The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC RES 11-60RESOLUTION NO. 11-60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 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 Ci#y Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. 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, 2011, by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 4177 recommending Tract Map 17404; noticed, and held for said map on July 26, and the Planning Commission adopted that the City Council approve Tentative 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. Resolution 11-60 Page 1 of 34 G. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Enviranmental 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 StatementlEnvironmental 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 on the 6th day of September, 2011. ---- JERRY AMANTE, ,Mayor ATTEST: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk .-~ t, ~~. Resolution 11-6fl Page 2 of 34 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF TUSTIN } I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 11-60 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6t" day of September, 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: C©UNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Amante, Nielsen, Gomez, Murray (t~) None (d) None {d) Gavello {1) Resolution 11-60 Page 3 of 34 ~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 927$0 (7/~t) ,i73-310f1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certifiied/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statementlt"rnviranmental Impact Report (EISIEIR) far 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 eaztier document pursuant to Section t 5162 and t 5 t 68 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CL•'QA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Praject Title{s): Tentative Tract Map 17404 {Conveyance and Financing purposes} Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 n: Justina Wilikom Phone: {714) 573-3 t t 5 Lead At,ency Contact Perso Project Location: Neighborhoods B, D, and G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Sponsor's Name and ILddress: City of Tustin 300 Centennial ~Vay Tustin, C.4 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS 'Dustin Specific Plan 7,oning l}esignation; MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-t Specific Plan), Neighborhoods B, D, G Project Description: Tentative Tract Map 17404, a subdivision of a 62?.9-acre site into 58 numbered tots and t 19 lettered lots far 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 ParkwaylCammercial and Business Parks West: Future Armstrong Roadlvacant land.~OC Sheriff s AcademylCotumbus Square Residential t}evelopment Resolution 11-60 Page 4 of 34 Previous Environmental Ducumentativn: Program Final l~nvironmental Impact StatemenUl:nvironrnental Impact Report {Program FEIS/EIR) far the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse X44471045) certified by the Tustin City Council '~ on January 16, 2441 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2406. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geology and Soils ^Hydroiogy and Water Quality ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Mincral Resources ^Agricultural Resources C. DETERR4INATION: ^Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^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 wilt be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR"I' is required. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect{s) on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable Legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier anal}•sis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions ar 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 ca.5e because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed Resolution 11-64 Page 5 of 34 adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARA?I4N pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATNE DECLARATION, including revisions or } mitigation ores that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers Date: 7 ~ ~~ J na Wilikorn, Principal Planner Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, atnmunity Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIItONfMENTAL IMPACTS See Attachment A attached to this Checklist ~. 6- Resolution 11-60 Page 6 of 34 EVALIJATtON OF ENYIRUNMENTAL IMPACTS t. 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 huildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the sift and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day ar nighttime views in the area? 11 AGRICULTURE REGUURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model {199?)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts an agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a} Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, ar 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, ar a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing envr`ronmcnt which, due to their location ar nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (th AtR 4UALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management <rr air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the fallowing 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 ar 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 ar state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d} Expose sensitive receprors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? .~'o Subsrunria! ~Vew ,4fure Change Frnm SiAnrfrcant Severe Prevrnu~~ (mpacr (nrpucts Anulyris D ^ ^ ^ D p ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a a ^ ^ ;~ ~i ~] Resolution 11-64 Page 7 of 34 I,. '' tV. t3tOLOGtCAL 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, politics, 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 ar 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 W'ildiife 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, h}'drological interruption, or ether means? d) interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ar migratory fish or wildlife spe~:ies or with established native resident ar migratory wildlife enn•idurs, ur impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? k e) Conflict with any local policies ar ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance'' t) Conflict with the provisions of an adapted habitat Consen~ation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation PIS? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 150154.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) f)irectly ar indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site ur unique geologic feature? d} nisturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Vt. 