Legacy (Attachment A -Location Map). TTM 17404 consists of approximately 627.9 acres of land and is located within Neighborhoods B, D, and a portion of G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Planning Areas 7, 8, 13-15) as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Tentative Tract Map 17404 TTM 17404 is being proposed as a financing and conveyance map only and would subdivide the project site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots (Attachment B). No development in conjunction with this map is being proposed. Future development of the project site will be subject to approval of a Concept Plan and Design Review which City Council Report September 6, 2011 TTM 17404 Page 3 will facilitate the development on the proposed lots consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed TTM 17404 has been analyzed for conformity with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, applicable City of Tustin guidelines and standards, and applicable mitigation measures identified in the certified FEIS/EIR. In addition, the Public Works Department has reviewed the map and determined that the proposed map is 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 TTM 17404 to affected agencies informing them of the proposed subdivision. Seven (7) agencies provided comments on the TTM 17404. Comment letters received and responses are included as Attachment C to this report. Generally, these agencies requested information related to future development and provided the City with information relating to their requirements once development occurs. On August 30, 2011, a supplemental letter was received from Mr. Alexander Bowie on behalf of the Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) in addition to their email received on January 6, 2011 (Attachment D). Although in their email dated January 6, 2011, Superintendent at the time, Mr. Richard Bray, indicated that TUSD does not have substantive comments on the proposed TTM 17404, the letter dated August 30, 2011, in general indicates that substantial changes in the project have occurred and substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant adverse impacts of the project have occurred; thus, Supplemental Environmental Proceedings prior to approval of TTM 17404 was requested. The City Attorney is reviewing Mr. Bowie's current assertions and will provide a response to the City Council. 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. 11-60). 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. City Council Report September 6, 2011 TTM 17404 Page 4 No mitigation measures are required for the proposed subdivision of the site for conveyance and financing purposes. A decision to approve the proposed project may be supported by the findings contained in Resolution No. 11-60 (Attachment E). Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Attachments: A. Location Map B. Tentative Tract Map 17404 C. Affected Agencies Comment Letters and Response D. Email and Supplemental Letter from Tustin Unified School District E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4177 F. Resolution No. 11-60 ATTACHMENT A Location Map City of Tustin CITY OF TUSTIN - [Created: 7/13/2011 10:45:36 AM) [Scale: 3676.91) [Page: 8.5 x 11 /Portrait) Legend City Limits Intersections ~/ Centerlines ~/ t=11Vlf Private Parcels ~l Railroad Centerlines Limits Map Display a tc~ aoaz•t www.caowh..NEt 0 3677ft (C) 2002-1 GeoPrise.net (GeoVet, Ine.) - (tibti~422-2505 ATTACHMENT B Tentative Tract Map 17404 ~i ~- r i~• --' ~ i_ § ~ '~~oi si I61a9 06§ §_~°~ ~ I I~ ,~~ I ~' ~ I I .; i ~ +- t -1 I~~'I ~° +-~ I I~~-axa n age'.: ,~ ~: ~ "- i~ L KT %~ Y ~ C I •C f C ! 6 X !6 - K nt T .. G ". Cf ~ § I, i r ~~. 1. i - 5 610 6 o'~.5F56 6~6~i 6F__c 6o-6 F_61_b ~ ~~ ~ ' ~ ,.I. o i 1 ~ i 1_ ~1' ' `~ ,I . ~ f_I. .i. II ~l~ ~ I 9~i9g~y#'~~9~~~,ssss~esi4g~s,g9~9gg~R §',! ' 65L 6C CC+6155C-~C5~Y6 GCK K C'6C G~iY _C ~I .. x R R R K R R tb R R R R F iR IR FIR ~ p R-~ a SIa55, ~a~ S`>~aa51$ SFaahSa~aa$a ~i~5~e~5esilolso'E5ai5155~6ct5~e~{oh e } ~ ~ ~Q4 (A~IIW ~ 3 ~ - r AYFIHE .~ - . ~, gar.. ~- ~ ie~= ::lss B a'r E- } .- ~;_ ~ g Oy ~F 91491°9391$Y9~Y'~9£9~9'~99,999Y'9~s933 § 5 C C YC~S Y C K,.i~C 6~i c;5 : C~K G C Y~C C Y Y~+6 ~' r~~~I;~R~~~RR~RCEoIR~b ES~r,F~fixc,~ ~~S as ~<a~aa$ •ab aa. a~ aaah ~+ ------- 55 5 _ _ s.6 •~ ~ ~-~ ~ - ~ y C I VC1 `~9j~$~~j~,9k9I~~~:$~~~ § S G K K 5 5',~~5 Y 5~ K 5 5 6 K'S q ~ y a'C a a ~~ ~~ Y F: 5, 0 6~ _ 5~ IS.e _ Y ~ A~ .~±~ ~ I ~Q I ~ - w ~r ~ `_~_ ,.. ~j~. ~~ =t~clccs',c~slsgsls~cc~~s'~g~g~s;~ § "'"` ~li ~c ~~~i4~~~~~~~~~~II~~~~~~~~~~i~ e~ ?3 2~a 2'~38e78,edadi2a~.daai'~. a_" ~ I ~i =~ '- II r rhl riwrww wlw+w lw'w wa+lw ~ ~ -mot - . _. - ~~-... _ _.. ~ CIS tl~~l~ ~ ~ t'~ ~~~ i $ ~~~ i ~~~ w§ t a ~ _ I s a~ a C_ ? ~ _ ~~ ~ ~~ I g i ~~ ~ .a 7 ~ _EZh Cr. ~x~r_,~ s ~ ~ v ~ ' ~ ~ f ~ . t ~~g~ ~a~ ~ ~~Q ~n A y ~§ ~~ ~F e .,,r`~e- OS 1 E i ~< § --- J ~~ ~ ~, M K n ~~ 1 n ~~ ~~~ T ~ Y ~~~ ~ i ~~. t ~.' 1v~f~ e~~~_ W ,'~ 10~~ -Q ~pW9'\. ~lOtr1 ~N1 l ..~ ~ i C ivr OOppp _ v~ wr sww'r --• - i ~~o ~~~Sps i .. ~~ rl ' ` + ~.~~ 8 _~ q ~ __.___- _ -- nmiw au~c~ noeo .__- t_ ~'_. __~o. KK yt5 ,u~: ~T'n~a" 5 _ ._ 4§~ s Q5 ~ 5 ~^Rf5 Cy M' ' + ~ 7 M~er1aM0 ~vE I~ ~ ~ rMt ~vE fj ~ G ~ ~ w s l ~ ~ ~ 1 // ~ 7 1999'S d ~ S~ ~ ~ 7~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f _ F i $~ R 5~g' Y e~ ~~ F G S 3 'b_~5 ur:, =o _o~ a~ ~d ~~ N iS ~ ~K o ~~kz > - F' i R Y ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~F ~ s~- S v~ ~ ~~ E$~ Fife ~~~v v ~~~rk ~~ s ask n ~~~~~ ~ $ti~ X~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~e m ~f ~ p `~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ _~ .t ?. z,~s ., ~f~ F~ cad r ,`- ~ p,~ ~~?'-~ ~'~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~sR6~ 1~ _ S g` ~x~! :c ~ti ,c ~s ~ s ag .i .Ir . a e~~' ~ 'aacl~ s cls~ ,J,. .., W~.._ ~ §i ~ ~I~ ~ 5 6~~ ' ~ ; S;~ ~ ~ -I-.-' ~~~ - ~~ ~ s~ ~51~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~1 _ -, 5 6'~~i¢ i g 91j~ g ii~ ~ ~ ~~ p 3 ~~~ yy 3~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~S ~ ~j p 3 ~~~~ ' 51 g o,6 g 6o5 ~ ~E 56 6:6 § § 6,' g 1 y1 a ~ C '+~l .i II ~ r }} .. K F 5 ~ 1 6 : p p g ~ _ ~~ ~I M X'~ Y Cry C S C ~,RZ L ~ IC ..'E `1 ~M K R C: c '.I~ i 6 -~ i i ~ 1 5 # I t ~ I 4 , ~4~~4 L L ~~~ S 4FI~S Y~94 ~Y S ~ ~ ~9~ eS - ~4~F 5 5tt ~ 444 a tt ?z~ ~I h ~ X:SZ ? F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ X .~ ~ ~ ~ F ~ fi ~ ~ 6'F.666 615 6F~6 6,66~ 6E 6 566 565 556 6-b ~I _.I' "~- ~ ' ,+ ta , i - i I l+} 1 i 1 I Y Yea ~,Y ~',Y ~ Y ,~ 8!~'~I~ ' ' Y:Y ~8 Z Yc18YY ~ ~ F tt ~ ~,R ttt ~ I~~ tt ~~ a tt ~I~ a t YC ~',Rb1~ as a t R t 6 t b~l a~~ tt 3.z a'S t ~~ Sa tCt t~t al x~ 5~1~a t 5 a bb ;a bl~b a 16 ~ 0 6"~; 5 0 ~b :0 6 6 I6 J '- : ~a a „la 1 ~ ~I , E ~I E~E c a~a'} s Pl~',.9 $ : 813 ¢ ~ . 3:F1 ''R~I^ ~..