Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLANAGENDA REPORT Agenda Item 1 Reviewed: City Manager Finance Director N A MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2011 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, INTERIM CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 11-003 (ORDINANCE NO. 1406), MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY: On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to establish development regulations and procedures for reuse of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (Tustin Legacy). The South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD") and County of Orange ("County") have indicated an interest in pursuing a land exchange between the two agencies at Tustin Legacy. To support the proposed land exchange, the City of Tustin has prepared the proposed Specific Plan Amendment to implement minor text changes to clarify existing regulations. The proposed Amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Tustin City Council introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1406, approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11-003, implementing minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Attachment A). 2. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute and implement future City of Tustin actions to support implementation of a land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange, including but not limited to the City implementation actions described in this report. FISCAL IMPACT: Ordinance No. 1406 is aCity-initiated project. There are no direct fiscal impacts anticipated as a result of adopting this ordinance. BACKGROUND On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to establish development regulations and procedures for reuse of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan has been formally amended six times since its original adoption. SPA 11-003 (Ordinance No. 1406) October 4, 2011 Page 2 The South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD") and County of Orange ("County") has indicated an interest in pursuing a land exchange between the two agencies at Tustin Legacy. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would implement minor text changes to the Specific Plan to clarify existing regulations. To support the proposed land exchange, the City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment is intended to: 1) modify Planning Area (PA) boundaries and designations in Neighborhood A by further dividing the existing PA to create two new sub-planning areas; and 2) add an animal care center as an allowed use in Neighborhood A and add a law enforcement training facility as an allowed use on one of the new sub-planning areas proposed in Neighborhood A; and 3) make other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. These public institutional uses are currently permitted in the Specific Plan, (the law enforcement training facility is currently permitted in Neighborhood A and the animal care center is permitted in the adjacent Neighborhood C). The land use changes would not be effective until the land exchange occurs between the South Orange County Community College District and the County of Orange. The proposed Amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Future implementation actions could include a land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange and the following City of Tustin implementation actions, including but not limited to 1) Modification Three to the Agreement Between the United States of America and the City of Tustin, California For The Conveyance of a Portion of the Former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin ("EDC Agreement") to permit conveyance of the Orange County site to the City in the event the County withdraws its application for a public benefit conveyance for that property; 2) Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the City of Tustin and The South Orange County Community College District for Conveyance of a Portion of MCAS Tustin and The Establishment of an Advanced Technology Educational Campus ("SOCCCD Conveyance Agreement") to implement the proposed land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange, and City revised conveyance of property to SOCCCD and County, to ensure compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and continued public use of both sites following completion of the land exchange; and 3) Amendment No.1 to Agreement Between the County of Orange and the City of Tustin Related to MCAS Tustin ("County-Tustin Cooperative Agreement") to add property included in the proposed land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange to ensure compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and continued public use of the future County site that is conveyed to the County with implementation of any Land Exchange Agreement. A discussion of the specific modifications that are proposed is provided below: Figures 3-1 (Land Use Planning Areas) and 3-3 (Neighborhood A) are proposed to be modified by adding sub-planning areas 1-H and 1-I to Planning Area 1. Planning Area 1 is currently comprised of sub-planning areas 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F, and 1-G. The new sub-planning areas are proposed within Planning Area 1 to establish a general location for certain institutional/educational land uses to occur as permitted/conditionally permitted within Planning Area 1A (further described below). The boundary lines proposed for sub-planning areas 1-H and 1-I are for planning purposes only and are not SPA 11-003 (Ordinance No. 1406) October 4, 2011 Page 3 intended to be legal lot lines as any lot lines would be regulated by the Subdivision Map Act, nor would they affect the calculation or application of maximum FAR standards as currently identified in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal does not expand nor reduce the previous boundaries of Planning Area 1. Section 3.3.2A. (Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses) -Proposed SPA 11-003 would expand the current list of permitted/conditionally permitted uses to provide flexibility to locate an animal care center as a permitted use and a law enforcement training facility to be located in either sub-planning area 1-B or 1-I of Planning Area 1 in the event a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD. The law enforcement training facility use is currently listed as a permitted use in Section 3.3.2A of the MCAS Specific Plan but only within sub-planning area 1-B, on an immediately adjacent location to the location proposed by SPA 11-003. The proposal to add an animal care center use to sub-planning areas 1-B and 1-I is similar to and consistent with other educational/institutional uses currently allowed in Planning Area 1, and will be adjacent to the current permitted location (from the east side to the west side of Armstrong Avenue). • Anew Section 3.3.26 (Prohibited Uses) is proposed to be added that would prohibit jail facilities and sexually-oriented businesses. • Section 3.3.2E.14 (Development Standards) -Proposed SPA 11-003 would provide general development standards for Planning Area 1 to regulate the development and use of any animal care center currently proposed to be added to Planning Area 1. The development standards are identical to those currently provided in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for Planning Area 6 (Urban Regional Park). Other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed for the purpose of clarification and consistency. Again, SPA 11-003 (Ordinance No. 1406) would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 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. And, on December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Attachment B). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed projects effects were SPA 11-003 (Ordinance No. 1406) October 4, 2011 Page 4 previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the checklist should be considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed. PUBLIC NOTICE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REVIEW, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON SPA 11-003 A public notice was published in the Tustin News on September 22, 2011, informing the public of proposed SPA 11-003. A copy of the staff report and proposed SPA 11-003 was also forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce prior to the Tustin Planning Commission's hearing on the matter. On September 13, 2011, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 4178, recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 11-003 by adopting Ordinance No. 1406, implementing minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Attachment C). `~ ... Dana L. Ogdon, AICP Assistant Director Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development S:\Cdd\ccrepore\SPA 11-003.doc Attachment A: Ordinance No. 1406 Attachment B: Environmental Analysis Checklist for SPA 11-003 (Ordinance No. 1406) Attachment C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 4178 1 i Nara. loop Noad sar.a~c b aecaenmodala ealalYip erMS b ha~We por~Y .,o.r..osa+...bnnc ~~~.T...~--•~ PA 1-A ' ~T~ PA 2 ac~oo~ ~ COMMUNITY _. 1 PARK 1-C PA1-H I~'E PA 4 proMda pwMnwr saran r~ ~ v~b rn PA 5 s« •~-~-TRANSITIONAL! ~~ 1-D~ EMERGENCY HOUSING ~. ~ PA 1- H ~'~ / • -' EDUCATION ~'~ „pp„d.. ~ yaprp,e appera„o. ~ VILLAGE 1-B ~ _._. i ~ ~ A.ar ~w.. aao• °°"~" 1-G ~ SN Fpure 2~JW I ~. _. . wblrnu Aw. i see Fgwe s-to ~ ~ ~ ~ h PA 9 ~ 1-F ~. 1 --- ~- PA 10 Mew opponwMaa M+lo oonnNnN~r and ~Tban regional park 1 ~ PA 6 p~vade mterrW peda-usan r Vail sptam and anoarapa oorxncaorta w a4jaoant fNlOhaeel~ds and acrvily earNan In a~a M~1r Proposed Land Exchangre PA 8 See Fqure 2-23 Attachment A Ordinance No. 1406 ORDINANCE NO. 1406 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 11-003, IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment is intended to: 1) modify Planning Area (PA) boundaries and designations in Neighborhood A by further dividing the existing PA to create two new sub-planning areas; and 2) add an animal care center as an allowed use in Neighborhood A and add a law enforcement training facility as an allowed use on one of the new sub- planning areas proposed in Neighborhood A. These public institutional uses are currently permitted in the Specific Plan, (the law enforcement training facility is currently permitted in Neighborhood A and the animal care center is permitted in the adjacent Neighborhood C). The land use changes would not be effective until a land exchange occurs between the South Orange County Community College District and the County of Orange; and 3) make other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Future implementation actions could include a land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange and other implementation actions by the City of Tustin. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 13, 2011, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 4178 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 11-003 by adopting Ordinance No. 1406. C. That on October 4, 2011, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held before the City Council concerning SPA 11-003 (Ordinance No. 1406). D. 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 FEIS/EIR. And, on December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. E. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project. The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. F. SPA 11-003 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master-planned development. SECTION 2. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with a new Table 3-1 and 3-2, in the form attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Section 3.3.1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows (new text in red underline; deleted text in red strikeout): 3.3.1 Introduction Neighborhood A is composed of Planning Areas 1, 2, and 3, as shown on the Statistical Analysis (Table 3-2) and on the Land Use Planning Areas map (Figure 3-1 ). The Education Village (PA 1) is an educational environment consisting of a broad mix of public-serving uses. The Education Village is comprised of subplanning areas 1-A through 1-O I as shown on Figure 3-1. The Village is already well defined by virtue of having been the community support and administrative core of MCAS Tustin. It is expected that many of the existing buildings in the Education Village will provide reuse opportunities for educational purposes. Included within PA 1-A is a 10-acre elementary school site proposed for the northwesterly corner along Red Hill Avenue. The Education Village may also accommodate 10 acres of a Law Enforcement Training Center or use of the site by the South Orange County Community College District (PA 1-B), and a 4- acre Children's Intermediate Care Shelter (PA 1-C). The Education Village may also include a child care facility (PA 1-D), an educational use operated by the Rancho Santiago Community College District, and aCity-owned site. In addition, a more detailed description of these and other public-benefit uses is contained in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the Plan. The Community Park (PA 2) is located within the existing military recreational fields and facilities. It will contain sports fields and other community-level recreational opportunities to serve residents of the Specific Plan as well as residents to the north. The Transitional/ Emergency Housing site (PA 3) would anticipate reuse of two existing barracks (Building Numbers 553 and 554) and accompanying parking areas for an emergency homeless shelter or transitional housing for homeless persons. The regulations and guidelines have been developed in response to issues raised at both the Neighborhood and Planning Area levels. The issues involve preserving the village character through new development and the reuse of courtyards, common greens, and pedestrian paths; screening and landscape design along roadways; creation of view corridors to the northern blimp hangar (if retained); and trail linkages to adjacent neighborhoods. SECTION 4. Section 3.3.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows (new text in red underline; deleted text in red strikeout): 3.3.2 Planning Areas 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, 1-E, 1-F ands 1-G, 1-H, and 1-I (Education Village) The purpose and intent of the Education Village designation is as described in Section 2.2.1, Land Use Designations. A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs, or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs. Animal care center (in PA 1-B or in PA 1-I as shown in P Figure 3-1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1-I) P Children's intermediate care shelter (only in PA 1-C as shown in Figure 3-1) Churches or other religious institutions C Law enforcement training facility (any in PA 1-B or in P PA 1-I as shown in Figure 3-1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 _I? Nursery school or child care center P Public school, community college, educational campus or P other educationally oriented uses Private school C B. Prohibited Uses • Jail Facilities • Sexually-oriented businesses ~: C. Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted use on the same site and would include: • Guard houses, gates and other security facility structures • Industrial/commercial business incubators (start-ups) • Laboratories and office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing and consulting • Maintenance facilities, structures, outdoor storage • Medical/dental clinics • Post office • Support commercial, ofhce, retail service uses D. Unlisted Uses Those uses not specifically listed are subject to a determination by the Community Development Director as either permitted, permitted subject to a conditional use permit or prohibited consistent with the purpose of the land use designation of this Planning Area and the Specific Plan. Decisions of the Director are appealable to the Planning Commission. E. Site Development Standards 1. Minimum lot area - no minimum requirement 2. Maximum building height - 100 feet (six stories) 3. Maximum floor area ratio - .30 FAR, except for PA 1-B and PA 1-C which shall be .35 FAR 4. Minimum building setbacks' a) Red Hill Avenue - 40 feet b) North Loop Road - 25 feet c) Warner Avenue - 20 feet d) Armstrong Avenue - 20 feet e) Lansdowne Drive (private) - 15 feet f) Minimum distance between buildings - 10 feet 5. Landscape setbacks' a) Red Hill Avenue - 30 feet b) North Loop Road - 30 feet c) Warner Avenue - 20 feet d) Armstrong Avenue - 20 feet 6. Landscaping a) Areas not devoted to buildings, parking areas, hardscape, roads and service areas, shall be landscaped. b) Compliance with the City of Tustin's Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines c) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines as detailed in Section 2.17 of this Specific Plan 7. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning Areas, and to citywide bicycle trails where applicable. 8. A corner triangular-shaped setback of 60 feet, measured from the intersection of the curb lines at North Loop Road and Armstrong Avenue shall be provided for a secondary community intersection treatment (see Section 2.17 for landscape guidelines). 9. A corner triangular-shaped setback of 60 feet, measured from the intersection of the curb lines at Warner Avenue and Armstrong Avenue shall be provided for a secondary community intersection treatment (see Section 2.17 for landscape guidelines). 10.A portal intersection treatment shall be provided at Valencia and Red Hill Avenues, and Warner and Red Hill Avenues (see Section 2.17 for landscape guidelines). 11.Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11 as applicable) 12. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable) 13.Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable) 14. Development of an animal care center shall be subject to the following criteria: a) Location shall be 500 feet away from any residential use or residentially-zoned property b) Visual screening of outdoor storage and service areas shall be provided c) Noise control of animal containment areas shall be provided ~ Landscape setbacks are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway, sidewalk, and planting areas. Building setbacks are measured from future rights-of--way. Non-conforming buildings and landscape setbacks will be permitted to remain where existing buildings aze not in future rights-of--way. d) Site Plan and architectural design of buildings shall be subject to review pursuant to Section 4.2.4 e) Odor control shall be provided pursuant to General Development Regulations, Section 3.11 €: F. Special Development or Reuse Requirements 1. A concept plan approval shall be required for individual subplanning areas 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, 1-D, and-1-E, 1-H, and 1-I prior to reuse or new development (refer to Section 4.2.2 of this Specific Plan). 2. Prior to any interim or permanent reuse of facilities or property on a parcel, or prior to any new development on a parcel, other than by the City of Tustin, those parties receiving or leasing property from the Department of Defense or Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) within the Education Village shall be required to enter into an Agreement with the Local Redevelopment Authority. The purpose of the Agreement is to: 1) identify the planning goals of each of the agencies and the City or LRA for each site; 2) identify the scope and schedule for short-range improvements and long-range development plans for property; 3) establish a process that provides for meaningful consultation on development and operational issues of mutual concern; 4) identify roadway dedications, capital/infrastructure improvements, and environmental impact report mitigation that will be required for use and/or development of the agency receiving property; and 5) identify necessary procedures to implement the Agreement. 3. Existing structures to be reused shall be brought into conformance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as amended by the City, State of California Title 24 Access Compliance (handicapped provisions), and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 4. Utility metering modifications and/or provision of independent utility services shall be committed to by agreement between the City of Tustin and those agencies receiving property in the Education Village, prior to use and occupancy of existing buildings and/or new development. Said agreement shall identify required capital/infrastructure improvements and environmental impact report mitigations. 5. Access to subplanning area 1-D shall be secured from recorded easements on adjacent private streets within the Education Village (Planning Area 1-A H). 