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 ,bfore Charge From ,Sigxrficaxt Sep=ere Previous tmpnct Impacts Analysis _ _ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 0 a o ^ ^ ^ 0 Resolution 11-60 Page 8 of 34 No Suhstuntiuf .ti'ew More Chunge From Significant Severe Previous i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the fmpuct /mpuetr .4nulysis most recent Alquist-Priola Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based an other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to iaivision of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ^ ^ ii} Strong seismic ground shaking? ^ ^ iii} Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ^ ^ iv} Landslides? ^ ^ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ^ ^ c} $c located an 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 sail, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Cade (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ^ ^ e} Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemativt wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ^ ^ YtLHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a} Create a significant hazard to the public ar the environment through the routine transport, use, ar disposal of hazardous materials? ^ ^ h} Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions invoh~ing 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 ar proposed school'? ^ ^ d} Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cade Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public ar the environment? ^ ^ e} For a project located within an airport (and use plan or , where such a plan has not been adapted, within two miles of a public airport ar public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing ar working in the project area? ^ ^ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard far people residing or wo~k.ia{~ir~-E}ae. ~j~:~.;azs;~--._ ResOlu#iot~1 11-60 ^ ^ Page 9 of 34 No Substanria! ,Vew bore Chunfie From ~ Signifrca»t Severe Prevrous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an lmpacr lmpaets_ _ .~inah•srs adopted cme ,ency response plan or emergency evacuation plan'? ^ ^ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury ar death involving wildland fires, including tvhcre wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ^ ^ Vlil. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project. a} Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge rrquirernents? 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 ofpre- existingnearby wells would drnp to a levee which would not support existing land uses or planned uses far 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 oti=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 Hooding on- ar 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? ~ Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g} Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flotxl Hazard $oundary ar Flood Insurance Rate t~tap ar other Cloud hazard delineation map? h} place within a i 00-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 darn? j} Inundation b}' seichc, tsunami, or mudflaw? ' IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D ~3f ^ ^ I~ ^ ^ a) Physically divide an established community? Resolution 11-60 Page 10 of 34 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 RPSOURCF:S - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral rrsuurce that would be of value to the region and the residents Uf the StatC? b) Result in the loss of availability of afocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local genera! plan, specific plan or other land use plan'? X~t _N,QCSJ~ 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 afother agencies? b} Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration ar groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise Eevels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary ar periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e} Far a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mites of'a public airport nr public ust airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? F} Far a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing ar working in tht project area to excess noise levels? Xq POPULATION AND HQUSI'VG Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly {far example, by proposing new homes and businesses) ar indirectly {far example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsew esolution 11-60 Nu .Substantiul 'tiew Mure C'lra~rge Frum Significant ,Severe Previous Impact /mpuc•ty .4nulysis Q o ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ~ ~i Page 11 of 34 No Substantra( New ,tfvre Change From t Signrficnnt Severe Previorcr ~~ l~nct Impacts Analysis _ _ _ c} llispface substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ^ ^ Xitl. 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 prrforTnance objectives for any of the public sen ices: Fire pmtection? Police pmtection? Schools? Parks? t}ther 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 tivauld 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~i ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ XV.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -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 designaud roads or highways? c} Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffiic 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ~ 11-60 Page 12 of 34 g} Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation {e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks}? XY[. LtTIE.tT1ES AND SERV[CE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Floard? 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 nr 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} f {avc sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to sen~e 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 IocaE statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIi. MANDATORY FtNDINCS OF StGNiFICANCF. 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 drag 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} Dots the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable' ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project art considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the etTects 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 ar indirectly? Resolu#ion 11-60 Page 13 of 34 No Substantial .New More Change Frum Significant Severe Previuus _ Impact Impacts 4nalyri.c ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ D _ _. _. _~ ^ ~l fl IH;VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ~~ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP I?404 :.. FOR CONVEYANCE PURPOSES NEIGHBORHOODS B, D, AND G OF MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact StatementlE:nviranmental Cmpact Report (F'EIS1EiR} for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS} Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program far the l?[S,'l:[R was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (DoN} in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA}. The FEISIEIR 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 PlanrReuse Plan. The CEQA analysis also analysed the environmental impacts of certain '`Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council an .ianuary 16, 2001. "ll~e T)oN 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 FT/IS/EIR. The MCAS 'Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS/EIR and Addendum analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCA5 'Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the planning agency is required to examine individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The planning agency can approve the activities as being within the Scope of the project covered by the FEISIEIR and Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant eftects neeur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. For the proposed Tentative "Tract Map {TTltii} 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 FEISIEIR 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. TThi 17404 consists of approximately 627.9 acres of land at Tustin Legacy and is located within :~teighborhoods B, D, and G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan {Planning Areas 7, S, 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 Iv'avy and Marine Corps for ,.r nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined ~ surplus to federal government needs and was olFcially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. 