§: 9~ tIt 3I3Y YY~ Y~8YX Yt C ~I, Y~~~ t Yt I ~~9'9,3 tt'.tS 3Y~ itY i 3iF tt ~ ~19~ YlOt l Y9~~ tt ~ § ~b b5~ ~h~6 ~~a b~~b - i¢ ;fa z~aa b;~ ~' E~E 61 6EE E,EES '.66 EEEIE 610616 EIf EE 5565 ~EE 6_ 6 EE I EEf o_I €eif 16 y ` ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ a y s I I i~ rle p ± a €i g - r - ~ ~ ~ ~ - I ' iY ~ I t 9~Y ' 9 ~ ~ IR ~ R ~ ~ I~,; 3 F ~ ~ t titt aia~ a ~K'pt ?, ~ C t~ :a t~ r FC:: a1a7 ' S~ S 0686 E'. E 6.6 • F ~' s C 65!6 : E 05 ~ I a a a E ~6_ ~ P - . ~ ~. B @ e _I [ '~~.~ ~ _ s~s~lE FatEg3~l;Es= a~a l~a~ gC6 gg~ {- 1a~Eg~gEb gs ~i~ ~ a€ ~n ?2a~a212a1a1818e ~ 8~' }~~ ~;iaa7e ~' a ; w w tw slw walwr r e.oo~ I- 1111 e. lr I6 ww = ww ~§ ~wrrw wtw ~ ~°I@e ' ~E~ t ~ _ ' g E n 1 ~ i z Y-'-~ -- -. ~ R~ f i I`~I~?j~~c 5 `~~2~C~_~~~~IC ~ i 55 ~~~~'iG 9 ' a a ~ =s ~~ a~~ a a~~~ a ~ ~ a ~ ~ al,~ ' I I i ~t -~ I,.,~ I I of lolo ~ C. I~ ~x ----- --~ i _ _.~OpN J --snarl i I i - ----~ -----1 i wv uau~ •~ r ,~ O ~` ft ~S ~~ ~ ° ~° `` ~ ~C y clm aaitw ~ g .~ I ~§ ~~ ~~ A 1+1 - ( -g-- ~ ; ~ o , 4 ~ * ~ f v t { » q e ~~ e ~ ~ ( < ~a ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ , 4 A ~ 3 ~ ~ Z `/ i ~ ~ ~~ ~ - a r ~ _ _ e` p I~A•c ~ ;~ i7 r~ _ ~/ :" ~~~a~a s-p;a ~~~F~' a~~gf9 ~~,i ~a ~QOi ~w ~li - __ _ ~ -_-__. __ __ _____- ro~~.wa~ h~ ¢ _____-_~ 1 t~ i i ~ Y i i Y iV i A ~' ~ ~ 7 ` NWeTnOMi M1K ~ ~ ~ PM( 4vE M ~ '' ~ ~ 6 w ~. ~ ~ y~ Cl i 7 7 Y i .rvao: i ~ ~~, ~ i ~ i - ~ i 5: ~ f ,' I V .} *y ( ~ of ~ ~ . t ~~ 6 , ~ ~ ... ~ f R ~ g 5 ~ ',t cc e~ 6 a ~ s 5 ~ F5 R 8 8 ~` ~ ~ ~ ~; 6~g. Y `~8 e ~ 8 bl.~ F & ;g 3 b ~l•rrwc ~K b~~ +C4,~ • ^ fti~ ~ ~isls~ ~ ~~„~~ ~ ~ Rs~~ sex 6 ° ~;. rY ~yS ~a~g~' ~ F ~~ ~ n~~ ~ fly' N ~ ~`~~e b~.~x ~~ a ~ ~fis~x ~g a ~~fr ~ u~~~~ g~D~~~ ~~~~ ~~~f - f, {f i §'~ ~ ~b y `525 ~5 #j€.`: ~F ~~~ '~5 ~s~x ti~ ~ kw€ aa~~- ~° ~~ ~p i - 10'v~ _~ ~~ -~ ~1l~wl ~Mi for 1~1{- ' „s,~f ATTACHMENT C Affected Agencies Comment Letters and Response ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY Fire Prevention Department P. O. Box 5711 S, Irvine, CA 92619-711 S • 1 Fire Authorlly Road, Irvine, CA 92602 Planning and Development Services ~ www, ocfa. org ~ (714) 573-6100 /Far (7l4) 368-8843 Date: January 26, 2011 To: City of Tustin Community Development Department Attention: Justina Wilkom, Principal Planner From: Lynne Pivaroff, Fire Prevention Analyst Subject: OCFA Service Request SR #168446, City Reference #TTM 17404 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Service Code: PR105 Site Development Review/CUP The OCFA has reviewed the proposed project and there do not appear to be any issues associated with this proposal that would require further submittals to the OCFA. If you need additional information or clarification, please contact me by phone at (714) 573-6133, by fax at (714) 368-8843, or by email: lynnepivazoff@ocfa.org. Saving tta Citin of Aliw Vigo •Buena Part • Cyprus • Dana Poim • In~ine • Laguna Hilla • Laguna Niguel • Laguna Wood• • Laks Forr: • La Prima • Loa Alamitos • Mission Viejo • Placemia • Rancho Sena Margarita • San Clemente • San Juan Upixruw • Snl Bead • Stamon .Tustin • Villa Park • Watminsta • Yorba Linda • and Unincorporued Arw of Orange County RESIDENTIAL SPRINXLERSAND SMOKE DETECTORS SAVE LIVES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Tel: (949) 7242267 Fax: (949) 7242592 January 20, 2011 Justine Willkom City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17404 Dear Ms. Willkom, File: IGR/CEQA SCH#: N/A Log #: 2639 SR-55 ''hank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Tentative Tract Map 17404. The proposal is for a subdivision of a 555-acre site into 43 numbered lots and 40 lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes only. The site is located within City of Tustin generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the South, and Armstrong Road to the west. The project area is located entirely within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/ Reuse Plan Area (Tustin Legacy). T>he Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. However, in the event of any activity in the Department's right- of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments that could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724-2267, Sincet`ely, ~ ~. Christopher Herre, Branch Chief Local Deveiopment/Intergovernmental Review C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research "Cahrant (mprovat mobJdry acrora CaGfornta" F7ez your power/ _ _ _ Be energy e,~ictentl Willkom, Justina From: Hendrickson, Dina [dhendrickson@tustin.k12.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:27 AM To: Willkom, Justina Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP - 17404 Message being sent on behalf of Richard Bray, Superintendent, Tustin Unified School District: Dear Ms. Willkom: Thank you for informing TUSD about the City's proposed adoption of Tentative Tract Map No. 17404. However, based on the representation in your letter of December 20, 2010, that TTM 17404 is "for financing and conveyance purposes only," our District will reserve comment on the proposed map. Although we have no substantive comments to submit regarding this particular financing and conveyance map, we would greatly appreciate it if the City would keep our District timely apprised of any future land use decisions made by, or any development or construction activities undertaken by, the City, or any of its grantees, successors, or assigns, relating to any parcels of land in the vicinity of any proposed or existing school sites located within the Tustin Legacy project. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, Richard Bray Superintendent Tustin Unified School District Tustin Unified School District E-Mail Disclaimer This communication and any documents, files, or previous a-mail messages attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510.This communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511. Any review, reliance, or distribution by others or forwarding without expressed permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. r Cr• =f• 'C ~L'.i~_. `~~ .1 Ms. Justina Willkom Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Sent via USPS and email to: iwillkomC~tustinca.orq RE: Tustin Legacy Tentative Tract Map 17404 Dear Ms. Willkom: ins; ~ '~ yJ~i Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Tustin Legacy Tentative Tract Map 17404. The City of Irvine has reviewed the map and has no comment; however, the City of Irvine would like to reserve the right to review and comment on the future tentative track maps, final maps and master plans for this area (TTM No. 17404) to ensure circulation and land use consistency with the approved MCAS disposal and reuse speck plan. Additionally, on November 22, 2010, the City of Irvine requested a phasing plan for the development proposed under Tustin Legacy Tentative Tract Map 17144 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 Avenue to Tustin Ranch Road. Please let me know when the phasing plan will be available. If you have any questions, please email me at sjonesCc~cityofirvine.or4 or call me at 949.724.6559. Sincerely,~j /f / { ~, Sherman Jones, AICP Associate Planner cc: (via email) Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner David Law, Senior Planner Farideh Estiri Lyons, Senior Transportation Analyst Sun-Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst . _. Department of Public Works Douglas S. Stack, P.E. Director January 10, 2011 ~.