Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 Cont GPA 2011-01 & SPA 2011-04AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2012 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4190, recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Flan Amendment 2011-01 by amending the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan by updating recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces; and Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 (Ordinance No. 1413) by establishing that 30 percent of total allowable units can be rental, allowing transfer of residential units and .non-residential square footages between planning areas, eliminating a 9 -acre sports park from neighborhood E, requiring the execution of a development agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project, and implementing minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Below is a brief description of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Specific elan Amendment. For specific details, please refer to Attachment 1 — Planning Commission staff report dated February 1, 4, 2012. General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2011 -01 proposes the following: • Update of existing parks and recreation facilities inventory • Update proposed parks and recreational facilities • Update parks descriptions • Other minor text amendments Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04 proposes the following: • Increase of the allowable number of rental units (max.-Ihirly (30) percent); however overall unit count will remain unchanged. • Allow transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning areas • Eliminate a 9 -acre park from neighborhood E Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 28, 2012 Page 2 • Require the execution of a development agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project • Implement other minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Planning Commission at the meeting of February 14, 2012, considered the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2011-01 and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04. The Planning Commission requested additional information related to the percentage number of apartments, elimination of a 9 -acre park site, and clarity as to efforts made to the blimp hangars. The Commission asked staff to address the concerns at the next meeting. Apartment Issue Planning Commission Concerns: The following summarizes the questions raised by the Commission. • Why increase the amount of rental units from 25% to 30%? • Would like to see statistics showing the overall city and certain neighborhoods (i.e. Tustin Ranch) with regard to the rental units for comparison. • The school demand may increase due to the increase in rental units. • The current downturn in the economic climate does not mean we should increase apartment/rental units. • We should look further into the future and think about the future development of our City rather than react to the current economic state. Staff Response: The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan currently allows a total of 4,210 residential units within the City of Tustin portion of Tustin Legacy. With the proposed amendments, the unit count remains the same — 4,210. The following is a breakdown of residential units within each development area: 1 Includes Density Bonus 2 123 rental units in Neighborhood D and 192 rental units in Neighborhood G Total Required Authorized Authorized Neighborhood Authorized Affordable Apartments Apartments Dwelling Units under Current under Proposed Units Code SPA Columbus Square 1,075 266 240 240 Columbus Grove 465' 42 0 0 Field 1 376 78 0 0 Field 11 189 40 0 0 Former Master Developer 2,105 453 3152 1023 Total Under Current Code 4,210 879 Total Under Proposed 4,210 879 Amendment 1 Includes Density Bonus 2 123 rental units in Neighborhood D and 192 rental units in Neighborhood G Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 28, 2012 Page 3 The proposed establishment of a thirty (30) percent threshold of allowable units which can be for apartments is based on the following: • Through the Disposition Strategy approved by the City Council, a team of financial advisors considered the economics of future reuse at Tustin Legacy given the changes in the financial market and other financial development constraints on the property. • The Tustin Legacy will be developed with variety of commercial, offices and industrial parks which need affordable workforce housing for their employees. This component is critical for economic development and marketing of the Tustin Legacy. Pursuant to the Housing Element, Tustin's jobs/housing ratio was 1.56 compared to the County ratio of 1.48 and SCAG region of 1.19. Tustin is considered job - rich community. With the addition of about 6.1 million square feet of non- residential uses at Tustin Legacy, the City should strive to maintain a jobs - housing balanced community so that the majority of employees could also live in the community. • There are 453 affordable units (of the 1023 overall units) still required and left to be developed at Tustin Legacy within the area identified as the former maser developer footprint. The availability of these affordable units would accomplish a variety of Housing Element goals and objectives such as the provision of affordable units to special needs population (elderly, large families, extremely low income households, female —headed households, etc.); dispersion of affordable units throughout the community; promotion of equal housing opportunities for all existing and future City residents regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, sex, age, marital status, and household composition; etc. • As evidenced by the past experience of the City at Tustin Legacy, it is not financially feasible to develop affordable units as for sale product. For instance, at Tustin Field I and Tustin Field II, the City was required to write down the cost of land and to secure promissory notes for the affordable units with a subsidy in reduced land value in excess of $46 million. Given the large subsidies required to secure affordable ownership units and the need to individually monitor each sold unit for 45 years, affordable units accommodated in rental projects is more financially feasible as well as requiring less oversight and monitoring since there is only one owner per apartment project site. However, an adequate number of apartments need to be permitted to ensure financially feasibility of these projects by creating integrated mixed income and market rate units with affordable rental units. Where affordable units are accommodated in rental projects at Tustin Legacy, they will be restricted by a regulatory covenant agreement for 55 years ensuring project maintenance and affordability is maintained. • New development of rental units with covenants ensure adequate long term property maintenance unlike some triplexes and four-plexes built under County standards in older areas of the City where lack of property maintenance and substandard housing conditions are evidenced. Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 28, 2012 Page 4 • The Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocates the number of affordable units that the City needs to create. To ensure that the required number of affordable units are created, the City needs to facilitate the development of these units by making the project financially viable. • The General Plan Housing Element Goal 1 promotes the provision of adequate supply of housing to meet the need for a variety of housing types and the diverse socio-economic needs of all community residents. The provision of additional rental units at Tustin Legacy would provide for more product diversity to accommodate Tustin diverse socio-economic. • Tustin's current percentages for owner -occupied and renter -occupied are as follows: Tenure Dwelling Units Percent Owner -occupied 12,906 49.5% Renter -occupied 12,663 50.5% Total 25,569 100% • For comparison, the Tustin Ranch housing types are as follows: Housing Types Dwelling Units Percent Ownershi 6,711 75.6% Apartments 2,170 24.4% Total 8,881 100% *Source: Census 2010 • For comparison, Tustin Ranch provides only about 2 percent affordable units compared to Tustin Legacy of about 21 percent. • Student generation factors for apartments are lower compared to single family detached units but higher than single family attached units. The following are student generation factors included in the FEIR/EIS Addendum: Housing Types K_8th Grade 9th -12 th .- Single Family Detached 0.465 0.135 Single Family Attached 0.219 _ 0.077 Apartments 0.350 0.113 Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 28, 2012 Page 5 Elimination of the Park Site Planning Commission Concerns: The following summarizes the questions raised by the Planning Commission. • What are the options regarding the removal of the 9 -acre park? • Can the City retain the park until such a time that the City has the resources to complete it, similar to what was done with Citrus Ranch Park? • Can the park be rebuilt elsewhere? • Can the 9 -acre park site be dispersed throughout the City? • Can the HOA take up the park? • If there is actually no increase in density related to the elimination of the park, why not disperse the park land? Staff Response: • With the removal of the 9 -acre park site, there are still over 287 acres of open space planned at Tustin Legacy. This represents approximately 19 percent of land area in the Tustin portion of Tustin Legacy which. Attachment 2 shows the 9 -acre park site to be eliminated and overall park sites within Tustin Legacy. • Approximately 160 acres are planned within the Master Developer footprint (Attachment 3 — Parkland Summary). This represents 19.8 percent of the Master Developer footprint. These park sites (approximately 50 percent private and 50 percent public) will be built in conjunction with the developments. With the implementation of the parks and open space system at Tustin, the City will have a surplus of 143 acres park sites. All of these park sites are available to use by the general public (not just for the residents within Tustin Legacy) since there will be public access easements across these private