6. The baseline mix of uses for Planning Area 1 is 98 percent Education Village and 2 percent Commercial, which will be administered by the Non-Residential Land Use/Trip Budget procedure specified in Section 3.2.4. The purpose is to ensure that adequate circulation capacity is available to serve the proposed project. €~ G. Development or Reuse Guidelines 1. Existing buildings, open space areas, and other site improvements shall be aesthetically upgraded where needed through architectural and landscape improvements. Such improvements are intended to appear consistent in quality with other college campuses in the County, and may include, but are not limited to, the following: a) Upgraded facade treatments, including the use of plaster, brick, stone, and/or other approved materials b) Upgraded window types and treatments c) Upgraded entries, including doorways, covered walkways, decorative paving d) Upgraded roofing materials e) Updated color scheme for buildings f) Extensive planting of trees and shrubs throughout the site, including parking areas and common open space areas g) Improved landscape design along building perimeters and entries h) Addition of pedestrian amenities including benches, shade trees, trash receptacles, drinking fountains, and lighting i) Addition of bicycle facilities including bike racks j) Creation of Education Village entryways through signage and landscape design k) Creation of signage program for building identification and directional signs I) Enhanced lighting scheme for building entrances, common areas, paths, and parking areas 2. A safe, convenient, pedestrian access shall be provided across North Loop Road (extension of Valencia Avenue) within the Education Village. 3. The formal siting pattern of buildings shall be continued in the design and siting of infill development. dss ~xisri.v~ ~sdss To . oi~..vs 7~T/A/IG~tS /4 X//1 L !/ /G /s/ Tvw~- ~o s rp'I-.~/ 6 G1~ /<Li'1 6G /` b~GGN /~<~9Gf/"7.orVT 4. Buildings shall be clustered to create plazas, focal areas, and activity areas. 5. Utilize the "Village Green" and other courtyards in the siting and orientation of buildings to provide focal areas and enhance pedestrian activity. 6. Existing groves and linear stands of trees (i.e., California Peppers, sycamores, jacarandas) shall be taken into consideration when site planning for new development and roadways. If it is not possible to preserve these existing groves or stands of trees, a landscaping definition along public roads and within the Planning Area shall be created. 7. Perimeter parking around buildings designed as smaller parking "rooms" shall be provided where feasible to facilitate pedestrian access and retain existing campus style building configuration. 8. Demolition of structures shall be considered or undertaken under the following conditions: 1) where information determines the need for demolition to eliminate public health and safety risks, 2) to improve the appearance of the Planning Area, 3) to accommodate the completion of major roadway improvements, and 4) to properly implement the land use intended for this Planning Area. A summary of the key design guidelines for the Education Village is provided in Figure 3-3, located at the end of Section 3.3. SECTION 5. Section 3.5.1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows (new text in red underline; deleted text in red strikeout): "3.5.1 Introduction Neighborhood C is comprised of a single Planning Area, PA 6, which is designated as Urban Regional Park (Table 3-2). The Urban Regional Park will be owned and operated by the County of Orange. Dse-ef-the-park will include ae~Eil+ar~b , The intent of the following regulations and guidelines for the regional park is to achieve continuity with the Specific Plan in terms of landscaping, trail systems, and other aspects of park design. The regional park is a significant cultural and recreational amenity within the Plan that must be both physically and visually accessible to the public." SECTION 5. Section 3.5.2A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows (new text in red underline; deleted text in red strikeout): "A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs. Animal she~tefcare center OP . Arboretums and horticultural gardens P tk~ te~(be+ld+c~ r l~ Ck +l~ ~ g ~ ~ {e et~ #~~~~) • Commercial recreation facilities C Live performance facility/amphitheater C . Museum, cultural center, interpretive center, and/or P other educational and cultural facility . Nature center with live animals C . Picnic areas P Recreation facilities P ~~assraorns law enferseme+~t-tra+r}+fl Re i©+~a4 P g g - (fit Park P Regional Archaeological Curation Center P Retail or service commercial uses, other than C concessionaire commercial uses Riding and hiking trails and staging areas P . Sports lighting where exterior lighting is designed to P confine direct rays and glare to premises Theatres C" SECTION 6. Section 3.5.2D of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows (new text in red underline; deleted text in red strikeout): "D. Site Development Standards 1. Minimum lot size - 80 acres 2. Maximum building height - 40 feet; no building height limit shall apply to Hangar #1 3. Maximum floor area ratio - .16 FAR for Urban Regional Park uses including retail and commercial uses, and .25 FAR for the Regional Law Enforcement Training Classrooms 4. Minimum building setbacks2 a) North Loop Road - 25 feet b) Armstrong Avenue - 20 feet 5. Landscape setbacks16 a) North Loop Road - 30 feet b) Armstrong Avenue - 20 feet 6. Landscaping a) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and Irrigation Guidelines b) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in Section 2.17 of this Specific Plan. 7. An internal pedestrian/multi-use trail through the park shall be developed and coordinated with pedestrian and bicycle trail systems of adjacent Planning Areas, and with city-wide bicycle trails where applicable. 8. A corner triangular-shaped setback of 60 feet, measured from the intersection of the curb lines at North Loop Road and Armstrong Avenue shall be provided for a secondary community intersection treatment (see Section 2.17 for landscape guidelines). 9. Development of an animal ch~care center shall be subject to the following criteria: a) Location shall be 500 feet away from any residential use or residentially zoned property b) Visual screening of outdoor storage and service areas shall be provided c) Noise control of animal containment areas shall be provided d) Site Plan and Aarchitectural design of buildings shall be p~av-ided subject to review pursuant to Section 4.2.4 e) Odor control shall be provided pursuant to General Development Regulations, Section 3.11 10.Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11 as applicable) 11. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable) 12.Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)" SECTION 7. Section 4.2.2A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows (new text in red underline; deleted text in red strikeout): A. Purpose and Application City of Tustin A concept plan shall be prepared and submitted or updated for Zoning Administrator approval concurrent with the submission of a new development proposal, reuse project, or Sector B level map. A concept plan is required for each Planning Area, except Planning Area 2 (Community Park). For Planning Area 1, a concept plan may be submitted for any portion of sub-planning areas PA 1-A, PA 1-B, PA 1-C, PA 1-D, and-PA 1-E, 1-H, and 1-I regardless of whether subdivision approvals are being requested or required. Concept Plans may be processed concurrently with a Sector B map or with a site plan and design review where a Sector B map is not necessary, as addressed in Section 4.2.1. The purpose of the concept plan is to document and insure that: The necessary linkages are provided between the development project and the Planning Area/Neighborhood in which it is located; 2. The integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of each Neighborhood is maintained; and 3. Applicable considerations of City requirements other than those spelled out in this Specific Plan are identified and satisfied. SECTION 8. Figure 3-1 "Land Use Planning Areas," is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced in its entirety with a new Figure 3-1, in the form attached as Exhibit B. SECTION 9. Figure 3-3 "Neighborhood A," is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced in its entirety with a new Figure 3-3, in the form attached as Exhibit C. SECTION 10.Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this 18~h day of October, 2011. JERRY AMANTE, MAYOR ATTEST: PAMELA STOKER, CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1406 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does 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 Ordinance No. 1406 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of October, 2011, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of October, 2011, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Published: Exhibit A Tables 3-1 & 3-2 [~ ~_! V ~ M [~~ ~--~ `NO N ~ ~D M O M ~ O~ ~ cv U ¢ ~ ~ Q ~ z O ~ O O O a C M a ~ yQ ' Q ti ~ ,~ ~ v ~, ~n ~n N o c~ v-, "" ~n `~' z z z A h ~ A~ ~ O C~ p~ t~ ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ ¢ O~ l~ O O 00 O O O~ ~ N N t~ p ~.i ~ z ~--. z Z IZ pippp ~-. z. ~Z ~Z Z `~ ~ ~ ~ N " V N N ~ .w _ 1 W v 01 ~ q 4. L~ ~ ~~ Q Q Z Q Q Q Z ~ Q Z Q Z Q Z Q Z Q z N ~ ~ N ( ~. - O ..: t Z Z Z ~ oo a~ 00 o0 ~O 0 M ~o J a ~ y ~. q ~ 4 ~ ~~ ~ W ~ ¢ ¢ z ¢ z ¢ z ¢ z ~ d z a z ¢ z ¢ z ¢ z ~ z N M ~ ~ o~ ,~ ~ z ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ N p~p ~ N I r A V O ~L . -~ ` V M ry ,}~ ~ C/~ "V O Er ~ ~ q (~ '7" ~ ~p ~ W u rn ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ N v (+1 R o v1 ~--~ v C o ~O ~ M N -• h ~ ~ O oo t~ ~t t~ t~ o '~ -- (+1 i0 o~ N N, fV N h ~a -• ~ 00 M ~O M O o~ r N ri ~D ~-+ ~ ~ z N I 'y V t~ M O~ V1 ~ ' 00 ~ M ~ V"~ ~G 00 00 ~ [~ M M ~O ~-+ r3 V1 ~ h r N V t D V N QQ vJ a Q ~ 3 ~ '^ N ¢ ~" ° o .fl ,~ b ~O p" ~ ~ .~ '~ v ~ ~ ~o x .S4 ~j N ~~.y O '~'+ ~ ~ h 00 ~ ~ ~ Vl V ~~. Q ~ ~~ ~ N ~ Q ~ eu0 ~ ~ ~ ~_ N vtt~ ~ W h ~ ~ N ~ p O N O ` CI M d ~ ~ ~ d _ ~ N (~ 'pb ' 8 .C~~ V] ~ ~ '~ ~ 'd '~ ~ ~ ~ ~Cj O~ ,k+~ . J d C ~ d ~ d ~ ~ A ~ cV ~ cd ~ td ~~'~ G> A cd ~ 8 t ~ ~ t ~ o a .~ ~ . ~ v.b . ~ t ~ A ~ a a .~ ~ i a a .ti ~ ~ a. G ~° a ,b ~ fx a v~ ~ o U a c/~ a a !-~ w O O O O ~--~ ~ ^-' ~ ~p~ 00 ~ h ~' A W ~ z z ~ ~ ~ N N N z 'z A h ~ A~ ~ 2 O ~~ C ~ v, ~ N o;, ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ v ~ 2 ~ ~D v N O O N C l~ V ti A ~ ~ ~~ ~ W ~~ ~ O O. ~ ~O O O N O O M O ~ ~ N M (~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ o ~ r i" o0 0 ~" M ~ ~ r ~ A ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ W A ~ ~ ~ ~ Y O pN~ ~ O ~ pVQQp~ Er ti ~ C `r ~ 00 ~ ~ N ~ C 0o N O ~ 1 O ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N a ~ ~ r N ey " ~ ~ ~ ~ z -. N v 0!S ~° ~~ ~°~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ U ~ v1 ~D 00 O h M M O~ N O N ~ ~ N ~ M N ~ ~ h h .N. N ~ ~ N ~ 1/~ ~ (~ ~ M [~ h M h O~ N O ~O l ~' rC ~D OMO N ON ~ h ~ N M ~ ~ M Q 60 Vl a V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ca ~ • r o~o a, ~ ~ M r, oo .