'I'Ite remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Resolution 11-60 Page 14 of 34 E:valuatian of Environmental Impacts T7'M 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 in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa ` Mesa (SR-55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR-133) and San Diego {I-405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 2b I ). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hilt Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and [wine Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Farkway on the south. Jamboree Road transccts 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 PrUperty 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. 't'he City of Irvine is currently widening Bananca Ave. near Red Hill Ave. and providing underground storm drain facilities in this area. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP t?404 ~; 'I°[~l~i 17404 would subdivide a 627.9-acre site into 58 numbered lots and [ l9 lettered lots for tinancing 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 Flan/ 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 for the conclusions identified in the f:nvironmenta[ Analysis Checklist. 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? Resolution 11-64 Page 15 of 34 F,valuation of Environmemal Impacts TTM 17aQ4 {Conveyance) Page 3 G ~ R'a Substantial CltanRe 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 f'or substantially damaginu scenic resources, degrade the existing visual character, ar create a new source of substantial light or glare. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation ~l~lonitoring Required: None. Sources: Tentative Traci Map Field Observations FEIS~'EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin {Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114} and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8} MCAS "l'ustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan {Pages 3-35 through 3-b2, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-[ 04 thmugh 3-13?} Tustin General Plan lI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, [cad agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (199'7} prepared ay the California i)ept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in ~ assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Importance (Farmland}, as shown v Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Agency, to non-agricultural use? Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide n the maps prepared pursuant to the Program of the California Resources b) Conflict with existing zoning far agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c} Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed subdivision is for tnancing and conveyance purposes only. No development is associated with the project. The proposed TTM 17404 will not directly cause Agricultural impacts. The project site was leased as interim agriculture sites. AI! agricultural activities an 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 Fl~:[SIF:1R and Addendum. Although not proposed at this time, implementation of the u 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 unwarranicd by NCRS. '(`he loss. of Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. The mitigation options previously identified in the FEISIEIR and Addendum aze still Resolution 11-60 Page 16 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 {Conve}•ance) Page 4 infeasible and would be ineffective to reduce the localized adverse effects associated with the loss of mappecL'designated farmland. t There are no new feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented that would reduce the significant unavoidable impact associated with the conversion of Farmland to urban uses. Mitigation options identified in the FEIS/EIR determined to be infeasible aze still infeasible and ineffective to reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant. There would not be a substantial increase in the severity of project-specific and cumulative impacts to agricultural resources beyond that identified in the FEISlEIR 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 t 6, 2041. All impierncntation 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 far tiICAS Tustin and Addendum. :~I~fitigatioriManr`toring Required.' In certifying the FEISIEIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution Na. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sourct?s: Field Observations 1'1?1Sll;iR for [.7isposal and Reuse of ACAS Tustin (Page 3-84. 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) Resolution No. 00-90 MCAS Tustin Specific PlantReuse 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 QLIAI.ITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may bt 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 ar state ambient air quality standard {including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Resolution 11-60 Page 17 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17At)d (Conveyance) Page 5 Na Substantial Change Jrvm Previ©us analysis. The proposed project is a request for ~ , SubdlviSlan of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. Na development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The conveyance tentative tract map has no potential to violate air quality standards, Ur contribute to a cumulative)}• considerable increase of any criteria pollutant for the project region. "The project w~ Il not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pullutant concentration ar create objectionable odor. On January [ 6, 2fl01 and hpril 3, 2446, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statemen~'Environmental Impact Report and Addendum, respectively, for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin {Ft?ISIEIR}. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FElS1EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. hfitigatinntrl~onitorirrg Re~uirecl: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR and Addendum far operational and construction activities. However, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum also concluded that the Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEISlEIR was adapted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 {Resolution No. 00.90). No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations I~l?IS1C'IR far Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin {Pages 3-143 G through153, 4-?0? through ~-230, pages 7-~1 through 7-~2 and Addendum Pages 5-ifl through 5-2$} MCAS Tustin Specific PIan,Reuse Plan {Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-1fl4 through 3-13?) Resolution Na. flfl-9fl Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b} Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ar 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 f pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, flung, hydrological interruption, or ' other means? Resolution 11-60 Page 18 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 'I'I'M 174U4 {Conveyance} Page b d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident ar migratory wildlife corridors, ar impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e} Conflict with any focal policies ar ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy ar ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adapted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 1Va Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed project is a request far 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 Tti1CAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant ar animal species; however, the FEIS/EIR and Addendum determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project site) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEISlEIR and Addendum to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off-site habitat, and to reyuire 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. MitigaNorv'Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures aze included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for future developments. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field C}bsen•ations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS 'Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 1';2, 4-143 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40} MCAS "Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-$2 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Resolu#ion 11-60 Page 19 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental tmpaets T"tM I ?404 (Cunveyance} Page 7 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Wou[d the project: a) Cause a substantial ad~~erse 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 forma! cemeteries? .No Substantial Change from Previrjus Analysis. The proposed project is a request far subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. TI~e 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 hddendum. Numerous azchacalagical sun~eys 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 fur archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse flan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identifed in the MCAS Tustin FEISIEIR and Addendum that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. There is no new technology ar 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'M t 7404 (for conveyance only), future development within the Master development footprint could present impacts to these resources. A Statcrncnt of Overriding Considerations for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council an 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 FE[Sll:l[Z far MCAS "('ustin 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. Na substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. hlitigation/~~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 as conditions of approval for titture developments. Na refinements need to be made to the FEISIEIR and Addendum mitigation Resolution 11-60 Page 20 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17444 (Conveyance) Page 8 measures and no mitigation measures are required fvr subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sourres: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin {Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4- i 02, ~-24 through 7.26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific PIanJReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-$&, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin Genera! Plan VI. GEOLOGY A:YD 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 oa 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 soli that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site laadslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Buildeng 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 far the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change fr©m Previnus Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes vnly. No development is prvposed and no impacts are anticipated. "I~he I~EIStEIR 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 Resoltation 11-60 Page 21 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM I1d04 (Conveyance) Page 9 such hazards. '~Io substantial change is expected for development of the praject from the t analysis previously campleted in the FEIStEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. All implementation of activities and development at the praject site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. Na substantial change is expected from the analysis previously campleted in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. ,1•~ltigatior~`14tanitoring Required.• Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources.• Field Observations FEIS~'EIR far Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 9?, 4-i IS through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-=16 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific P1antReuse 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 65462.5 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 praject result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) Far 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? 4. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Resolution 11-60 Page 22 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance} Page 10 h} Expose people or structures to a significant risk of toss, injury or death involving wildiand fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are in#ermixed with wildlands." Na Substantial Change from Previnus Analyse. The propascd subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEISIEIR and its Addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan azea. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoratian programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEISIEIR and Addendum concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would nat have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the DoN would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in sails and groundwater. As identified in the FEISlEIR 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 174{}4 does not propose changes to height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor do they pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. "I'he project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be sub~ect to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by iaw. No substauitial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigatiorir'~ianrtoring Requtred.• Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. ~Io mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCA51'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 PlantReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-$ 1, pages 3-$2 through 3-8$, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) binding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST} for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-2, 14, and 42, and Pazcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 4l Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL} for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AE:I.UP) Tustin General Plan ~. Resolution 11-60 Page 23 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental impacts TTM I'I4(}4 (Convcyanc:e) Page 11 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a) t'iolate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level {e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? e} Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ar 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 (loading on- or off-site? e} Create ar 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 pausing within a i00-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 104-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people ar structures to a significant risk of loss, injury ar death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j} Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Na Substantial €'lrange from Previous Analysis The proposed project is a request f'or 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. Z~he project is not located within a 1fl0-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result af' 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 from the analysis previously completed in the FEISJEIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISlEIR and Addendum for yICAS Tustin. As concluded in the FEISJEIR 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 insignificance. Implementation of the proposed TTM would not result in new or substantially mare severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEISJEIR and Addendum. Resolution 11-60 Page 24 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 {Conveyance) Page 12 Implementation of activities and development at the project site could be subject to - subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. 