park and open space areas (with the exception of any fenced and gated pool areas for association residents). • The Disposition Strategy approved and adopted by the City Council determined that the 9 -acre park to be not necessary to meet recreational needs given the extent of other public and private parks and open space resources designed and planned at Tustin Legacy. The Strategy also indicates that the City will not have the potential resources to build and maintain this park site particularly when the park site is determined to be unnecessary to accommodate recreational needs on the City. • The 9 -acre park site was originally planned for a detention basin. However, after further refinement of the Master Developer footprint infrastructure design, a new detention basin has been designed at the corner of Barranca Parkway and Redhill Avenue and included as part of the Linear Park (Attachment 2). • The area in which the 9 -acre park site was planned is surrounded by proposed commercial and industrial uses in which a park site is not conducive to the surrounding non-residential uses. The surrounding existing and proposed commercial and industrial uses and their employees will still have the ability to use the linear park for their recreational needs. As can be seen in Attachment 2, Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 28, 2012 Page 6 recreational opportunities are well diversified and appropriately located adjacent to and within close proximity to intended uses. • In addition to the planned park sites, an additional 180 acres or 11.9 percent of the land area within Tustin Legacy is used or proposed for other public and quasi -public uses. This include the Tustin Unified School sites (60 acres), South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) ATEP facility (68 acres), Rancho Santiago Community College District Law Enforcement Training facility (15 acres), Village of Hope (5.1 acres), the County of Orange Tustin Family Center (4 acres), the County Sheriff and Animal Control facility (10 acres), and City of Tustin facility (18 acres). All of these public and quasi -public uses further put a burden to the City's ability to generate resources to construct and maintain park sites. Blimp Hangars Planning Commission Concerns: The following summarizes the questions raised by the Planning Commission. • Provide a detailed list of actions taken pertaining to the blimp hangars. • Since the General Plan Element is exhaustively changed in so many other ways, the section on the blimp hangar should be changed as well. Staff Response: • The proposed General Plan Amendment identifies actions taken since the last update. Several mitigation measures related to the removal of the hangars have been conducted and have been approved by the Department of the Navy, the State Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council. • To provide a detailed list of actions and alternatives for maintaining one or both of the hangars will take a more substantial amendment to both the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the proposed language is deleted at this time from the General Plan Amendment. Redevelopment Agency Planning Commission Concern: • As the Redevelopment Agency is dissolved, the amendment should remove all references to the Tustin Redevelopment Agency. Staff Response: • Pursuant to AB 26X1, after the successor agency meets its obligation, it may create a new agency, subject to certain tax increment. As a result, the removal of references to the Redevelopment Agency is not necessary at this time. Should Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 28, 2012 Page 7 refinement to the law occur in the future, a separate Specific Plan Amendment will be brought forward to the Planning Commission and City Council. Other Minor Revisions The Planning Commission also suggested minor revisions to pages 34, 36, and 51 of the General Plan Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element by inserting legislation date (page 34), deleting updates related to blimp hangars (page 36), and replacing the word "goal" with the word "standard" (page 51). These revisions have been reflected in the proposed Resolution. 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 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. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. 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 (Attached to Resolution No. 4190). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. 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. CONCLUSION The proposed GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 (Ordinance No. 1413) would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the General Plan or the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is considered minor amendments. Accordingly staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04. Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 28, 2012 Page /&64V,t J stina Willkom Principal Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 14, 2012 (staff report only) 2. Map of 9 -acre Park Site to be Eliminated and Overall Park Sites at Tustin Legacy 3. Parkland Summary at Tustin Legacy 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 • Exhibit A - Environmental Analysis Checklist for GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011- 004 • Exhibit B - General Plan Amendment Pages and Draft Ordinance No. 1413 ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 14, 2012 AGENDA REPORT ITEM # 2 "A�__ h �`ETING DATE: FEBRUARY 14,20-,2 0. PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT- GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04 That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4190, recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2011-01 by amending the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan by updating recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces; and Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 (Ordinance No. 1413), by increasing the allowable number of rental units, allowing transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning areas, eliminating a 9 -acre sports park from neighborhood E, requiring the execution of a development agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project, and implementing minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. On January 18, 2011, and September 20, 2011, the City Council approved Final Tract Maps 17144 and 17404, respectively, which refined parcels designated for various land uses including parks and open spaces. The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2011-01 would update the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan by reflecting the refined acreages related to parks and open space parcels, and implement other minor text amendments (Attachment A). The revisions include the following: Update of existing parks and recreation facilities inventory Update proposed parks and recreational facilities Update parks descriptions o Other minor text amendments gajalsggjg�l 91W February 14, 2012 Page 2 Or Aprii 2-5-5, ?2',011, Vhe— Tustin City Council approved the "Tustin Legacy Disposition Strategy for -1hs Former Miester Developer Footprint." The Disposition Strategy recommends refinements and/or modifications to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to support development activities anticipated over the next economic cycle. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04 is in response to the recommendation contained in the Disposition Strategy adopted by the City Council. The proposed amendments include the following. New texts are underlined and deleted texts are strikethrough: • Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are to be replaced hereby in their entirety with a new Table 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 in the form attached as Exhibit B. • Section 3.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: The maximum number of dwelling units in each Planning Area may not exceed the numbers as specified on the Land Use Statistical Analysis (Table .3-1). The calculation of residential density, as stated in dwelling units per acre, shall be based on gross acres for each project unless otherwise noted in specific planning area development standards. Gross acres is defined as total acres less arterial roadways. • Section 3.2.3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: 3.2.3 Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations If a Planning Area is developed with less than the maximum number of units allowed, then the "unused" residential development potential may be transferred to another Planning Area WhiGh SUPPOFtS Fesidential uses. -444 RG Gase shall tFansfeFs of units Fesult'n X The maximum RUMbeF of dwel!iR@ units iR a Planning AFea eXGeed PF66GFibedD1------ A�-- — g,xrea- aximums by mefe than 10 peFGent withou a SpeGwfir. Plan 1 —4 1 1�- 04 ShOWA an #-- — I -tistiGal Analysis (Table 3 1�, unless provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in the overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonuses -granted pursuant to the Ci k Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing Ordinance (Density Bonus IQ February 14, 2012 Page 3 Ordinance), and subject to the fellewinq Gr-iteFia aFe net. stMeGtto a wFi#eR findin q-.mview and approval by the Director of Community Development-.* I . SuGh tFaRsfeFS Shall 110t iAGFease the total unks the eveFall SpeGifiG Planj 011-11 be- GOnsistent wfth the uses and developmeR 2. T-FaRsfe.,-- standaFds of the FeGeiyipg PlaRRing AFea; 43-. SigAiftant alteFation of the baSiG GhaFaGteF of development in the - . I Aq or losiRg Planning Afea. • Section 3.2.