~r;~!`v'''D ~ ~~s ~t Mr. Sherman Jones, AICP -'=''~~`~w:r ~:=.vE~c. ~, ~v ~ ~i=~ Associate Planner City of Irvine P.O. Box 19575 Irvine, CA 92623-9575 Subject: Review of Tustin Legacy Tentative Tract Map 17404 Dear Mr. Jones: The City of Tustin has received your review comments of Tustin Legacy Tentative Tract Map 17404. As you are aware this map is being processed for Conveyances Purposes Only, at this time. No development is proposed at this time with this map. However, as development proceeds and other mapping actions are proposed, they will be submitted to the City of Irvine for review as appropriate. The City of Tustin has not developed a phasing plan for future development under Tentative Tract Map 17144, nor has the City prepared a phasing plan for the construction of internal roadways to serve future development. At this time, the City is moving forward with the Tustin Ranch Road Extension Project to provide the circulation gap closure between Warner Avenue and Walnut Avenue. Final plans and specifications are being prepared to proceed to public bid in the spring of 2011. Thank you for your review comments. Please contact me at (714) 573-3172, if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~~~ Doug Anderson Transportation ~ Development Services Manager C' Ken Nisikawa Benny Tenkean Justina Willkom 300 Centenn al W y T~Sti A 9 7 • P: (714) 5 3-3150 • F: (7i4) 734-8991 • www.tustinca org S:\Doug 8 ~raffic\~us`hn MCAS\Tract 1~464~TTM 17404 - Irvi(~e.docx MAYOR Miguel A. Pulido MAYOR PRO TEM Claudia C. Alvarez COUNCIL MEMBERS P. David Benavldes Carlos Bustamante Michele Martlnez Vincent F. Sannlento Sal Tlnajero December 30, 2010 ..~ ~'i~. CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING 8 BUILDING AGENCY 20 Clvlc Center Plaza (M-20) P.O. BOX 1988 • Santa Ana, Califomla 92702 (714) 687-2700 Fax (714) 973-1461 vrww.santaana.org Justina Willkom, Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: Notice of filing Tentative Tract Map 17404 Dear Ms. Willkom, CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. Fletcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL PatriGa E. Healy ~~EC`~1,1~~~ Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the filing of Tentative Tract Map 17404. Since no development rights are conferred as a result of this Map approval, the City of Santa Ana Planning Division has no comment at this time. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (714) 647- 5842. Sincerely, Hally Sob ske Associate Planner HS: Hs:\\correspondence\TTM_TusHn_ 122910.doc c: Sergio Klotz, Principal Planner aO' O R A N G E C O U N T r Jess A. t:arbq/a!, D/rector ~I 300 N. Flower Stroet Santa Ana, CA PublicWorks P.O. Box 4048 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Our Community. Our Comm/tment. Telephone: (714) 834-2300 Fax: (714) 834-5188 4E~;EIV`~~ December 27, 2010 Justina Wiflkom, Principal Planner Community Development Department City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map 17404 Dear Ms. Willkom: SEC > 3 1010 ,Cf~!r,~;;,V17Y ~EVELOPMEhTGEPT We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 20, 2010 regarding the proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM) 17404, a 555-acre subdivision lot into 43 numbered lots within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan area (Tustin Legacy) for financing and conveyance purposes. We have no comment on the conveyance of the subject TTM 17404. This area is part of the overall approved Runoff Management Plan (ROMP) dated December 2004 for the Tustin Legacy development area and as such, all flood control improvements need to be implemented per the Tustin Legacy ROMP which includes Barranca Channel. Should you have any questions, please contact me or Robert Young at (714) 834-5657 or (714) 834- 5060 respectively. Sincerely, M~ ~ t ~o~ Mehdi Sobhani, Manager OC Public Works/Flood Control Programs S:\Flood Program\Advance PlanninglAkbar SharifianlAkbar Shared\City of Tustin TTM 17404.doc cc: Mahrooz Ilkhanipour. Manager, Building & Safety Willkom, Justina From: Smith, Wendy [WSmith@OCSD.COM] Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:05 AM To: Willkom, Justina Cc: Smith, Wendy Subject: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Area (Tustin Legacy) Hi Justina, I apologize for the delayed response regarding the subject project, it took a little while for the notice you sent to find me. OCSD is the regional sewering agency for the project area; Irvine Ranch Water District is the local sewering agency. Although OCSD owns and operates a 24-inch VCP gravity sewer located in Edinger Avenue, north of the project site, new connections to the sewer system should be made to IRWD's sewer system. If a new or existing connection to OCSD"s regional system is necessary, plans showing the proposed modifications should be submitted to me for review and approval prior to the issuance of a connection permit. Also, if a modified connection is necessary flow information should also be provided so OCSD staff can verify that the increase inflow (if any) will not negatively impact the capacity of our system. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for this project. If OCSD staff has provided comments on environmental documents in the past, Tustin staff should also take those comments into account. Thank you, Wendy Smith, P.E. OCSD -Planning Division (714) 593-7880 ATTACHMENT D Email and Supplemental Letter from Tustin Unified School District Willkom, Justlna From: Hendrickson, Dina (dhendrickson~tustin.k12.ca.usJ Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:27 AM To: Willkom, Justina Subject: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP - 17404 Message being sent on behalf of Richard Bray, Superintendent, Tustin Unified School District: Dear Ms. Willkom: Thank you for informing TUSD about the City's proposed adoption of Tentative Tract Map No. 17404. However, based on the representation in your letter of December 20, 2010, that TTM 17404 is "for financing and conveyance purposes only," our District will reserve comment on the proposed map. Although we have no substantive comments to submit regarding this particular financing and conveyance map, we would greatly appreciate it if the City would keep our District timely apprised of any future land use decisions made by, or any development or construction activities undertaken by, the City, or any of its grantees, successors, or assigns, relating to any parcels of land in the vicinity of any proposed or existing school sites located within the Tustin Legacy project. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. Sincerely, Richard Bray Superintendent Tustin Unified School District Tustin Unified School District E-Mail Disclaimer This communication and any documents, files, or previous a-mail messages attached to it constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510.This communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511. Any review, reliance, or distribution by others or forwarding without expressed permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. BOWIE, AR1vESON, WILES & GIANNONE A PARTNERSfI1P INCLUDING PRORCSSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNC\'S AT LAW ALEXANDER BOWIE• JOAN C. ARNESON WENDY 11. WILES• PATRICIA B. GIANNONE ROBERT E. ANSLOW BRIAN W. SMITH JEFFREY A.HOSKINSON MEGAN V. N'ATT DANIELE D. LE LAWRENCE K. CHAN TYLER B. DOCKINS 4920 CAMPUS DRt~ \I ~) r- NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 (949)851-t300 2011 Luc 3 0 f!JSTf~! P 12~ 0 8 (800) 639-0997 FAX (949) 8.51-2011 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Tustin City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 August 30, 2011 Attention: Pamela Stoker, City Clerk Re: Supplemental Comments re: Tentative Tract Map No. 17404 Dear Council Members: On behalf of Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD"), thank you for the "Notice" from the City of Tustin ("City") in regard to the above, received on August 23, 2011, relative to proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 17404 (""1'"I~M 17404"). The following comments, requests, and suggestions are respectfully submitted in addition to the comments submitted on January 4, 2011, in response to the City request dated, December 20, 2010. I. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of "TUSD, that substantial changes have occurred in the "Project" relating to TTM 17404, subsequent to the approval of the "FEIS/EIR" and the described "Addendum" ("Prior CEQA Documents"). These substantial changes have resulted in new additional and significant adverse environmental impacts, as well as substantial changes and substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant adverse impacts, and significant changed circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken(collectively, "Change Impacts"). 2. As you are aware, TUSD and Moffett Partners ("Lennar" and "Lyon") executed a "Mitigation Agreement" to seek to establish a "K-8 School" and "High School" on the former "MCAS/Tustin" property (collectively, "Proposed MCAS/Tustin School Facilities"). Legacy Partners ("Centex" and "Shea") declined to similazly execute the necessary Mitigation Agreement that would have made the Proposed MCAS/Tustin School Facilities a realistic R[i. OUR i1LE 18047. I ~.3 BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Tustin City Council August 29, 2011 Page 2 possibility. This occurred after the completion of the Prior CEQA Documents and is a new substantial change creating new significant adverse environmental impacts as to onsite and offsite, construction impacts as to interim and permanent school facilities, including traffic, noise, and other impacts that need to be addressed by the City as the successor "Master Developer" in a "Supplemental Environmental Proceeding" prior to approval of TTM 17404. 3. In regard to the foregoing, we respectfully bring to your attention the recent decision of Chawanakee Unified School District, et al. v. County of Madera, et al., (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4`h 1016 ("Chawanakee Decision") which, together with other applicable law, necessitates, SB- 50 notwithstanding, that the above-described impacts be addressed prior to approval of TTM 17404 in a Supplemental Environmental Proceeding. In order to do so, this necessitates a revised plan for on site, off site, permanent and interim school facilities in order that such new significant adverse impacts can be identified, quantified, and mitigated to a level of insignificance. 4. Also, the Project CEQA Documents identified a "CFD" by TUSD as a means of funding the herein described necessary school facilities. Such a CFD has been formed and implemented as to the Moffet Partners portion of the Project, but the failure of such a CFD to be established as to the remaining area of TTM 17404 subsequent to completion of the Project CEQA Documents is an additional change in the Project, and a subsequent change in circumstances which must be addressed in the requested Supplemental Environmental Proceeding prior to approval of TTM 17404. 5. On the basis of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that approval of TTM 17404 be deferred pending a Supplemental Environmental Proceeding to address all the herein described relevant issues, particularly as related to the the Chawanakee Decision. On behalf of TtJSD, we request that the City designate the proper persons to interface with TUSD in order to formulate a mutually acceptable plan for interim and permanent school facilities for the Project, and a mutually acceptable plan for timely funding thereof to provide such school facilities as sale of property to third parties and development of additional homes occurs. "Phis will allow all such significant adverse impacts to be mitigated to a level of insignificance. It is noted that in regard the desired joint future efforts that State Funding for new construction has been exhausted by approved unfunded new construction projects. This now deferred source of funding may occur at a later than assumed date. The City and TUSD serve the same community and families, and TUSD looks forward to initiating a collaborative, mutually-acceptable "Win/Win" approach to making development of this portion of our community, a model of cooperation and good will in these challenging times, which the City of Tustin and Tustin Unified School District are facing. 