1\o substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program F>^IS/F.[R for h4CAS "I'u_stin and Addendum. ,lrlitigationlMonitoring 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 mitigation is required. Measures related to hydrology and drainage were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISfEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin and Addendum; these measwes are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program or as conditions of approval for future projects. No mitigation measwes are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observations FI:[S/1~,IR for [)isposal and Rcusc of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- [ O5, 4-124 through 4- [ 29, ?-29 through ?-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3.62, pages 3- ?0 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-13?) Tustin General Plan IX. DANA USF ANI) PLANNING -Would the project: a} Physically divide an established community? b} Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of sn agency with jurisdiction aver the project (including, but not limited, to the Renersl plan, specific plan, local coasts! program, or zoning ordinance} adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environments! effect? c} Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ,'Ya Substantial Change front Precious Analysis Che proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The proposed subdivision would not alter the land uses pmposcd far 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 ~c711 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. '.vo substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation`~lonitoring Required." The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The TTM 17404 for conveyance purposes Resolution 11-60 Page 25 of 34 Evaluation of F.nvironmentat Impacts T-1'M 1")304 (Conveyance) Page ! 3 ,:: does not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEI5IEIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEI5/EIR and Addendum mitigations and no new mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site far conveyance purposes. Sources: I;l1S/I:ilt for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, ~-3 to 4-13, 7-t6 to 7-I8 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95} MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan {Pages 3-35 through 3-b2, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-1(}4 through 3-137} Tustin General Ptan X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Subsfarrtiat Change from Prevraus Analysis. The proposed subdivision is for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEIS~'EIR and Addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to r occur anywhere tivithin the Specific Plan area. "1'he proposed project ~a711 not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. ~Ltitigation/Monitoring Required: I~`o mitigation measures are required for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Obsen~ation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin {Page 3-91) and Addendum (Page 5-95} ~IC.AS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan {Pages 3-35 through 3-b2, pages 3- 70 through 3-$l, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-144 through 3-137} "Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE -Would the project: a} Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b} Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? e) A substantial permanent increasetn ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Resolution 11-6Q Page 26 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts T-I"M 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? ,Yo Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed project is a request for subdivision of the site for financing and conveyance purposes only. No development is proposed and no noise impacts are anticipated. The prvposed subdivision will not increase the severity of the long-term tratJic-related noise impacts more than previously identified in the FEISIEIR 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 FEISIEIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the project site. Based nn review of the Airport Land Use Plan for Jahn Wayne, the project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operatives. The proposed TTM 17444 is for conveyance purposes only and would not expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. .~1~itigation%~Llonitoring Required.• The FEISIEIR and Addendtmn concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The 1`I`M 17404 does not increase the severity of the raise impacts previously identified in the FEISIEIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements need to be made to the FEISIEIR and Addendum mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures for subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. .Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-i S4 through 3- 162} and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Planlfteuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-13?} Tustin General Plan XII. POPUGATIOIV & HOUSING -Would the project: a} [educe substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) ar indirectly (far example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Resolution 11-60 Page 27 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 174(34 (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. ho development is proposed and no impacts to population and housing are anticipated. Nv new hvusing, 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. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEI5/F.IR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. .-bfitTgation%r~fonitoring Regurred: The proposed TTM 17404 does not change the conclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; no refinements need w be made to the FEISIEIR and Addendum mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures far subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Svurc•es: Field Observativns FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse at' MCAS Tustin (Pages ~-1 R to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29. and 7-18 to 7-19} and Addendum Pages {5-101through 5-t 12} MCAS 'Tustin Specitic PlatvReuse Plan {Pages 3-35 through. 3-62. pages 3- 70 through 3-81. pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-i04 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 ar physically altered governmental faeilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable sen~ice ratios, response times, or other performance objectives far any of the public services: The proposed project is a request far subdivision of the site far financing and conveyance purposes only. Na development is proposed and no impacts public services are anticipated. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum far MCAS Tustin requires developers of the site to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. New facilities will be provided within the blaster 1)evelaper footprint upon development of the site. Eire Protection. Future development will be required to meet Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA} regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency Resolution 11-60 Page 28 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance} Page 16 access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and h l ot er re evant 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 far police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEISIEIR and Addendum. As a condition of approval, future development projects would be required to work with the "Curtin Police [7epartment 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 develvpment 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 tLibrariesl. Since certification of the FEISIEIR, the Orange County Library {OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will directly benefit development activities within the Specific Plan area. [7evelapers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a portion of the development casts of the library expansion. To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse PlanlSpecific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided eoncunent with demand. "I`he FEIStEiR 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. MitrgationlMonitoring Kequired: `l'he 1''l;[S/EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed TTM 17404 Resolution 11-60 Page 29 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental lmpacu TTM l7-tt?4 (Conveyance) Page 17 ~, would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services bevond that identified in the C~EISIEIR and .4ddendum. Therefore, no refinements or new mitigation measures aze required for a subdivision of the site for conveyance purposes. Sources: Field Observation FEISlEIR far Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin {Pages 3-4? to 3-57, 4- S6 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-b2, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-144 through 3-131) Tustin General Plan XiV. RECREATION a) Wouid the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b} Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment'.' Impacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. The proposed TTM 17404 is for conveyance purposes only and no development is proposed. Therefore, the proposed Tentative Traci Map would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to recreation services campazcd tc~ canclusions of the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. 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 substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. rlAitigatiorr/Monitnrrng Required: The FEISIEIR and Addendum cancluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the praposed TTM 17404 for conveyance pturposes would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the l~f.~,IS/GR and Addendum. Therefore, no new mitigation measures are required. Saurres: Field Observation FEISII/1R for [)isposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan {Pages 3-35 through 3-b2, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Cade Section 9331 d { 1 } (b) Tustin General Plan Resolution 11-60 Page 30 of 34 Gva{uation of Environmental Impacts TTM 17444 {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, ar 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 [ovation that results in substantia! safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves ar 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 FEISIEIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS/EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12-6 of the FEISIEIR for a complete list) and the levels of service (L4S) 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. ~fitigationlMonitoring Required: No new impacts ar substantia![y more severe impacts would result from TTM 2 7x04 than were originally considered by the FE1SfEIR and Addendum. IY~erefare, no new or revised mitigaiian measures are required. Sources ~ Fieid Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3.11$ through 3- 142, 4139 through 4.206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5- 127 through S- [ 47) MCAS Tustin Specific P1anlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-$1, pages 3-82 through 3-$8, and pages 3-[04 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan '` [,egacy Pazk of Tustin Legacy Traffic Analysis, March 2007, Austin Faust Associates, Inc. (Exhibit I ) Resolution 11-60 Page 31 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts TTM 1?404 (Conveyance) Page 19 XVI. UTILITIES AVD SF.RViCE SYSTEMS -Would the project: a} Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Cantrot Board? b} Require ar 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 v-•ater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d} 1{ave sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or arc 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 tar financing and conveyance purposes only. :~to development is proposed and no impacts are anticipated. The FEISIEIR and Addendum analyzed new ofd 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 an-site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and loco! standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system far on-site and off-site, and water availability. As concluded in the FEISIEIR and Addendum, na 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 FEiS~EIR and Addendum. Miti,~ation/.blonitoring Reguireci: 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 for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin {pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21}and Addendum {pages 5-147 through 5- I b5 } MCAS Tustin Specific PIanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-b2, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Resolution 11-60 Page 32 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts T'TM 17404 (Conveyance) Page 20 Tustin General Plan ~. XVII. ItiiANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNiFICANC>r a) Daes 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 ar wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anima! 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 ar 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 caust substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEISlE[R 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 h~ mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the ' Mitigation Monitoring Program far the project or as conditions of approval, the proposed pmject 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 far the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 1 fi, 2t~ t (Resolution No. 00-g0} far issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleantalogical resources, agricultural resources, and trafficlcirculatian. The proposed TZ~M 17404 is far conveyance only and does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEISIEIR and Addendum. Sources Field 4bservatians Fl:IStE?IR for Uisposa! and Reuse of MCAS Tustin {pages 5-4 through 5-I 1} MCAS Tustin Specific PlatttR.euse Plan {Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-$2 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-13?} and Addendum Resolution No. 00-90 Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION t; The proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects wilt occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects wil! occur, no new mitigation measures will be Resolution 11-6t7 page 33 of 34 Evaluation of Environmental [mpacts TTM 17404 (Conveyance) Page ? I -; reyuired, 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 environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Resolution 11-60 Page 34 of 34