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: 3.2.5 (SeGtien BetetedjTransfer beiween Residential and Non - Residential Residential dwelling units and Non-residential ADTs may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus granted pursuant to the City Incentives for the Development of Affordable idwywrjuLlsi or me geveiopea or unaevelopea parcels within the contribut6gg netqhborhood agreeing to the transfer This approval shall be in the farm of an agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney prior to approval of the transfer AU transfers of available AD Ts shall be documented in the Trip Budget Tracking System. • Section 3.4.2A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: 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. • Community care facilities for six or fewer persons P • Condominiums and cooperatives P • Family care home, foster home or group home, for six or P fewer persons • Large family day care for seyepup to fourteen eve P children on single family detached lots in accordance with the Tustin City Code • Multiple -family dwelling units (apartments) in accordance C with tenure provisions in Section 3.4.2.GH • Residential care facility fcr elderly, for six or fewer P persons • Single-family attached dwelling units and duplexes P • Single-family detached dwelling units P Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 14, 2012 Page 4 • Single-family dsfachela' carriage way unirl-3 P ® Small family day care for less thar ssanmr, ctfld.,re r, an, _F) single family detached lots • Section 3.4.2.H.4 of the WAS Tustin Spacflc Plan is proposed to be arflanded to read as follows: 4. Tenure - Reuse/development in Planning Area 4 shall be preferably ownership tenure, Development of apartments is a discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use permit GeRsideFation of a .GGAditiGRal use peFfflit should inGlude the Gity's pFeferenGe feF owner -ship tenure, and in any event, no mem than 25 pement of the total numbei: upits peFmifted within the Gity of Tustin paFtion Gf the SpeGifir. Plan may be appFeved feF apaFtments. Section 3.4.3A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: 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. ChUrches and other religious institutions C Community care facilities for six or fewer persons P • Condominiums and cooperatives P Convalescent hospital C Family care home, foster home or group home, for P six or fewer persons • Large family day care for seven to twelve children P on single family detached lots in accordance with the Tustin City Code • Multiple -family dwelling units (apartments) in C accordance with tenure provisions in Section 3.4.3.,-, - ® Patio homes P • Private school C • Public or private preschools 171 • Fire Station P Public/private utility building facility C Residential care facility for elderly, for six or fewer P persons • Single-family attached dwelling units and duplexes P • Single-family detached dwelling units P • Single-family detached Carriage Way units P ® Small -family day care for less than seven children P on single-family detached lots Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 14, 2012 Page 5 Secf;cn 3.4.3.P.3 of the WAS TusUrn SpaC'c, ?fan -,s pToposad to be amended to ramar" vs'?011ows: 3. Tenure - Development in Planning Area 5 of apartments is a discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use permit. 144 GOSsideFiRg a GenditieRal use peffRit, RG moFe thaR 25 peFGeRt Gf t44e total numbeF Gf URqS permifted within the Tustin per -tion of the SpervifiG Plan aFea may be approved f9F apaFtments. Section 3.6.2.A.5 of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: 5. Residential uses: • Family care home, foster home or group home, for P six or fewer persons • Condominiums and cooperatives P • Multiple family dwellings (apartments) in accordance P with tenure provisions in Section 3.6.2.-,, • Single family attached dwelling units and duplexes P • Sections 3.6.2.1.4 and 5 of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed to be amended as follows: 4. Affordability ® In the event dwelling units are proposed, the following minimum affordable housing production objectives are intended to reflect the intention of the City to create a redevelopment project area (Community Redevelopment Law, section 33000) and as needed to meet Regional Housing Allocation needs as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan through the provisions of housing for households at very low, low and moderate income levels. Specific housing requirements for redevelopment and Housing Element compliance on a residential housing project will be established at the time of development project approval to ensure conformity with the Housing Element of the General Plan and other applicable provisions of California Law and to achieve the following: a) The number of affordable housing units in Neighborhood D shall be 196, of which 53 must be at the very low income level, ,- ''-"-- " at the low income level and - - - - - - at the moderate income level. If future amendments to the plan occur at least 15% of additional units for initial occupancy by very low income to moderate income households for redevelopment, with 6% (or 4096) of units affordable to very low income households. b) Restricted affordable housing units shall be r&Fsonably dispersed and located and may be accomplished in attached projects only. The affordable units shall be compatible with the design and use of market rate units in appearance, use of materials, and finished February 14, 2012 Page 6 qualify jf?estficted units sha;j be r2iloydabia, for al,' wbaest the period time r&,7,,,.,',,,radbysL`ate iaw, P I by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program. c) Prior to issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, a developer shall enter into a legally binding agreement with she City of Tustin or its Redevelopment Agency, and agree to deacy restrictions on targeted affordable housing units that are binding on property upon sale or transfer. Said agreements shag address the following: 1) Number of units by type, location, bedroom count 2) Standards for qualifying income and maximum rents or sales prices 3) Parties responsible for sales prices and incomes MUMMA =SMIUMVIC.- - 1.7M."T MY ...... Ism INMU. . ..... . . . . ............ MIM. IgAy"MIX 5. Tenure — gFeateF thaR 60% Of the unit6 at the veFy low mGeme aRa4GYv-�orne leve!6 (with a maximum of 40-1,4 of the units at the veiy 19W jnGG T —4 ')rl-,at the h9W iRGOme level), 200% at the rnedemte inGel:R - �"- -1- -% - level and -:4t A- market rate level-,- Thirty (3(?)percentof the total number of units authorized within the City of Tustinportionof the Specific Plan are permitted for apartments. Sections 3.9.2.1.4.e) and 3.9.2.1.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed to be amended to read as follows: A =SMIUMVIC.- - 1.7M."T MY ...... Ism INMU. . ..... .......... - iia- Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 14, 2012 Page 7 5. 0 income level (with a of 0 inGeme , 0 at the FnedeFate inGeme level0 at mar `et-r-ate4evel. Thirtv (30) percent of the total number of units authorized within the City of Tustin portion of the Specific Plan is permitted for apartments. • Section 3.9.4.J.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is proposed to be amended to read as follows: 4. Tenure - Reuse/development of Planning Area 21 shall be encouraged to be ownership tenure. Development of apartments is a discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use permit. pFefeFenGe 900 ---hip tenum, and in any event, no thaR :Rri -f the tetal AumbeF of units peFmi#ed may be appFeved4ef apa#ments. On June i, 2011, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance No. 1401, requiring the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project. On July 5, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1402, extending the requirement for the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project for a period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. The proposed SPA 2011-04 would also codify this requirement in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as follows: Sections 4.2.9 through 4.2.10 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed to be amended to read as follows: 4.2.9 Development Agreement To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation to comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Leaisiature of the State of California adopted the "Development Agreement Statute," Section 65864 et seg of the Govemment Code The Development Acgreement Statute authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and to provide for development of such property and to establish certain development rights therein Pursuant to the authorization set forth in the Development Agreement Statute, the City has enacted procedures for entering into development agreements which are contained in Tustin City Code Sections 9600 to 9619 The processing and approval of Development Agreements is intended to augment and further the purposes and intent of the General Plan,Specific Planning Commission Report CPA 2011 -01 and SPA 2011-04 February 14, 2012 g 8 8 Plan and Final EISIEIR and will ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and additional development in accordance with the General Plan, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and Final Program EIWEIS for the Reuse and Disposal of the Former MCAS Tustin and Addendum A "Final EISIEIR"). Further, Development Agreements will establish a schedule of performance for future development including obAgations and phasing tit-gerina mechanisms that ensure that adequate local and Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Pro -gram improvements are in place to support anticipated development in accordance with the Phasing Plan identified in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Final EISIEIR an Addendum, and any Tustin City Code requirements. Accordingly/ prior to issuance of any permits or approval of an entitlements within the Specific Plan area, all Drivate development shall first obtain a Development Ar Bement in accordance with Section 65864 et sect, of the Government Code and Sections 9600 to9619 of the Tustin City Code. 4.2,910 General Notes A. Where required, approval from the South Coast Air Quality Management District or successory agency(ies) shall be obtained for any devices or processes responding to mandated actions. The City of Tustin or Irvine, as applicable, will assist in this process to the extent possible. B. Whenever the regulations contained in this Specific Plan conflict with the regulations of the Tustin City Code or Irvine's Codes, as applicable, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall take precedence. The Tustin City Code or Irvine Codes, as applicable, shall apply regarding any standard or regulation not covered by this plan. 4.2.Severability If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, exhibit, table or portion of this Specific Plan is found to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court having jurisdiction, such a decision shall not invalidate the remaining portions in whole or in part of the 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 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. On Planning Commission Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 February 14, 2012 Page 9 AprH 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum end Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA). The FEISIEIR, 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 (Attached to Resolution No. 4190). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. 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. The proposed GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-0-4, ;Ordinance No. 1413) would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the General Plan or the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is considered minor amendments. Accordingly staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve GPA 2011 -01 and SPA 2011-04. JLAting Willkom Principal Planner Attachments: Elizabeth A. Director of Community Development A. General Plan Amendment revised pages B. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan revised pages C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 • Exhibit A. Environmental Analysis Checklist for GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-004 • Exhibit B. Draft Ordinance No. 1413 ATTACHMENT Map of 9 -acre Park Site to be Eliminated and Overall Park Sites at Tustin Legacy TuSTIN LEGACY, TuSTIN, CALIFORNIA 1nir. 4 � � it � ..•.. Ati "�4 �<l'+• �" G? 'l� _ Fn `!r to sum ��y r� �� rte" a ,�}� � }� �� rw•+„� ,�. ■■ 4 low. I� not 40 r�A 4 •' i ..,�, L �& M TUSTIN LEGACY, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA ��aA �►+ s rr • � � '�{ ° ��w .`"'.`�' Wx �,c- a "� �� ,� �'�.�`'' ,��'- " `A� ,. G t -rt _ �ry Nov L 'r r ;e5 "Cg`s Publically accessible Open Space for f � , &A 3 f � , &A ATTACHMENT pzir,Mand Summary at Tustin Legacy All Neighborhoods Neighborhoods Public Private Total A 24.10 0 24.10 1 B 0.00 3.89 3.89 C 84.50 0 84.50 D 58.62 -- - 13.39 - - 72.01 E 0 29.26 29.26 G 18.46 47.77 66.23 H 7.81 0 7.81 l Total 193.50 94.30 287080 Master Developer Footprint AWghborhoods publ C private Total D 59 13 - - 72 E 0 29 29 - _ G 18 41 59 - Total 77 a 33 �� �� ATTACHMENT 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 RESOLUTION NO. 4190 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO'N OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 BY AMENDING THE CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY UPDATING RECREATION PLAN TO REFLECT EXISTING AND FUTURE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES; AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04 (ORDINANCE NO. 1413), BY ESTABLISHING THAT THIRTY (30) PERCENT OF TOTAL ALLOWABLE UNITS CAN BE RENTAL, ALLOWING TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGES BETWEEN PLANNING AREAS, ELIMINATING A 9 -ACRE SPORTS PARK FROM NEIGHBORHOOD E, REQUIRING THE EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PRIOR TO OR CONCURRENT WITH CITY APPROVAL OF ANY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO 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 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment 2011-01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces. Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 invoives minor amendments intended to: 1) increase the allowable number of rental units; 2) allow transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning areas; 3) eliminate a 9 -acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4), require the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development ,project; and, 5) 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. B. That on January 18, 2011, and September 20, 2011, the City Council approved Final Tract Maps 17144 and 17404, respectively which thereby refined parcels designated for parks and open spaces. General Plan Amendment 2011-01 would update the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan by reflecting the refined Resolution No. 4190 Page 2 acreages related to parks and open space parcels and implementing other minor text amendments. C. That on April 25, 2011, the Tustin City Council approved the "Tustin Legacy Disposition Strategy for the Former Master Developer Footprint." The Disposition Strategy recommends refinements and/or modifications to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to support development activities anticipated over the next economic cycle. SPA 2011-04 is in response to the recommendation contained in the Disposition Strategy adopted by the City Council. D. That on June 7, 2011, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance No. 1401, requiring the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project. On July 5, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1402, extending the requirement for the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project for a period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. SPA 2011-04 would codify this requirement in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. E. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on February 14, 2012, by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission continued the item to February 28, 2012, asking staff to address concerns brought up at the meeting. F. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on February 28, 2012, by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission considered staff responses to their concerns. G. 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 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. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. 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. H. 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 Resolution No. 4190 Page 3 FFEIS/ER 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. SPA 2011-04 is consistent with the Tustin General Man. 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. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2011-01 and adopt Ordinance No. 1413 approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04 attached hereto as Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED ISD by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 28th clay of February, 2012. JEFF R. THOMPSON Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Resolution No. 4190 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I arra the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tuston, Caffornua; that Resolution No. 4100 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 28th day of February, 2012. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 Environmental Analysis Checklist for GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 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 tabes 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 docurm nt pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Project Title(s): General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2011-01 and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04, Minor Text Amendments Lead Agency: City of 'Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573-3115 Project Location: The General Plan encompasses the entire City of Tustin and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Harvard Avenue to the east, lied Hill Avenue to the west, and 13arranca 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 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment 2011-01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces. Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 involves minor amendments intended to: 1) increase the allowable number of rental units; 2) allow transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning areas; 3) eliminate a 9 -acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4), require the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project; and, 5) 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. No change to the General Plan land use or zoning designation is proposed. B. Surrounding Uses: General Plan: Various residential, commercial, and industrial land uses MCAS Tustin Specific Plan: 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 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. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Supplemental and Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Supplemental and Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. 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 C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ 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 effects) 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. Preparer: Date: February 2, 2012 Date: February 2, 2012 Elizabeth A Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial tight or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR OVALITY: 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 Ne -w More Change From Signcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts tlnalysis ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ 7 ❑ Z M. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption., or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? . e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No ,Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public Use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial New More Change Froin Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts .Analysis ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial ❑ .New More Change From Z Sign4cant Severe Previous g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an Impact Impacts 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? 11 ❑ N 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 a locally -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 groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Anatysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ P:1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04 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 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. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEiS/EiR along with its Supplement and Addendum 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, a multi-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. PROPOSED PROJECT The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation (COR) Element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the current adopted General Plan or the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment 2011-01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces. Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 involves minor amendments intended to: 1) increase the allowable number of rental units; 2) allow transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning areas; 3) eliminate a 9 -acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4) require the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 2 development project; and, 5) 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. No change to the General Plan land use or zoning designation is proposed. ANALYSIS 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. 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? GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. These 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. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impede GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 3 6OT is elso not located );vlthj�n t"he v*,cirit of a designated stErE'S' scenic highway. The Project would not chE.rge the ,,m6nduslions ol" the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from "he FEEISIE'R 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 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. MitigationlMonitoilng 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 Il. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Evaluation of Environmental impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 4 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? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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 FEiVEIR, 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. MitigationfMonitoring 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. GPA { -01 AND SPA2 /1 Page so'Unces. Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse c_` ,MIDAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4- d CO. through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 Glnrough, 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 °L-hrough 3%88, 'and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pmgrarn Ilio 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) iota . raT ��iallty 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'? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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 air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. 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 overall 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2019-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 6 The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEEIVEIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (consllruction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air 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 ns�� 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 makes minor refinements to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; there would be no increase in overall development intensity. The Project does not modify the overall 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 FEISIEIR. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 7 significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council o.y� 16, 2001. Sources, 7ield Observations FEiS/EIR for Disposal and Reese of MCAS Turtin (Peages -143 through153, 4-207 through 4-280, pages 7 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 8-85 Through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 8-88, and pages 3-1104, 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? n,) 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? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Pian. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 8 The Proposed Project would nol'- cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIMIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -sped is 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 FEISIEIR. 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 FEIVEIR 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. MitigatiorMonitoring 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 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.67' Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 9 •:) Cause a substantial adverse• . o archaeologicalf an pursuant0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? `t:: Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the SCR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Pian. 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/ECR, Addendum, and Supplement. 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. Mitigation/Monitoring Required; Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEWER, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 10 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (,Flages 3-33 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 -32, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages -304 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 Tend shaking? • Seismic -related ginound@11,ura, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Rs ;Lhl in substantial soil wrrosuori or the los8 uT topsoil? c) Be iocated 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 19-1-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? GPA 20'11-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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. 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 not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR as Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 11 prepared. Yherefbre, the Proposed Prqiec� and its implementation are consistent with the FESIEHR. As a result, no new rniigaticn measures are required in relation to impacts to gedcgyand 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 mudflovis-) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high- intensity ground shalking, 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. MifigationlMonitoring 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 WAS 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 Evaluation of Environmental impacts (SPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 12 6 a � ,02. ARDS A K4 y ' a a j Create a sigrffRFc _ t h,?,,w-aTd to the pubellic o { ea env, '92ni,-Ou 'n the routine transpoTt, 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? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor tent amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire WAS 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 13 .mpementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and ' azardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - sped J Mc or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazarclous materials that a.,,re identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of `'he Project. There is no new information relative to 'n---izards and hazardous matsra�s 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. --,,','he 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 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) Evaluation of Environmental impact, GPA 2011-Q1 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 14 hiJCf1kQP 'sin Specific Plan/ euse Me- PFGes 3-35 trough 3-62, ,pa,c 3-� through 3-81, pages 3-$2 "ror4� 3m33, en gages 3-104', through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer CFOST) for Southern Parceis -8, 16- 2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 3-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability lo Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Pian (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 thio course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in on- ov c•tfg—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 additjonal sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 1) 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 15 Potential" �-,unofll firnmn,;cst-co.,,nstructlon act! idift! a a? m) Result in a pvoksnldai ?oT Q,,7 ti's )rrnwester pollutants frorn, w-aas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or aqulpznent maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous nnaterials 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? GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project will not cause direct impact to hydrology and water quality. 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 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. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards and would require preparation of a WQMP. 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 L-4MTMTfn-M1---M1Tu7ffrdm FrAMTUO GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page'16 nrmrps sevena, lmpwls related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding v4ouild result from Zhe 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 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 u,,. --73s phvin, ofty, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the prqaect (i,nmhidlng, 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? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would increase the number of rental units within the Specific Plan to not exceed thirty (30) percent of the total overall number of units within the GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 17 Specific Plan and would allow the transfer of either residential units or non- residential square footages among planning areas. These amendments will not increase the overall development potential or residential units allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to land use and planning. 