160273 BOWIE, A1tNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Tustin City Council August 29, 2011 Page 3 We look forward to meeting and discussing this request and suggestions prior to September 6, 2011. Please contact Dr. Gregory Franklin, Superintendent, to implement such a collaborative meeting at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, BOWIE, ARNESON, WILES & GIANNONE Alexander Bowie cc: Dr. Gregory Franklin, Tustin Unified School District 160273 ATTACHMENT E Planning Commission Resolution No. 4177 RESOLUTION NO. 4177 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMIS ION F S O THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17404 FOR FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES ONLY TO SUBDIVIDE A 627.9-ACRE SITE INTO 58 NUMBERED LOTS AND 119 LETTERED LOTS LOCATED WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS B, D, AND A PORTION OF G (PLANNING AREAS 7, 8, 13-15) OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY BOUNDED BY EDINGER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND ARMSTRONG ROAD TO THE WEST. 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 Tentative Tract Map No. 17404 was initiated by the City of Tustin to subdivide a 627.9-acre site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes. The site is generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Road to the west; B. That the proposed Tentative Tract Map 17404 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 7, 8, 13-15) as Village Services, Community Core, and Residential Core which provides for future development of offices, retail and service commercial, businesses, residences, and parks; C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on July 26, 2011, by the Planning Commission; D. That the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); E. That the City Engineer has examined the Tentative Tract Map and found it to be substantially in conformance with all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code. F. 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 Resolution No. 4177 TTM 17404 Page 2 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, G. That the proposed subdivision is for financing and 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. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 17404 for the subdivision of an approximately 627.9-acre site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes only. ::,, PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 26~" day of July, 2011. ~~ ,- r_`~ *-, L ,~, . CHUCK PUCKETT Chair Pro Tem ~~ ~- ~. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 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. 4177 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 26~h day of July, 2011. / ! ~. _, Y \ ~ ,.. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary ATTACHMENT F Resolution No. 11-60 RESOLUTION NO. 11-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17404 TO SUBDIVIDE A 627.9-ACRE SITE INTO 58 NUMBERED LOTS AND 119 LETTERED LOTS LOCATED WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS B, D, AND A PORTION OF G (PLANNING AREAS 7, 8, 13-15) OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN GENERALLY BOUNDED BY EDINGER AVENUE TO THE NORTH, JAMBOREE ROAD TO THE EAST, BARRANCA PARKWAY TO THE SOUTH, AND ARMSTRONG ROAD TO THE WEST FOR FINANCING AND CONVEYANCE PURPOSES ONLY. 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 Tentative Tract Map No. 17404 was initiated by the City of Tustin to subdivide a 627.9-acre site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes. The site is generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Road to the west; B. That the proposed Tentative Tract Map 17404 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 7, 8, 13-15) as Village Services, Community Core, and Residential Core which provides for future development of offices, retail and service commercial, businesses, residences, and parks; C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on July 26, 2011, by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4177 recommending that the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map 17404; D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held for said map on September 6, 2011, by the City Council; E. That the map would be in conformance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Tustin City Code Section 9323 (Subdivision Code); F. That the City Engineer has examined the Tentative Tract Map and found it to be substantially in conformance with all provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and City Subdivision Code. G. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) Resolution No. 11-60 TTM 17404 Page 2 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, H. That the proposed subdivision is for financing and 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 hereby approve Tentative Tract Map 17404 for the subdivision of an approximately 627.9-acre site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes only. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of September, 2011. JERRY AMANTE MAYOR ATTEST: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Resolution No. 11-60 TTM 17404 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 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. 11-60 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6~h day of September, 2011 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 11-60 ~- ~!t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (7/4) .573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects ~'Vith 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 eazlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CL'QA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Tentative Tract Map 17404 (Conveyance and Financing purposes) Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina VJillkom Phone: (714) 573-3115 Project Location: Neighborhoods B, D, and G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin 300 Centennial ~~'ay Tustin, C.A 92780 General Plan Designation: V1CAS "1"ustin Specific Plan "boning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-1 Specific Plan), Nei fhborhoods B, D, G Project Description: Tentative Tract Map 17404, a subdivision of a 627.9-acre site into 58 numbered lots and l 19 lettered lots for conveyance and financing purposes only. Surrounding Uses: North: Edinger Avenue /commercial, business parks, and commuter rail station East: Jamboree Road & Peters Canyon Channel and Tustin Ranch Road & the District Shopping Center South: Barranca Pazkway,'Commercial and Business Parks West: Future Armstrong Road/vacant land,iOC Sheriff s Academy!Columbus Square Residential Development Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact _ Statement/F,nvironmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse X94071005) 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. ^I,and Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geology and Soils ^Hydrology and Water Quality ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Mincral Resources ^Agricultural Resources C. DETERMINATION: ^Hazards and Hazardous IVlaterials ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Acsthctics ^Cultural Resources ^Recreation ^Mandatory Findings of Significance 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 etfect 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 REPOR"I' is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has bcen 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 carlicr 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 ores that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers Date: 7 ~ ~~ Ju na Willkom, Principal Planner z~~~(;r~iE ~~~, Date 7~"//`~~/ Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attachment A attached to this Checklist :~. - . r=. ~. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS - V~'ould 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 adversel}~ affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. 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? Ill. AIR OUAI.ITY: 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: al 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? .'1'o Substantial New More Change Frnm Signifrcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts• Analysis ; ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ I~ t. s. ^ ^ ^ a (? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project l a) I lave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified a_s a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Gamc or U.S. Fish and Vb`ildlife 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 otherrneans? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife con~idors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? F e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? t) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted I labitat 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 y 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 ~1 fore Change From Significant Severe Previous Impnct Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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 oftopsoil? 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-I-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 AIYD 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 Subs-anliul ;ti'ew More Change From Signif(can! Severe Previous Impact Impuclc Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D D ^ ^ D D ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~] ~:': -a:; Yi ~' No Substantial New .1~ore Change From ~ C Significant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an /mpact Impaets ,4nah~sis 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? h) 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 otl=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 Flocxl Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate hiap 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 Icvcc or dam? j) inundation by scichc, tsunami, or mudflow? '" IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D D ^ ^ 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 RESOURCF,S -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? h) 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 plant 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 groundbotne vibration or groundbome 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'? XILPOPULATION 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 .Suh.ctantiul ~'ew Mure Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact lmpucts .9nalysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~:i ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No S:cbstanNa! New ,Lfore Change From f-,; Signifrennt Severe Previous l,4 Impnct Impacts .Analysis _ c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ^ ^ Xlll. 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 traiTic 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? i, -~ 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 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 Roard? 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) (lave 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? 17 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 .drew More Change From Significant Severe Previuus Impact Impacts .4nulvsis a o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~J F;VAI.UATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ~. ~; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17404 FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES NEIGHBORHOODS B, D, AND G OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS; EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EISiI?lR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Naw (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS,~EIR analyzed the envirorunental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific PlarvReuse 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 "hustin City Council on .Ianuary 16, 2001. "I~e 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 Specitic flan and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed amulti-vear development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the '~ MCAS "Tustin Specitic Plan are proposed, the planning agency is reyuired 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 signiticant ettects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is reyuired. For the proposed Tentative "tract Map (TTM) 17404 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 17404 consists of approximately 627.9 acres of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within Neighborhoods B, D, and G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Planning Areas 7, 8, 13-15). 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 ot~icially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of "Dustin. "The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 2 Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is m close proxtmity 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 transacts 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. [nterim 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. , t h "fENTA'1'IVE TRACT MAP 17404 "1'"CM 17404 would subdivide a 627.9-acre site into 58 numbered lots and 119 lettered lots for financing and conveyance purposes only. The site is generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, Barranca Parkway to the south, and Armstrong Road to the west. The project area is located entirely within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/ Reuse Plan area (Tustin Legacy). No development in conjunction with this map is being proposed. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The following information provides background support fur the conclusions identified in the T;nvironmental Analysis Checklist. 