~ U s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N y ~ ~ U ~ ~ en ~ ~ '~ y ~ eo ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~+ 4 ~ a. a ~ a d ~ a ~aaaaa x ~ ~ o U a- GG ~ o U v W O o 0 0 0 0 .. W a my ~ Q ti W n O O O O O O O q ~ " ~ A~ ,2 O ~ ~ c V'~ O O N pippp O O ~ o p~p~~ ~+ V ~ Giy . ~ ~ ~ V1 I~ ~ ~p O~ H ~ r « ~ q ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ VQ~'i 00 O ~ O O rr [~ ~ ~ 00 ~ a M ~ ~, ~ z w ~~ ~~ z ~ ~..~ ~ W ~ ~ U N ~ 1. ai ~ ~ .p M V1 ~ a O~ ~% ~ O O n ~ b ~j VS ~ M/Vy "V O ~ ~ r~ ~ _l `r .--. O ~ N rl O ~ ~ V O o ~ z ~ z a `~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ N r l N 00 ~ [~ N M ~ pp 1 ~O ~ Z `~+ ~ M N ~ .-.~ N V1 0~0 ~ ~ V't N 00 ~ N i 4 C7 r W a F q1~ / '~I ~ `~ ~ ~ v~ O F ~ ~ ~ O Y ~ C~ ~1 ~O ~ ~' ~ ~ W Q ~Gn ~UU ~OUw w C7 ~ ~ ~ y ~ y ~ ~ VI ~ ~ ~ ~ C O U a~i Uv, ~ °' a~i ~ ~ ~ a`~i ~ u ~ w ~ ~ v °~' a" ~ ~ ate' ~ ~ r ~~ A ~ ~ b ~~~~~5~ ~i w~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~W.~w~~ a a a a a a a p a p ~ a 3 ~ " v ~ ~ ~~ ~~ F a a a . . ~ - e a U D a ~ v ~w ~ `_Xr ~ ~ ~ ~ J 3 a9i 3 ~~ 'O '_ fn d ._ a '~ ~ 7 •~ ~ .$ y N en ^ y ~ > w ~ N cd ~ ~ .C ~ y ~ ~ o a c ~~ g ~ a, c p$~ Tye ~ ~~ ~ s o •5 ~ ~ ~ a tip 3 ~ Cdr' c c '_ '° ~ ~ ~ ~ ,$ ~ c `~ ,c aq o u ~ ~ 'c ~ ~ ~ ._ rn _ ~ c HQ Ea~~ ~a yZ `~ a uE e v ~~ ~ o o p .y ¢ ~ ar.i coo ° H _ .= d -- _ w y~ y ~ ~ 'C Q A Y •c m `~ ~aai o.~ °' c~'`oob `°- ~•$ € a c ~ E ~ e c .y ~ ~ ~~ ~ y W .C Oq „~ y Vl U 9 V ~ U .`~ d~ E C d u c ~°cp~a...eo ~x.~e •= = ~E Nu ~ cz a9i ~ - 'E ~ .5 ~ H o ~~c~ n ~ ~' ~ y ~ a ~ ~ ~ c~ s `°- u w o A ~ ~~v' o~iy g $ uU E aci >,E ayi $.~ ~ ~ 3 ~~~~ ~ 5~ •~~ ~ y •v € €a va A A v °~. E^ v .., u u E >. ~ y v g+ o c .. •5 c ~a >. v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~p ~ a~, ~ ~ ~ $ $ c~~ y Cd'• .> C eQ ~ A 04 C` W U ~ c0 ~ eo N C O ~ N N~ J _ ~ 9 ~ ~ G L w E $ E 'c coq c°j .o ~ ~ ~ 'v •° °~ eo 'v c' u d ~ o c~ a:$ $o u €b°'Q- p,a~ ~ o ~ ~•~, ~ u ac"a-° ~ ~ cQ:; 3 p E u v;; 3 `° >,H ~ >.a 3 o c.€ ~~ ~c~•~~4., a>i _u' A a~ u x c ;? p. c ~d ~$ `~N'° ,3, 3 ~ u~ ~ O ~ `t' u °J~ ~v~;~`rar ~ a, E ~ ~ a`di ~ c $ 0 $ ~O .y °~' ~ ~ ~ w ~~ d ,$ a aci a ~ 30 '~ E ri .~ E ~ n. v a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ oC c ~ ie v g ~ c a ° J cZo .5 ~ v ° ~ ~ ~ ul ~a, ~ o e 'c aEi ono H ~ c as Q ~ x °' o v ~ v t ~' E `o `d o ~ o~' .r°-n o > .o `ca _ u `~ ~ ~ c c u 3 °' c o~ ~ ,a ;° ~ °' '~ o -~ ~ c~ m ~p c4 0 $ ~ o `eo' ~ .= caQ aG yw .r'7 $ «r7 c~ ~i o. '~ C~ w .~ww L H •~ C ~ ogc.oa c y v ~ oqy $~ E J g.° v 3'3 c y'~ u~ o ~' ~`v H ou°~ c .C p~ aJ ~Z7 C w 7~ tJ U O N a O~ C 'C7 7~ y~ ~"" .C c ~ ~? ~ o ~ ~ - ~,'.°" u = °' ~ o 00 3 ~ `3 Q ~° b v co o ~ ~ " d' .y ~ ~ :v .. ~°'~c ~~~~ a.~ ~~ ~gE E 5 v~=°-,~ ~ o ai'~ o $U ~~ c E ~.s a.: ~•~ cLi o ~ ~ ~¢ E_. ~~ ..~$ ~•E~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ E~°.o~~ ~ ° ~$ri e,o :'. ~~ °' a•°ivaoio$ > ~ ~ u~ ~ ° ~ °'~ c~ c° Eo ov^ c 5.. a+r°v~ °eQ a u E ...~. ~ ~; • .. ,E 'O n ~ ~ •~ a>i ~ ~ u .5 ~ ¢y ~ u ,~ J ~ o . ~ .~ w .~ ~ U H ~ o Q ~ ~ ~ a`°i ; w r.i ~L$::'^ ~~9 era L$>>~-c°'~E.o ~°'~~p°'E~`2d' °'dM e°~O B '~ u~ ~ ~ .5 x ~ ~ 3 g g Q _y FcF o 3 o v ° :'• ~ 3 ~ o E u `~ = o° ~ •5 oq a~i °~ c ~ $ $ ~ o ¢~ °' ~"y $ '~ ~ oo ~ `y' ~ 9 ~ .y •~ ~ .5 .3 .5 ~ c ,~ ~ .5 ~ ~ > c ~`•C~ ~ ~ °- y O C A~ '_~ L (.i" y~ .C C n~ Ej~ N N N ro vi vi Vi ¢ A 'O C~ c T y ;/~ y g g c - '~ tO `$ .- °~' ~ cE N N N 3 ^ - - ~ oo E .... d ~ d ~ x o. o u V ~•vz~du.~~tE-o Iowa°~ ° EacQ.nQ.~anQ.nQ. ~a.~'aa~~~a~ °~ ~D, of -- ~i r+i ~ vi ~d r o0 0~ ° •• ~ ~ = = :~ = °-°- ~: Z 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ o W tl y E" A W o 0 0 0 o r- ~n q ~ a ~ ~ qa ~, ~, ~ $ ° ~ ~ N 'ti O ~ "'V ~~~ ~ ~ ~ V~ .--. V~ '-' N pN M d z ¢ z O ~ ~ ~ ~ N q , ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z , O ~ +~ N ~ ~ O ~ r'i M .-. ~ N ~ .-. rl rr ~i M ~ O ~G ~ ~ ~ 00! ~ ~ a ~ ~ "' M ~ z o ~ ° ~ z y y .~ ~ ~ ~+ } ~ u a ~ o0 0 ~ ~ a ~ ~, o ~ O O 'V' N '""' .~.. ~ ~I OI `~f~ ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~_ V o ~ •--~ r ~ ~.J ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~~ ~ O O O ~ O~ O v1 ~'. O `~ O O '7 N ~--~ .~-. ~ ~ I ~ I M ~ ~ ~--~ N ~--! ~ V1 ~ ~ N ~ t~ v'~ t~ O "V a ~ d A o ~: a d o ~~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~ r~- 8 ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ w b ~ ~ Q~ ~m ~ ~U ~Q ~w w C7 x ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~v ~ ~ I~ ` a A, z ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ N v, N N N N N n) ~~ G~ .~ N N ~+ `~~ ~~~ ~`~.~,~~ a~i~ c(~04y•~4~•~4y ~•~~~~ w~ ~ C N ~ M v ~ F O ~ a`~i'~ V1 ~ a`diQ ~ a`~i p q ~ a a a a a a a a a ~' ~ a ~ V a a s ~ a a a ~, ::: W z ~/j My V1 Q~ O O ~ 00 p~~ 00 O O O O O O O ~ ~/'i pOp~ ~S ~ O O O ~ M D a ~~ q W q ~,. ~ d ~ z o d ~ z v~ ~ h N N N e~ 4 ~ h v-, ~ N v~, N ~ a q a~ ' N ° ~ ~ O h O N [~ O pOp ° O N O ~D 00 _ _ O ~~+~ ~ rc R; ~ '++ ISO p ' O •~ N ~ n ~ r i ~ ~O ~--~ ~O .~ c.j N ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ .-i ~ N ° N o ~O ~ H .-i ~ 'C i ~ "+~ ~' "+r ^y W "~ ~ C! h .~ ~ ~ W O 00 O ~ ~ O ~O N O O O ~ Q~ M N (' ~ N R M 00 00 ~ M QQ vc O V~D ~O N O~ N M ~O `~ 00 O C ~ O~ M 1A ~`[DD '~ ~' d z Q z `Q cc..~~ ~ ¢ z Q z a ~ y f 1 W N W ~ ,r i. y S ~ N O~ N N O~ O~ N ~ r N [~ O O~ h O~ ~7 p0p0 O~ h tVN~i v N M ~ N M O M • •0- ~--~ O 00 ~O ~ 00 07 ~O ~D vl r r'Y 1/~ ~ttf~~i 00 ¢' ~ z Qi ~ z h M ~O ~ d ~ 7 ~ z f_ '. V ~ vhf V '1 ~ ~ ~ .-. CV [~ ~ N N rl p ~ N ~O ~ rl R O O ~ ~ ~• a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ d z ~ o Q z ~ Q z O O ~ O o d z ~~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V ti Er N 00 M O '"' v1 ~ 00 In ~ ~ h M O (+l O~ N 00 ~D C Q~ N ~O ~D V7 K v1 .--~ N N Nj ~ `'' V'1 ~O ~ 00 ~O M rl M O "' ~ h N f'1 ~O •--~ v) ~ •--~ ~O 00 M M [~ ~ M ~ O 00 t~ Q h I~ O O •--~ 00 ~O N •.• M ~O v1 M N ~ W V bt ~ QJ' W p ~y ~O N ..~ h oho V'j ~ V1 M O ~O ~ M oo V't ~ h N ~ .-. ~O p M O~ ~O Oho ~ 1n ~ .-+ O ~ M ~ t~ ~O ~O M ~O C .~ ~D ~ 00 V1 M ~ O ~ M N ~--~ ~O ~ N ~ U A W G4 A A A A A ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ N ~ ~ • ~ ~ N ~ C r~r C7 -Ti C7 -T+ U" r~i C7 ~i U' c0 ~ Y1 .-~ ~ • `n •~ ~1 ~ ~/ n ,~ W z W z W z ~ ~ ~ W z W z 7 b ~ °° _ - ' ~ Q .[ ~ o z - ''c a ~ o o ,,,a ~ ~ U Q O ,a cd ~~y ~ t-~ Ca La O ~ M v ~ .~ 1° ~ ~ a`di a~i ~ ~~yy ~ H w O ~ ~ a`~i pG ff~ w O ~o oi°i ~~yy h .~ a`°i o0 r. a`~i 0~ ac°i GG ~ C O h v ~ ~ y v , r. ~ a`~i Q ~ .~ .~ o`~i ~ h a`di v , at°i h v N .~ a`di ~ q ~ `n O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~. ~. ~a~a ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~"~ O x . O fi O x o w . ~ ~ ~ ry ~ a C7 a a a O aa ~ t7 .--~ a a a .-. a ;~ v a a a a a ~ a w w w ~ w ~' w z z z ~: C/~ t+1 ~ M e~~f N N C ~ O O O ~ O ~ ~" q W A ,~ " ~ ~ d 'z ~ ~ d z o 0 o d z ~ y a~ q~ q '~ ~`° z ~ z z z z z ~ ~ O ~ ~ ar°` ~'~v ~ v ~ ~ ~" z ~ z z z z z '~ ~ N W W ~ M N q L(pI~J~ a o~ s d z ~ ~ d z d z d z d z d z ~ M M ~ j 2 ~" ~ C! ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ d z d z d z d z V o N o O v v-, O~ N ^ti ~ ~ ~ (` N Q ~ i '" M N ~ ~ ti.,~ .~~. ~y ~ N '""' ~p .~ ~ '~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ v1 oNO O~ .~ N ~O N ... W q c~ o x O ~ ~ ~ !} ! W O 00 cd ~° 'b ~ O Cq o t%~ w ~ C.7 .~ ~~ w z ~ ° ~ ~~a w z ~ ~ a ~' ~ ~ N~ ~ ~ q x ~ ~ x ~ ~ N•~~~ ~Q~~ ~~~ a O ~ d 3 v, g ~ o l..+ ~ q 3 ° F" ~ ~ `~ ~ .. z F" u. o ~ -~ ~, . fs. ~ ~ ~~w Q. ~ f-4~ . d ~ w z ~ ~ ~ F ~ = g a ~ ° ~~- - ~' .r~1 ~ ° a~i ~ H C 7 N C vii L o d avi ~ 0 7Ai ~ E N~ 3 ~ ~ y X_ 8 ~ d ~'C C ~ e ~ H~ ~ ~ $ ~ 3 ~ o_ u ~ e ~~ 0 8 ` ._•O ~ ~ yyyy v ~ .0 C p L ` t~ v •y ~ ~ v~ ttl y L v O 6 L a"i z ; d p .w ~ ,3o m (' ~ > ~. 'r"~ ~ ~. 'y 4 ~ 'C ~ ° O ~ 7pJ C - O 'O T - ~ '3 ~, ~ .a ou o H u p $ y al Q~ 5 a v ~ '~ '~ y' y~1 E ~C0 ~~ C~ _~~ 3 ~ =~ - cad id T C~ ~ O ~ A O y ._ `~ 4. OD a >W ~ d 3 '~3 a y ~ O w 'CC ~; Z L 'J E ~ .. 'O ~ N C ~ er< N ,~ C y ~ ~ U _ Q u a ,~ C X a ,rj .~ ~ Z Y _~ C N e w C aJ ~ 00 ~ t ~ ~p 7 .Q ~ '~n O t0 Ci. vpi C tai 3 p L > y; a ' ~3 cv r~ CTC C ~ ~ 7iL ~4. 'OM ~ ~~+' e~ ty .011 .~~ ~y O •p CL CU O T~ u H 7 0 a o Op C'~ ~~ O 4. c1 ~''~ ~v~~ W6L Ev~3~ .y ~n. o rsS ~ "~ ' CCCN m ~+ '$ ~ ~ ' e vo ~ ~ ~' v C' C W W 6~- a 71 3 ~ 4= >~ ~ N C ~ v `~ ` ~ C i0 .N N_ ~y a O C 'O ~ v a '€ H _ eG, 9v~ as 3 ~' c '~ y- Boa g.5 ~'~ x v € 5 vw- ~~ a ;._ '.. ° ~ .. n 'c ~ aci c N ~ •o .3 ~ . ~ L >> X N ~ O ~ v L 'J ° ~ °~'' ~s yv- ~~ ~ Cc ~o °~' ~ c~ 3 ~ y C ~ 4 ; `~ ca oD.~ C ~ ~ ~w U ~ ~ .cO,~ 7 ~ `~ ~ c co ~ E ¢` •E c mL ~ v ~ a~ ~ ~ O a`~i ; c°j c4 ~~~' ° ° c y E .c v a' ~_ ~ a°i ~ a v u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ u ~ p c v ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ g ~ W N W~ N~ N~~ ~ C y 7 y. y N v '~ y~ c'a ~ w eD O~~ C v ~-~~ c~~~u`~O~`~ ~ww. 'Q H Eaai 'O O ~ ~C ~ ~ ~ ~ N V ~ ~ w C ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ." c, c ~ ~~ C ~ a N e ~ ~ ~ v c c x ~ ~ v '~ c ~ ; .~ w° .°. ~ a ~ ~ vi C o°y ~ ,~ ~' ~ ~>, r y u v E m ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ end g u• a C7~~z C. k°.~o oaf-p~oacvn°LD ~ eac¢..~NC¢. °~~'a E z -r N t~1 ~ Vt ~G n OD O~ ~ •~ C C O V ?j ~- t j ~ T y E L1 x ~ ~ ~ d ,° ra N .c ~ O ~ ~ u ~ a L X ~ ~ O ~ ^ y ~ ~ U ~ p O N h C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'd ~ v O. ~ sue. EQ, y .5c d y ~ b v~ y ~: CJ.7 OD 'p C ~ .J cCd C .C N y l7 y ~ y C ` N ~ •x ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 v';a1~ ~ oQ .~ ~ ~ a ~_ a,orb ~ ~' O C H ~ tO ~ 0 ~•c w E c ~ c1 ~ e ~ o ~ O ~ V ~ en CD a1 C N C t0 Q0. y ~ ~~T ~ ~ > 'rJ '30 C ~ C ~" W E a ai .~ z .~ '~ ~o, ~ ~E E >,~ ,c, ~ V C co H O v~=°,t=E°' G~ ra. .° 361 .~ ~ v ywt'O ~ c~ ~ f+1 N d d 00 h ~ ~ 'J w ~ ~ 6. C ~ ea ~• .`~ E ~ 3 vcv ~~•= e c o •°_ 'o u ~ ~' c~ ~~o°uS. m U~c~ ~ M 'O '3 H o O N C V y~ tV0 T C C N E C ~~cny.=t ~ ~^r~. ~ ~ ° a o°10 •° ~$ `u `~' ~ y a`i3 ~ ~i 3 > g ~ .J L Uy p y y~ G y L '.+ 6~ y.x ~ Y t ~ [~ H O O~ OD . ~ ~ ri.. ~' 3 v ~` V~ C N V E W 6•~ V1 ~ V .~p~yp' ~ O C CCy O ~ a1 c+ p y' 7 w O O .o u ' J $ ~ vv'i i?dL ~ J O C d O'~ ~ O ~~ e0 .u v V '° C y C G~ G N ~~ N 7 U G ~ ~ N C. ~Q' M 'e `3 E ~ ~ `% eu $ c 'E~ca~~ `~' °3~.c c c .ti v ~ a'1 .c E ° u ° '' 0o V^ A h 'D G ~,+ ~ y~ f u e1 ~ ~ d C - araa~a~a~_°Oa cc° ri a ~c ~ o0 0~ Exhibit B Figure 3-1 ~ ¢ ; ~1 ~~~~ ~~~ s <~~ ~ ~~ aooa® Q ~ ~ ~ . . X13 ~~ ~~~~, i 1~ aaW ~~ S ~~ ~' s = i :• ~ a ~i ~o- ~~ ~s ; } F, U ~ ~ ~ ds r H ~~~ n <~ ~ a a r H t ~< ~ ~ s N £ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~= }~~ H ~ U ~ 15 N019V ~Y 11M03M 3 ~ ~ Exhibit C Figure 3-3 '~ E R ~~ ~~ ~~~_ ~~ Attachment B Environmental Analysis Checklist for SPA 11-003 (Ordinance No. 1406) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 927130 (71 d) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11-003, Minor Text Amendments Lead Agency: City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana Ogdon Phone: (714) 573-3109 Project Location: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Harvard Avenue to the east, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Barranca Parkway to the south. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment is intended to: 1) modify Planning Area (PA) boundaries and designations in Neighborhood A by further dividing the existing PA to create two new sub-planning areas; and 2) add an animal care center as an allowed use in Neighborhood A and add a law enforcement training facility as an allowed use on one of the new sub-planning areas proposed in Neighborhood A; and 3) make other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The creation of new sub-planning areas as part of SPA 11-003 will also not affect the calculation of FAR, or the application of maximum FAR standards as currently identified in the Specific Plan. These public institutional uses aze currently permitted in the Specific Plan, (the law enforcement training facility is currently permitted in Neighborhood A and the animal care center is permitted in the adjacent Neighborhood C). The land use changes would not be effective until completion of the land exchange agreement between the South Orange County Community College District and the County of Orange Future implementation actions expected include a land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange and the following City of Tustin implementation actions, including but not limited to 1) Modification Three to the Agreement Between the United States ofAmerica and the City of Tustin, California For The Conveyance ofa Portion of the Former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin ("EDC Agreement") to permit conveyance of the Orange County site to the City in the event the County withdraws its application for a public benefit conveyance for that property; 2) Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Bettiveen the City of Tustin and The South Orange County Community College District for Conveyance of a Portion ojMCAS Tustin and The Establishment of un Advanced Technololry Educational Campus ("SOCCCD Conveyance Agreement") to implement the proposed land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange, and City revised conveyance of property to SOCCCD and County, to ensure compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and continued public use of both sites following completion of the Land Exchange Agreement; and 3) Amendment No. l to Agreement Between the County of Orange and the City of Tustin Related to MCAS Tustin ("County-Tustin Cooperative Agreement") to add property included in the proposed land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange to ensure compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and continued public use of the future County site that is conveyed to the County with implementation of any Land Exchange Agreement. Surrounding Uses: North: Residential, Light Industrial, and Commercial East: Residential South: Light Industrial and Commercial West: Light Industrial and Commercial Previous 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. And, on December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ^Land Use and Planning ^Population and Housing ^Geology and Soils ^Hydrology and Water Quality ^Air Quality ^Transportation & Circulation ^Biological Resources ^Mineral Resources ^Agricultural Resources ^Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^Noise ^Public Services ^Utilities and Service Systems ^Aesthetics ^Cultural Resources ^Recreation ^Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects I) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers ~ v~ Date: ,. ~/ Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached W Edinger Ave Fountain valley ~ast Or Baker St 0 3 OTustin Tustin ~ ~ of ,.~~ F TUSTIN `~tf ~' L ~..~ a~~ ~~ < Z ` . ~~i t ~t " , ~s~ ~9 saoy .~ Voe x r M ' .r e ~, ._ ~ t / ~ / A ~` O~ O ~~.' ~ A '+ Pkwy .. ~ ~~ ~ •;\ ~, '#' M~ Irvine ~Bi °~s~e~Dr ~ O ~, ~~t~ ~ ~o ~. ~,~ r" Costa. ~'o O .. Mes~~ ~ C .` e F ~ `__ 7~'' q s~ c 9e n Oy Or m ~'+ide Dr !. N ~~~ A 0 .5 1 2 Miles ~ ~ O,e Oo ! '' ~, of -~ , ~ Drys, s 'b q+B c Rocca ~~q ~` s ' \ ayCer, Lake Fore'~ft0 \\~ ` Laguna woods~~ o n Joaquin Hlt1s,\ ~ O "~ _.A ~A~ ~o 'aft Ave ~ o o Ila Park i E Katells Ave E Collins~;ilve Bond Ave SS; O Orange >° ~" ~ E 17th St Santa Ana E4ttist,~ ~' c~ fA E Warner Ave ,~5 ~~ e rRPC `2~ 1 -r u ~ , ' is _ ~ ~ sf r 1 ~~ ~~ ~~~ f ~; r o ~ ~ ~'.~ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. 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? I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: [n determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous /mpact /mpacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: -Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ~ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Signifrcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ a ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New More Chunxe From SiKnifrcant Severe Previous /mpuct /mpacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-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? 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 reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New More ChanKe From SiKniJicant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an /mpact /mpacts Analysis 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? ^ ^ V111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ~ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Sahstantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous /mpact Impacts Analysis ^ o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New More Change From Sign~icant Severe Previous /mpact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ^ ^ X111. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ~ Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ No Substantial New More ChanKe From SiRnifrcant Severe Previous /mpact /mpacts Analysis g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XV1. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XV11. 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? ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ On the basis of this initial evaluation: ^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparers ~ U~ Date: /~Gl , ~~t ~._ ' C:-~Z-K~ s~ Date ~/ / Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 11-003, MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND 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. And, on December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific 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. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR analyzed amulti-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. The project site is located within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan boundaries affecting only Neighborhoods A and C. The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment is intended to: 1) modify Planning Area (PA) boundaries and designations in Neighborhood A by further dividing the existing PA to create two new sub-planning areas; and 2) add an animal care center as an allowed use in Neighborhood A and add a law enforcement training facility as an allowed use on one of the new sub-planning areas proposed in Neighborhood A; and 3) make other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 2 The creation of new sub-planning areas as part of SPA 11-003 will also not affect the calculation of FAR, or the application of maximum FAR standards as currently identified in the Specific Plan. These public institutional uses are currently permitted in the Specific Plan, (the law enforcement training facility is currently permitted in Neighborhood A and the animal care center is permitted in the adjacent Neighborhood C). The land use changes would not be effective until completion of the land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and the County of Orange. Future implementation actions expected include a land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange and the following City of Tustin implementation actions, including but not limited to 1) Modification Three to the Agreement Between the United States of America and the City of Tustin, California For The Conveyance of a Portion of the Former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin ("EDC Agreement") to permit conveyance of the Orange County site to the City in the event the County withdraws its application for a public benefit conveyance for that property; 2) Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the City of Tustin and The South Orange County Community College District for Conveyance of a Portion of MCAS Tustin and The Establishment of an Advanced Technology Educational Campus ("SOCCCD Conveyance Agreement") to implement the proposed land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange, and City revised conveyance of property to SOCCCD and County, to ensure compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and continued public use of both sites following completion of the land exchange; and 3) Amendment No.1 to Agreement Between the County of Orange and the City of Tustin Related to MCAS Tustin ("County-Tustin Cooperative Agreement") to add property included in the proposed land exchange between the South Orange County Community College District and County of Orange to ensure compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and continued public use of the future County site that is conveyed to the County with implementation of any land exchange. The proposed modification of planning area boundaries and designations for Neighborhood A are conditional upon the planned execution of a land exchange and the completion of a land exchange planned between the SOCCCD and County. It is the City's understanding that the anticipated land exchange would support the exchange of the ultimate ownership of two sites, totaling 20 acres, between the SOCCCD and the County. The land exchange and its implementation is a project that may be subject to subsequent environmental review. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS/EIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 3 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? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The existing SOCCCD campus buildings and associated parking (located north of Valencia Avenue) and referred to as the Advance Technology Education Park (ATEP) was constructed in 2007. The SOCCCD property within the Specific Plan area (as well as the remainder of the ATEP campus) south of Valencia Avenue still has remnants of the former MCAS Tustin (constructed between 1943 and 1988), including asphalt-paved streets and parking lots, concrete sidewalks, landscaping/groundcover, and underground utilities. Most of the former military buildings on the SOCCCD property have been demolished. The SOCCCD and County Properties contains remnants from the former MCAS Tustin. These structures have not been used in over a decade and are in varying stages of decay. The Specific Plan envisioned the removal of all existing buildings on the County property. Within Neighborhood C, most MCAS Tustin structures are planned for demolition. Of the existing two large hangars, which were the dominant visual element of the former military facility, one may be preserved and reused for non-military purposes; however, no final plans for reuse have been established. The Proposed Project would have no impact on these hangars. The Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit the same uses as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. If adopted, the Proposed Project would support an exchange of ultimate property ownership of two parcels between the SOCCCD and the County, by modifying Planning Area (PA) boundaries and designations, adding two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses. These Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 4 modifications would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS/EIR and there would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality. The FEIS/EIR anticipated that former MCAS buildings located on the Project Site would be demolished and replaced with new construction. Visual changes to the Project vicinity have already occurred with the development of ATEP Phase I, the RSCCD's Sheriffs Training Academy, the County's Abused Children's Shelter and residential neighborhoods north and south of Valencia Avenue, as well as the demolition of buildings on the ATEP site. The visual impacts of planned construction in the area, including the development of the SOCCCD property and County property, were analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, and there are no new or substantially different aesthetic impacts. Implementation of the Proposed Project would comply with the site development standards in the Specific Plan. While additional flexibility in land uses would be permitted in PAs 1 and 6, the overall intensity of development and the general character of the Project Site surroundings would not be substantially altered by the Project. The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to an education- and public-services-oriented development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS/EIR. There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 5 new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.' No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 6 There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There continue to be no agricultural resources on the property. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) 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 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 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: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 7 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) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Site is presently not in use. Most of the former military buildings on the ATEP site, including the SOCCCD property, have been demolished. There are buildings on the County property. Remnant structures from the former MCAS Tustin remain in Neighborhood C, but are vacant. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Proposed Project includes a SPA which modifies PA boundaries and designations, adds two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses, and would support an exchange of ultimate property ownership of two parcels between the SOCCCD and the County. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that was not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 8 quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, development on the Project Site could also result in significant unavoidable long-term and cumulative air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. The Proposed Project merely relocates PA boundaries and permits the shifting of certain land uses a short distance; there would be no increase in overall development intensity. The Project does not modify in any way the trip budget evaluated in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long-term and/or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 9 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) 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 or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; only the precise locations of particular land Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 10 uses would change. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 11 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? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR; only the precise locations of particular land uses would change. The Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS/EIR. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. MitigatioNMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Bounces: Field Observations Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 12 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (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 wastewater? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; only the precise locations of particular land uses would change. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 13 not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR as prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the 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). The FEIS/EIR 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 geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: -Would the project: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 14 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 a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. Portions of the Project Site are presently undergoing remediation, and therefore remain under Navy ownership. These areas are available for limited used by the future owners (the SOCCCD and the County) under a LIFOC agreement. They will not be conveyed to the SOCCCD or County until the Navy determines that its remediation of hazards and hazardous materials in these areas have sufficiently progressed to the point that the property can safely be developed. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 15 Asbestos-containing materials (AGMs) and lead-based paint (LBP) were identified in previous surveys within the Project Site. There are well-established existing laws and procedures for remediating these two conditions. Remediation of these conditions have been addressed as part of a building demolition program on SOCCCD properties, and will also be implemented by the County as demolition proceeds on its properties. The demolition work was previously approved by the SOCCCD and is not a part of the Proposed Project. The presence of these two conditions in the military buildings has been thoroughly analyzed in the previously-certified FEIS/EIR, and does not affect the implementation of the Project. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then-current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR 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 Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100- foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 16 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (POST) 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 (POSE) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? a) 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 17 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? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Surface water runoff from the Project Site generally flows east to Armstrong Avenue to existing 72-inch and 36-inch diameter drainpipes and south to Warner Avenue to a planned 36-inch diameter drainpipe. The Project will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. The Proposed Project would support the possible exchange of property ownership of two parcels between the SOCCCD and the County, and includes a SPA which modifies PA boundaries and designations, adds two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology/water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 18 Project. There is no new information relative to hydrology/water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology/water quality. As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. The Specific Plan considered the development of education-oriented and public services land uses on the Project Site. No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan. The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The drainage pattern and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 19 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to land use and planning. The Proposed Project would support the exchange of property ownership of two parcels between the SOCCCD and the County, and includes a SPA which modifies PA boundaries and designations, adds two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. The SPA does not substantively change the Specific Plan. By merely allowing certain uses to be located in different sub-planning areas within Neighborhood A, and not increasing development intensities or introducing incompatible uses, implementation of the Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use (no community exists in the area of the Project), conflict with the Specific Plan, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 20 or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3- 17, 4-3 to 4-13, 7-16 to 7-18 and Addendum Pages 5-92 to 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 21 There are no known mineral resources located on the ATEP Site. The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to mineral resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to mineral resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to mineral resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISlEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 22 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? fl 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? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The ambient noise environment on the Project Site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, the RSCCD's Sheriffs Training Academy, a rail line located north of Edinger Avenue, and construction and remediation activities on surrounding parcels. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. The Proposed Project would support the possible exchange of property ownership of two parcels between the SOCCCD and the County, and includes a SPA which modifies PA boundaries and designations, adds two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses. There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise-related land use distribution within the Project Site or Tustin Legacy. The proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan. Consequently, the long-term traffic-related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have been identified and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS/EIR; implementation of the Project would be required to comply with applicable 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. The Project Site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. Therefore, implementation of the Project Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 23 would not involve the development of any noise-sensitive land uses susceptible to excessive noise related aircraft operations within the 60 CNEL. The Project will not change to the planned education-oriented nature of the land uses planned on the District's and County's properties. However, the Law Enforcement Training Center, which is currently permitted on the County's parcel, would instead be constructed on the District's parcel. The County may also choose to construct the animal care center on the District's Parcel instead of PA 6. There would be no changes proposed that would modify development intensity, traffic generation, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, or other development standards. By locating the Law Enforcement Training Center and animal care center on the District's Parcel, these uses would be adjacent to other similar County land uses and further from the planned ATEP campus core, which would further reduce the potential for any impacts. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. 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 8~ HOUSING: Would the project: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 24 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Housing and associated population would not be impacted by the proposed project. Implementation of the Proposed Project would have no impacts to population and housing. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to population and housing that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3- 34, 4-14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5- 101through 5-112) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 25 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no existing parks or other public service facilities on the Project Site. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to public services. There would be no change to development intensity, which would lead to an increased demand for public services. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and facilities that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the Project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy. No Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 26 new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Within the Specific Plan area, the SOCCCD property is patrolled and serviced 24 hours per day by a combination of the Irvine Valley College police and security services that are under the management of the Irvine Valley College police. Tustin Police Department officers would respond to requests for assistance on the County-owned property. The Irvine Valley College Police Department has a similar level of law enforcement capabilities as Tustin Police Department officers, including the capacity to cite and arrest offenders. They also have access to the emergency radio network that is shared with the Tustin Police Department, Orange County Sheriff's Department, OCFA, and other emergency personnel. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. Schools The Project does not include any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K-12 students and there is no impact to K-12 schools. Neither the SOCCCD nor the County would be required to pay school fees for public uses on the project site consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998. Parks PA 6 in Neighborhood C is identified in the Specific Plan as an "Urban Regional Park." Future development within this PA may include uses such as parks, recreation facilities, theaters, museums, and various other public uses, as well as retail and commercial services. There is no change to the proposed park uses as a result of the Project; if anything, the County will have more flexibility in designing the park with the proposed relocation of the animal care center. Other Public Facilities The FEIS/EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The Project would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR; therefore, no substantial change is expected. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 27 The FEIS/EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4-67 through 4-70) to be complied with as appropriate. The SOCCCD and County will continue to be responsible for complying with these conditions as determined applicable by the City. Proposed SPA 11-003 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. 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? There are no public recreational facilities on the ATEP Site. SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 28 recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3- 57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 29 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)? Major roadways near the Project Site include: • Warner Avenue, asix-lane major arterial, to the south (planned); • Red Hill Avenue to the west, currently six lanes and an eight-lane major arterial at future buildout; • Valencia Avenue, afour-lane secondary arterial, to the north; and • Armstrong Avenue, afour-lane secondary arterial, to the east. Access to the Project Site is primarily from Armstrong Avenue. Armstrong Avenue currently terminates at Warner Avenue; when required under the Specific Plan phasing provisions, it will be extended to Barranca Parkway. SPA 11-003 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and future implementation actions. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project would support an exchange of property ownership of two land areas between the SOCCCD and the County, and includes a SPA which modifies PA boundaries and designations, adds two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. Austin-Foust Associates (Austin-Foust) prepared a traffic evaluation technical memorandum in May 2011 to evaluate the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. The memorandum is attached as Appendix A. Austin-Foust calculated land use and trip generation data for the Project Site before and after implementation of the Project. The results of this analysis are provided in Table 1. Table 1. Swap Areas Land Use and Trip Generation Summary Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 30 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Amount/ Unit In Out Total In Out Total ADT Tri Rates Learnin Center TSF 0.66 0.07 0.73 0.15 0.34 0.49 6.12 Before Land Exchan Learnin Center Coun 130.68 TSF 86 9 95 20 44 64 800 Leamin Center SOCCCD 152.46 TSF 101 11 111 23 52 75 933 Total 283.14 TSF 187 20 206 43 96 139 1,733 Alter Land Exchan e Learnin Center Coun 152.46 TSF 101 11 111 23 52 75 933 Learnin Center SOCCCD 130.68 TSF 86 9 95 20 44 64 800 Total 283.14 TSF 187 20 206 43 96 139 1,733 ADT =average daily trips TSF =thousand square feet Note: Trips for the Animal Care Facility are not shown here since it is simply being proposed to be relocated from the east side of Armstron Avenue to the Coun arcel on the west side thereb not affectin traffic attems. As can be seen in Table 1, there are no net changes to the land use intensity and resulting trip generation. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that was not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There has been no new construction in Neighborhood A since the certification of the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement that changes any of the previous findings regarding the vehicle trip budget, traffic, or circulation. Since the project does not result in an increase in trip generation as compared to the expected generation assumed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, the project site remains within the trip budget assumed by earlier analyses. Therefore, the planned land exchange would not result in different traffic conditions at nearby intersections and roads than previously presented in past studies for the area. Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 31 was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding. Consideration for the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. 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 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 32 basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? All dry utilities (electricity, cable, telephone, and gas) and wet utilities (water, sewer, storm drain, wastewater and reclaimed water) are located in the streets surrounding the Project Site. Existing recent construction on the SOCCCD property and the Rancho Santiago Community College District's (RSCCD) Sheriff's Training Academy site connect to these utilities. SPA 11-003 would adopt minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project would not cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. The Proposed Project supports an exchange of ultimate property ownership of two properties between the SOCCCD and the County, and includes a SPA which modifies PA boundaries and designations, adds two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities/services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. The Project would not result in any changes to the utilities plan presented in the Specific Plan. Any demolition, removal, replacement, and connection with new underground utilities and service systems in the adjoining streets as part of site development would be the responsibility of the SOCCCD or County and occur as previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 33 the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. The FEIS/EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for individual development projects identified as "Implementation Measures (pages 4-43 through 4-46) to be complied with as appropriate. The SOCCCD and County will continue to be responsible for complying with these conditions as determined applicable by the City. Proposed SPA 11-003 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3~6, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 34 c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project. The Proposed Project would support an exchange of ultimate property ownership of two parcels between the SOCCCD and the County, and includes a SPA which modifies PA boundaries and designations, adds two new sub-PAs, and allows public institutional uses, including a law enforcement training center and animal care center, across Armstrong Avenue from the presently permitted location of such uses. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS/EIR; there are no new mitigation measures required; and there are no new significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project-specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR will be incorporated into subsequent actions that the SOCCCD and County commit to fully implement. Therefore, the Project does not create any impacts that have not previously been addressed by the FEIS/EIR. Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Bounces: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5~ through 5-11) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 11-003, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 35 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 Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. APPENDIX A SOCCCD -COUNTY LAND EXCHANGE TRAFFIC EVALUATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~~-• ~~ -A US T/N-FO US T .4 SSOC/A TES, /NC, TRAFF/C ENG/VEER/NG ANO TRANSPORTAT/ON PLANN/NG MEMORANDUM TO: Jeremy Krout, RGP Planning FROM: Krys Saldivar, Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. DATE: May 17, 2011 SUBJECT: ATEP -DISTRICT AND COUNTY LAND SWAP TRAFFIC EVALUATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. (AFA) has carried out a traffic evaluation for the proposed land swap between the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) and the County of Orange near the Advanced Technology & Education Park (ATEP) campus in 1\`eighborhood A of the Tustin Legacy in the City of Tustin. The attached report presents a traffic evaluation that will address any potential traffic i-npacts of the proposed project both on-site and off-site under project buildout conditions. 1037005ATEPDistnct-CnuntyLandSe:tp dcx 2223 Wellington Avenue, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-3161 Tel: (714) 667-0496 Fax: (714) 667-7952 www.austinfoust.com DISTRICT AND COUNTY LAND SWAP NEAR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY & EDUCATION PARK CAMPUS Traffic Evaluation The purpose of this report is to present a traffic evaluation of the proposed land swap between the South Orange County College District (SOCCCD) and County of Orange near the Advance Technology & Education Park (ATEP) campus in the City of Tustin. The work will address the potential traffic implications due to the land swap. Any intersection or roadway location that may be adversely impacted by the proposal will be identified in the report. The approach to be taken for this analysis is to first show comparative average daily trip (ADT) generation volumes before and after the land swap. From this information, conclusions will be made regarding the findings presented in previo>,IS traffic studies. The discussion will explain how the traffic results could differ with the land swap. It will also discuss how any incremental differences on the intersection data used in previous studies will not be affected. Hence a finding can be made that the project impacts and mitigation will be the same as previously presented for the area. Also, no attempt is being made here to identify impacts in the technical sense since no quantitative analysis is being presented. It should be noted that the development program for the land swap areas was assumed in the overall analysis for Tustin Legacy and subsequent focused analyses of the ATEP campus. Hence long- range traffic analysis findings associated with the land swap would be in conformance with those contained in previous traffic reports prepared for this area. Figure 1 shows the 10-acre areas to be swapped west of Armstrong Avenue. The County's parcel north of the District's parcel will be exchanged with that District parcel. The District parcel in its new location north of the County parcel would align it with the majority of the ATEP campus. The land swap proposal includes changing the permitted uses in the County's newly located parcel to allow an Animal Care Facility. This facility is currently proposed on the opposite side east of Armstrong Avcnuc, so the trips for this facility would simply be transferred across the street and would not change traffic patterns as the trips would still Load out to Armstrong Avenue. Also, no new construction is proposed on the east side of Armstrong Avenue to replace the relocated Animal Care Facility. The District's new parcel would have educational uses similar to the rest of ATEP. Utstnct and County Land S~eap Near Munn-Foust Associates. Inc. Ad~•anced TecMology & Education Park Campus 1 1037003ATEPDistrici-CountyLandSwap.doc The land swap proposal also includes increasing the floor area ratio (FAR) of the County's new parcel from 0.30 to 0.35, and decreasing the District's new parcel from 0.35 to 0.30 FAR. Since the two parcels have equal acreages, there is no overall change in proposed development intensity. Development is simply being shifted due to the relocation of parcels. The land use and trip generation for the proposed land swap are summarized in the table that follows. LAND SWAP AREAS LAND L'SE AND TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Amount AA1 Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lantl Use /Unit [n Out Total In Out Total ADT Tri ~ Rates Learnin Center 7SF .66 .07 .73 .l S .34 .49 6.12 Before Land Swa ~ Learnin Center Count) 130.68 TSF 86 9 95 20 44 64 800 Learnin Center District 152.46 TSF 10] 11 111 23 52 75 933 Total 283.14 TSF 187 20 206 43 96 139 1,733 After Land Swa Learnin Center (Count 152.46 TSF 101 I 1 l 1 l 23 52 75 933 Learnin Center District) 130.68 TSF 8G 9 95 20 44 64 800 Total 283.14 TSF 187 20 206 43 96 139 1,733 Abbreviations: ADT -average daily trips TSF - thousand square feet Vote: Trips for the Animal Care Facility are not shown here siticc it is simply being proposed to be relocated from the east side of Armstrong Avenue to the County parcel on the west side thereby not affecting traffic patterns. As can be seen from the table, there are no net changes to the land use intensity and resulting trip generation. In addition, the need for a full traffic study also cannot be established because the peak hour trips and average daily trips (ADT) are the same and trips would simply access the roadway system at the same place. Therefore the land swap proposal would not result in different traffic conditions at nearby intersections and roads than previously presented in past studies for the area. uutnct and County land Swap Nrar Aushn•Fousl Asscxiates. Inc. advanced Technology & Education Park Campus i IOi7003ATEPDistrict-CountyLandS~s•ap.doc inv nia ~ \ ~ = '~ i \ ~ ~. ~~~ \ r'' .' 3 , ~''~ ~~ f : ~ .~ ~~.• i=M iAV vl~lli lvA ••~ ..1..._..~._?~_.•- .g ( ,~ ~ i¢ I' i , ~ ~ ~ .._.~ ! ~ °u ~ yyuf ^^ ~~x I I i I I• .- ..~...J~ ~.._ ~ -- --.- in~+inv aiMlnAt 3M!!1! ~ l~ _~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ O 0 x Q 3 u Ca z LL 0 Q a c 3 v ~o ~ C O c 3 - v N "" L CO ro ci a~ _~ h M ~ ~ j Q N a 6 a ~ c v o z~ a~ 7 ~ N ~ w ~~ ~ ~ ~, o c o G~ V u ~ F- e e 'C .~ ~ ~ Q Attachment C Planning Commission Resolution No. 4178 RESOLUTION NO. 4178 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1406, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA)11-003, IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment is intended to: 1) modify Planning Area (PA) boundaries and designations in Neighborhood A by further dividing the existing PA to create two new sub-planning areas; and 2) add an animal care center as an allowed use in Neighborhood A and add a law enforcement training facility as an allowed use on one of the new sub- planning areas proposed in Neighborhood A; and 3) make other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The creation of new sub-planning areas as part of SPA 11-003 will also not affect the calculation of FAR, or the application of maximum FAR standards as currently identified in the Specific Plan. These public institutional uses are currently permitted in the Specific Plan, (the law enforcement training facility is currently permitted in Neighborhood A and the animal care center is permitted in the adjacent Neighborhood C). The land use changes would not be effective until completion of the land exchange agreement between the South Orange County Community College District and the County of Orange and other implementation actions by the City of Tustin. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on September 13, 2011, by the Planning Commission. C. 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. And, on December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. The FEIS/EIR along with its Resolution No. 4178 Page 2 Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. D. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. E. SPA 11-003 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master-planned development. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1406 approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 11-003 attached hereto as Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 13~" day of September, 2011. n J ho on Chairperson ~ ~~~~/ ~~ ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4178 Page 3 1 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 City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4178 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of September, 2011. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary 1 1 Exhibit A (Ordinance No. 1406) and Exhibit B (Environmental Checklist) to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4178 have been purposely not reproduced to reduce duplication. See Attachments A and B to the staff report to the Tustin City Council on this matter.