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 pToject-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. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 18 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? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor tent amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and 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 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 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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 Evaluation ofEnvironmentalImpacts PA 2011 1 AND SPA r Page through 3-137) Tustin General Pla,r EX pdos re ,off pa: sons I'D o� erizr= �"�n o n% 1�ti���� ���as 8 of standzwds astabRah' a in the locai genera p�emi coT nolae �,Td`nasencs, or applicable a dards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excess -we ground home vibration or ground •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, vuhsre such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport oT public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the WAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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/EPR. 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 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 f a • a. ErA .011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page avoiding significantshort-term construction -related noiseo f be no changes proposed that would modify development intensity, traffic generation, f f heightsetbacks,.r or other development - f Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEA 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 & HOUSINGS Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and bzinesses) 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? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential or the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 21 total number of residential units allowed by the [CAS Tustin Specific Although the proposed amendment include an increase in the total number of apartment units, the overall total number of housing units and associated population would not increase and be impacted by the proposecl, p-oject. 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 FEWEIR 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) 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 rlfffmnlgfl�l��d 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: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 22 GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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 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 adaption 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 development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Future implementation of the project site in compliance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. As a condition of approval, future development projects would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at pian check. •- # P -14W GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 23 sc?,'Qols The impacts to schools resulting from future implementation of the proposed project would be similar to that identified in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. Consistent with SB 50, the City of Tustin has adopted implementation measures that require future developer to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits. The payment of school mitigation impact fees authorized by SB 50 is deemed to provide "full and complete mitigation of impacts" from the development of real property on school facilities (Government Code 65995). SB 50 provides that a state or local agency may not deny or refuse to approve the planning, use, or development of real property on the basis of a developer's refusal to provide mitigation in amounts in excess of that established by SB 50. Parks Future development within Tustin Legacy may include uses such as pearks, recreation facilities, theaters, museums, and various other public and private recreational uses. The proposed SPA 2011-04 would eliminate a nine (9) acre neighborhood park originally located within Neighborhood E. This neighborhood park has been determined under the Disposition Strategy for former Master Developer Footprint adopted by the City Council to be not necessary to meet recreational needs for Tustin Legacy or the community given the extent of other public and private parkland and open space resources designed for Tustin Legacy. 0—MMOM. Room= Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that will directly benefit development activities Within the Specific Plan area. Developers within the Specific Plan area are required to make a fair share contribution to a portion of the development costs of the library expansion. To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the site proceeded. 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 24 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? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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. The project however would eliminate a nine (9) acre neighborhood park originally located within Neighborhood E. This neighborhood park has been determined under the Disposition Strategy for former Master Developer Footprint adopted by the City Council to be not necessary to meet recreational needs for Tustin Legacy or the community given the extent of other public and private parkland and open space resources designed for Tustin Legacy. 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 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 25 substantial increase in &* severity of previously Identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaker, that require major revisions of the pramous 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; appiicable 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 Pian/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 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacfty? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 26 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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. 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. 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 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 27 Sources: Field Observations FESS/ iP Tor Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-113 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-208 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-127 through 5-147) MCAS Tustin Speck 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 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 wzti> ,� disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and locai 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 basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? GPA 2011-01 ARID SPA 2011-04 would implement minor text amendments to the COR element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 28 The Project would not cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. 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 FEWER 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. 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 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. Proposed GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 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 346, 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 GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Pege29 XVIL MANDATORY FINDING U90, -F a) Does the project have he pW:oerUE11 -to dev �,M-de the environment, substantially reduce the hah!'tat of a fish ZT 1,1,4DdIffIts species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below sed--sus� ,lTnln,-J levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal 03 - eliminate important examples of the major periods of California hlslor� or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEIS/EIR 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. 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 CE QA 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 30 Mitigation/Monitoring Required. The FE-0EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Spec& 1:1an. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City CouncH in the FBS/BR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of WAS Tustin (pages 5-4. through 5-11) WAS 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, rni'Jgation 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 nelx mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Litigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 1, 6, 2001, and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Exhibit B to Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 General Plan Amendment Pages and Draft Ordinance No. 1413 o Tustin's location and geology make it an important archaeological and paleontological resource area. o Methods of protecting archaeological and paleontological resources while permitting development must be addressed. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM o A comprehensive integrated plan for parks, open space, and scenic highways does not exist, and so, a complementary system of such resources is difficult to create or maintain. o Without the support of school facilities, Tustin faces a shortage of recreational facilities, especially in the southern and western portions of the community where densities are higher. o In 2�M2011, the City had 82:4113 -acres of existing local and community parks, but needed an additional 1 -06114 -acres to serve its population based on a standard of three acres per 1,000 persons based on Januanf 2011 City population of 75,781. sphereThe ru.kiureczvurg r[ 66 acres shoft of meeting the needs of both existing and o Regional recreation facilities will be located in Tustin, requiring coordination with adjacent jurisdictions. o Limited recreation space often precludes programs for all segments of population. Increasing population will aggravate this problem. o Given the limited recreation space, careful planning is needed to provide a balance of diverse facility needs. o The community's facilities are limited and disrepair would create a severe deficiency in facilities. CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 10 j ISIE 17-,20082012 X2012 through the winter months, thus reducing peak loads in the drier summer months. A fourth program is the OC Conjunctive Use Well Program. This program offers local agencies low interest loans for construction of up to three wells. An additional method of managing the groundwater resources is using reclaimed water. The Irvine Ranch Water District supplies reclaimed water by the Michelson Water Reclamation Plant, a 15 million gallon per day facility. Although the water is of near potable quality, it is used strictly for irrigation purposes and replaces water that would otherwise be pumped from the ground. The Irvine Ranch Water District services East Tustin. The City of Tustin also promotes water conservation, through its water conservation ordinance. The ordinance, "Finding and Determining the Necessity for Adopting a Water Management Plane identifies water conservation stages and water use limitations. The Water Management Plan ordinance specifies water conservation stages and prohibited activities during each stage. The City also participates in low volume toilet replacement, showerhead replacement and landscape water conservation programs through the Municipal Water District of Orange County. In response to Assembly Bill 1881, legislation of 2006, the City adopted the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. Its purpose is to promote the design, installation, and maintenance of landscaping in a manner that conserves regional water resources by ensuring that landscaping projects are not unduly water - needy and that irrigation systems are appropriately implemented to minimize rvater waste. Water resources and features, including watersheds and riparian habitats, are very important to Southern California, and riparian habitats are quite rare. The most prominent water feature in Tustin is Peters Canyon. Several mitigation measures were adopted for Peters Canyon as part of the East Tustin Specific Plan. These mitigation measures continue to reflect City policy. For several years, the Lower Peters Canyon Retarding Basin contained a small riparian habitat. This habitat severely deteriorated in recent years. The City will work with the County of Orange, which recently constructed a replacement CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 34 j TnTQ'2012 0"W116,10 W.A -NAME LOCATION ACRES FACILITIES 1. Camino Real 13602 Park Center 4.3 Preschool & school-age apparatus, basketball Camria-Reall ane court 2. Centennial 74722 Syc-antere & 8.0 Group picnic area, preschool & school-age Devonshire apparatus, fitness course, horseshoe pit, basketball courts, volleyball courts 3. Columbus Tustin 14712 Prospect '- 13.0 Basketball courts, football/soccer field, softball h -Ane fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts, gymnasium 4. Frontier 1400 Mitchell & UR 4.5 School-age apparatus, frisbee golf, fitness course, horseshoe pit, softball fields, barbecue grill 5. Magnolia Tree ??. 74 Gherrywee" 4.2 Preschool & school-age apparatus, basketball Fig Tree Drive court, tennis courts, barbecue grill 6. McFadden- McFadden & 0.4 Picnic tables Pasadena Pasadena 7. Peppertree 1130 W. First &_G 5.51 Preschool apparatus, fitness course, horseshoe pit, youth ball fields, barbecue grill 8. Pine Tree 1402 Re hM- ti -Bryan 4.2 Preschool and school-age apparatus, volleyball courts 9. Clifton Miller 300 Centennial Way 0.1 Meeting room, auditorium, microphones, kitchen Community Center 10. Tustin Area Senior 200 South C Street 0.4 ' Meeting rooms, game room, auditorium, Center microphone, kitchen, pool tables 11. Laurel Glen Park '330114eritage & 3.0 Passive park with picnic facilities and a tot lot M ford Road 12, Sports Park 12850}arAberee an 20.0 Lighted softball/soccer fields, tennis courts, Robinson multi-urpose court, racquetball court 13. Cedar Grove 11385 Pioneer 9.7 Pre-school age apparatus, group picnic facilities, Roadway nature/redwood/cedar trees _ 1de= 14. Heritage -Ay Park 2750 Kinstnan Circle 5.0 Tot lot, picnic area, basketball court, roller hockey s tksneh 1-49� 15. Tustin Family Newport/Sycamore 0.53 Pre-school, meeting/gaane rooms, multi-purpose Youth Center Ave. activity rooms, computer lab, after school drop-in rcor, m 290otoa.Parm� . t, stiig trri s,rs hilltop leuton free gazebo, on -sits parking, orchard, laza areacnlr ods with barbecue vrill I7. ioii�L :'�,7r R 10 50 Pimeer oa .I icntc s ie ter 2 rmiit s, as e' CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN CONSERVATION /OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION ELEMENT 43 fir: 17-,2M2012 NA-ME LOCATIO'K ACRS FACILITIES mstrooms, barbecue Fill, walki-ng Fail, waterjeatur. plav area 73— Pat un basketball half c. --�Si Hallev Drive Playground, basketball court, �fflhfls Square Columbus rluare 12 _J Playground, picnic area Mtgonlely Square: Aoutgonteri 51m, 1:0 Plqground, basketball hal court, Arlin Park, Arlington treet 1.0 Playground, baiketball half court, picidc area iqton Paw .'Wonigmneyn. Paseo 0.4 Paseo, Picnic area pasevi Arlington Paseo 0.3 Paseo, Picnic area 21. Columbus Grove t Columbus Grove Drive 1.0 ajigroffild 17'M riem"C 'vrn Grove Park' lasinine'Place 2.7 Phfi&r - irt, Picnic ara- 11 Total Acres 82-.4113,5 I `Kfvate park accessible to public CITY OF TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN 44 CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ RECREATION ELEMENT General Standards The State of California Planning and Zoning Law and the Subdivision Map Act Code Section 66477 (The Quimby Act) indicate that the legislative body of a City or County, may, by Ordinance, require the dedication of land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval for a final tract map or parcel map. In cases where such dedications or fees have not been obtained for particular lots through a map, they may be imposed at the time that building permits are issued. Among other requirements, the following conditions must be met: o The Ordinance must include definite standards for determin- ing the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of any fee to be paid in lieu thereof; and o The legislative body has adopted a General Plan containing a Recreation Element, and any proposed park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards contained therein. In conformance with this statute, the City of Tustin Conservation, Open Space, and Recreation Element includes standards determining land requirements for future park sites. The standards identified in Table COSR-4, s z: w r_ rr'e -and in the following text should be utilized in selecting sites for parks and should serve as guidelines governing the acceptance of land dedicated to the City. Future acquisition should focus on acquiring land for parkettes and neighborhood and community parks as well as obtaining easements and property for trails. Generally, parketten are not cost effective to maintain and this will be considered prior to acceptance of dedication. Figure COSR 5 presents the Tustin Recreation Plan for parks and other recreational open space facilities. CI'T'Y OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PT AN RECREATION ELEMENT 1 45 JUNE i20982012 TABLE CJSII 3 PROPOSED CITY -PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Source: WAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tract Maps 17744 Pr 17404, Legacy Park Final Design Guidelines z Private parks;. open space, and greenbriis accessible to public. Portions of coJnnnnrit y linear park to be privately owned bot accessible to the Public, TABLE COSR-4 EXISTING AND FUTURE PARK ACREAGE NEEDS j ` Acreage: it`ed PROPOSED FEATURES : r�; C SITE CR GE LOCATION PARK P i Surplttsj (shortfall) of School Pimo rids (1, acres/ School '.)laygroonds exam oil �:tr�k�tt-nal-F'-k =k;�� � •�,�,nr^c1-Pat-tE�a c�£ttl�p�tr-pgs�:�"FIs-€2elkt 1 -reages 1000) en -s ci �ieailaeeA dark �A giE* e� J ofee X173 MCAS Tustin 78114 81T> �'rt�-i �ol�se�tasl -age agl��t-at-its; i c r ee - a7 in mside�ial areas -erg I, e � i� , �� Various facilities designed to support uesidenls and �t*IPrivtate Parks, 10rM3 base Various locations at e in true project with focus on Open Space and 25,235 Tustin Legacy tarfar turf areas, pictricareas, and small tot- s, Greenbeltst 38 52 lot features JFuhveSOF =I 227, 327,721 hpp{{ :'YC�t'.LY%Y�ESC"-"J ���'ttF.St� NICASTustin -Ct�%S.L�E��f2t.•ECIzt��J��ftL�EI"�tSE.TiCFtTJ - (+=273) 4.142 of site One community Park in and fa-UlHes,—Mite areas, —xtt#ty eenter Various passive MCAS Tustin Neighborhood A, anotiter and active recreational facilities on 17"R: 101 cortttaunity park centrally located in the project and community parks to uteet Inroad steeds of residents and employees in fire Pfrtks Linear PPark elemenis project including lighted fields and within various other picnicareas, co munihf facilities, etc. neighborhoods. and inclusion of furter features in Lhtear ,Park: Cottnhl of Oran c 84 Planning Area 6 of tire X1CA., Tustln Specific f TBD by the Co ;ihi o, Orange Urban e orurr I .rtr Plant TOTAL ACRES 54:1268 Source: WAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tract Maps 17744 Pr 17404, Legacy Park Final Design Guidelines z Private parks;. open space, and greenbriis accessible to public. Portions of coJnnnnrit y linear park to be privately owned bot accessible to the Public, TABLE COSR-4 EXISTING AND FUTURE PARK ACREAGE NEEDS j ` Acreage: it`ed School Playground Acreages Population Park 0 acnes l' Surplttsj (shortfall) of School Pimo rids (1, acres/ School '.)laygroonds Surplus/ (Shortfall) ui 1000; 1 -reages 1000) Acreages lExisting City C}3,78875,781 --,92.1 X173 ( 04.6114) 78114 81T> 3(107) Future City - a7 0}142 114120 1277--' 13(173) f xisting SOI( 25,235 76 10 (66) 38 52 14 JFuhveSOF =I 227, 327,721 E-283 10 (+=273) 4.142 52 111.', Soe: lifornia Department of Finance, Population Estimate January 1, 2011, 4'r, ? W-3 General Plan Land Use Element 1. Unless alternate ratio are established in art adopted Specific Plant, Development.Agreenrent, or any other applicable agreement. Please mote that a higher standard for the provision of public and private parkland has been identifiedfor the WAS Tustin CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 46 Tt'r.i� 08 012 Specific Plan to nteet lire needs of this area of the Cihj. The Specific Plan identifles by neigliborltoodrequired parks and open spactj acreages that need to be accarnniodated. 