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 3 1Yo Substantial ClranRe 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 datnaging 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;l~fonitoring Required: None. Sources: Tentative Tract Map Field Observations FEIS~'E1R 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 Vlodcl (1997) prepared by the California Uept. 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 Clrange from Previous Analysis. The proposed subdivision is for fiinancing and conveyance purposes only. No development is associated v,~ith the project. The proposed TTM 17404 will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. The 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 TTM 17404 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. "I~he loss of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the I~EIS/EIR and Addendum are still Evaluation of Environmental impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 4 infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with 4 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 com~ersion 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 tiICAS Tustin and Addendum. :Lfitigatiorv~l~lonitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Ovemding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FI;IS/f?,1R 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? 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) F,xpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Pabe 5 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 StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report and Addendum, respectively, for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (FINS/EIR). Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. Mitigatinrr/~b~onitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEISiEIR 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 signiticant 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. Soierces: Field Observations Ff?[S/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 ! through 153, 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 1V. 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts "1-1"M 17404 (Conveyance) Page 6 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? 1Vo 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 1V1CAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR and Addendutn 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 and Addendum to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative ofd=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 for MCAS "Tustin and Addendum. MNigation~'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. .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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 7 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? h) 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? e ;:. r, No Substantial Clrange 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 FEISiEIR 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 he significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR and Addendum 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 "I"1'M 17-101 (for conveyance only), future development within the Masser 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. 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. Fq~ Mitigatiorr/A~lonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the `Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR and Addendum; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for future developments or a_s conditions of approval for titture developments. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation Evaluation of Environmental impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 8 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-] 37) 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 unly. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. 'I~he FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicate that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEIS~'EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 9 such hazards. :~1o substantial change is expected for development of the project from the t 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 frotn the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS!EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigatiorv'1Llonitoring Required.' Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation measures aze 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-=16 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in la 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 10 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 Subs/anturl Change from Previnus 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 itnplement 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 TTM 17404 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. "1'he project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. ite could be subject to Implementatton of acttvtt~es and development at the project s ~ subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substatrtial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigatiorv'~lonitoring Reguired.• Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CI;QA 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 1~ustin 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 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas 1, 2, 3,and4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUI') Tustin General Plan ,,, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page I 1 f.'1 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: C, 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 heen 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? Nn Substantial C'liange 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 project will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The project is not located within a 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injur}~ and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Consequently, no substantial change is expected hom the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum for :ACAS Tustin. .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 development activities to a level of insi6nificance. Implementation of the proposed 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page l2 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/I:[R for MCAS 'Tustin and Addendum. ,'Lfitigation/Monitoring Required.' Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and ~oundwater to a level of insignificance and no tnitigation 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 FI?ISIEIR for Disposal and Rcusc 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 USF, AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict R'ith 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 consen'ation plan? ,No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and com'eyance 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. MIIIgat10IL~Monitoring Reyuirec/: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The TTM 17404 for conveyance purposes Evaluation of F.nvironmen(al Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 13 .~ does not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FE[S/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigations and no new mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: F}IS/I;IR 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 3-3~ 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? iYo Suh.stantial 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 aze known to ~: occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project ~~~ll 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. ('onsequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Afiti~ationlMonitoring 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 Vlan/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) "Dustin General Plan Xl. NOISE -Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or '_:. ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 14 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? 1Vo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and com~eyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no noise impacts are anticipated. The proposed subdivision will not increase the severity of the long-tenor tratTic-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 TTM 17404 is for conveyance purposes only and would not expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. .~~itigation/ttilonitoring Reguired.• The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The "I"I'M 17404 dots 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 and Addendum 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 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)? F,valuation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 15 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 TTM 17404. The proposed TTM 17404 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. I~To substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/F.IR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. :~litigationi~lionitoring Required: The proposed TTM 17404 does not change the ~l conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; FEIS/EIR and Addendum mitigation measure subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations no refinements need to be made to the s and no new mitigation measures for FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Rcu_se of MCAS "fustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5-101 through 5-112) MCAS 'fustin Specitic PlarvReuse 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 ser~~ice ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public servues: 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 pmtection services, schools, 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 16 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 TUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits ;, (Neighborhoods B, D, and G is located within the TUSD 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 w111 directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area. [)evelopers 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. "I~he 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 TTM 17404 is for conveyance only and would not increase the demand of public services more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is expected. Mitigation/rL~onitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed TTM 17404 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 17 would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond I` that identified in the ITIS/EIR 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 FEIS/EIR 1- and Addendum. The proposed TTM 17404 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 anal}~sis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. ~fitigation/.A~fonitnring Required: The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded shat there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed TTM 17404 for conveyance purposes would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identited in the FEIS/CIR 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 3-3~ through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 18 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.l 2-6 of the FEISi7rIR 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. ~Lfitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from TTM 17404 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) .~_. Tustin General Plan Legacy Pazk of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. (Exhibit 1) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM l?404 (Conveyance) Page 19 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) leave 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 otily. 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 TTM 17404 for conveyance only would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what wa_5 evaluated in the FE[SiEIR and Addendum. Mitigation/.~I~lonitoring Required.• No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from the proposed TTM 17404; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS,~EIR £or Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-2U through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific I'lan/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 TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 20 "Tustin General Plan ~: XVII. i~tANDATORY 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 TTM 17404. With the enforcement of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum iq 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 FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00-90) for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. The proposed TZ~M 17404 is for conveyance only and 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 ~~ CONCLUSION ~' The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEISBIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified signiticant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be Evaluation of Environmental [mpacu TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 2 ] required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be fcasiblc, 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 envirorunental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the anal}~sis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. ~~~, {