4-.2. This standard is satisfied by neighborhood and community parks. Peters Canyon Regional Park is not used to meet this standard. However, the MCAS Tustin urban regional park is included due toactive sports facilities that willbe available to the comrnurdty--'---e-p-Y4,a-t�- *-w-East-T-5 are also irwhided-. W. School playground acreages are based on the assumption that35 percent of approximately acres of land `;%' Onls 'Tustin associated with joint use ogreentent between tlie,Cihj and w5chool Districts is used for recreational purposes. Sphere of Influence CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 1 47 i UNE 47—,WO82012 Parketten Parkettes are small, passive, local parks, generally less than one acre in size. Most parketten are established in higher density areas as a substitute for backyards. Size and location are usually determined by the availability of vacant land. These parks may serge any age group, depending on the characteristics of the neighborhood. They usually feature play apparatus, a paved area for wheeled toys, benches, and landscape treatment. They may also feature children's play areas, quiet game areas, and some sports activities such as multi-purpose courts, if space allows. Some mini -parks are natural areas with minimal improvements (e.g., benches) which safeguard identified archaeological/paleontological sites or other natural resources, or serve as viewpoints. As the City approaches build -out, it becomes more important to take advantage of opportunities available to the City for the establishment of park space. Parkettes could be established in areas that lack conveniently accessible parkland. The maintenance costs of proposed parketten require consideration prior to acceptance of dedication. Neighborhood Parks Many of the facilities located within neighborhood parks are associated with active recreation. All neighborhood parks should contain some area for active recreation depending on the size of the park. The park site should contain consolidated parcels with appropriate area devoted to active recreation such as ball fields (soccer and baseball), multi-purpose fields and open turf, game courts, tot lots, picnic facilities, swimming pools, community buildings, restroom building and on-site parking. The neighborhood park site also needs to include amenities such as frees, shrubs, groundcover, turf areas, benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, shade structures, paved or decomposed- gralli to trails. The standard minimum size for neighborhood parks is three acres. Neighborhood parks should be Iocated near the center of a neighborhood unit and, if possible, adjoining an elementary school. Easy access should be provided to pedestrians, bicyclists, and maintenance and public safety vehicles. A neighborhood park should not be separated from its user population by major highways, CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 49 railroads, or other un -traversable obstacles. A neighborhood park should be situated adjacent to or near greenbelts, open space linkages, or other community open space/recreation facilities to facilitate an open space system throughout the City. Community Parks Community parks are intended to serve an approximate population of 10,000. No specific shape is required for community parks as they are intended to incorporate both active recreational facilities and passive open space in the form of unique physical features such as a ridgeline. Community parks should be a minimum of eight acres. Community parks should encompass pedestrian and bicycle paths and natural open space. Community parks should contribute to the City's open space system by connecting to neighborhood parks through open space linkages or connecting to other recreational facilities. They should be located at or near the intersection of an arterial near the center of their service area. Community parks should contain space for active recreational facilities such as gamefields, game courts, swimming pools- ,nce!;:'ter, and play areas as well as community centers, on-site parking, restrooms, and picnic areas. Amenities such as trees, shrubs, gro-undcove-r, large open turf areas, hardscape, benches, trash receptacles, paved and decomposed granite trails, club house with storage area, lighted parking lots to meetfacility and amenity demands, picnic tables, barbeques, shelter structures, and restroom buildings should be provided Community Linear Park A Community Linear Park is envisioned at Tustin Legacy. The Connnunihj Linear Park would provide (private and public owned portions) trees, shrubs, groundcover, turf, hardscape, benches, trash receptacles, lighting, small structures (ie. gazebos, shelters, trellis, sculptures, monuments), shallow hardscape andlor riparian waterway, simulated streams and other water features with connectivity, paved and decomposed granite trails for pedestrian and bicycle trail connectivity across the parkland network in the Tustin Legacy Project, . CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 50 Regional Parks The County of Orange owns and maintains many regional recreational facilities. Policy for the development, maintenance, and improvement of these parks is provided by the Orange County Recreation Element, which includes a Master Plan for regional recreational facilities in the County. The County currently operates the Peters Canyon Regional Park within the northwesterly portion of East Tustin. The City also supports the County in locating other regional park facilities in the City. A regional park of approximately 84.5 acres (including 11 acres occupied by a blimp hanger) is proposed to be transferred to and operated by the County within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. Outdoor recreation activities and adaptive reuse of existing buildings within this regional park location for recreation -oriented uses is planned. School Playgrounds/joint Agreements Fublk school playgrounds under the jurisdiEdOn of the Tustin t444ed SEhE)0>-P;Str-;,,t open w t " to b after ,� ,� , Organized sic sports leagues such as those for baseball, soccer, and football utilize school ballfields through a permit process with the School District. The City includes some school recreational facilities in which the City has a joint use agreement zaith the School District to meet the overall goal standard of three acres per 1,000 population. At the time of the General Plan update, one school facility (Columbus Tustin) is used jointly by the City and the School District. Up to 1.5 acres per 1,000 population can be provided through school recreation areas provided the school recreation areas are open to the public. Opportunities exist to maintain and enhance school/ recreation joint use agreements with the Tustin Unified School District. Whenever feasible, the City should work to improve agreements with schools to enter into a joint school/ recreation use and maintenance program. An educational college campus is proposed within the Tustin Legacy development which could provide recreational facilities open to the public. CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 51 j TT`'L�ow2012 Biking/Hiking Trails The County of Orange maintains a coordinated system of trails, including bikeways, equestrian trails and hiking trails within the City. The Tustin Parks and Recreation and Community Development Departments disseminate public information regarding trail availability, and assists with design review of new trails. Bikeways comprise the most extensive part of the City's trail network. There are three categories of bikeways: o Class I: a paved path that is separate from any motor vehicle travel lane; o Class II: a restricted lane within the right of way of a paved roadway for the exclusive or semi -exclusive use of bicycles; and o Class III: a bikeway that shares the street with motor vehicles or the sidewalk with pedestrians. The biking network in Tustin connects with other trails and paths in adjacent communities and throughout Orange County. The County of Orange has required that a bikeway and hiking trail for connection within the Tustin Legacy project be provided along the Peters Canyon Channel as an obligation of the Tustin Legacy project. The trail would be paved and also include a decomposed -granite trail with landscaping, benches, trash receptacles, and low- level lighting and directional signage. Direct connections from adjacent residential developments at Tustin Legacy are to be provided. The trails would be completed in conjunction with improvements that are to be made to the Peters Canyon ChanneLSeveral new bike trails and paths have been proposed. A number of policies included in this Element are concerned with the expansion of the City-wide system of hiking and biking trails. Precise development standards for the various types of trails are difficult to establish since trail width and gradient will depend on topography, surface features, and availability of an easement. The City's trail system includes pedestrian and bike trails within open space corridors and along regional trails which link to local and regional parkland. The bikeways located along the City's street system are addressed in the City's Circulation Element. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 52 itNw2012 .� y r•� y! r y y r y * son r s• -�• _ r - r ■ y 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) increase the allowable number of rental units; 2) allow transfer of residential units and non- residential square footages between planning areas; 3) eliminate a 9 - acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4), require the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project; and, 5) 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. B. That on April 25, 2011, the Tustin City Council approved the "Tustin Legacy Disposition Strategy for the Former Master Developer Footprint." The Disposition Strategy recommends refinements and/or modifications to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to support development activities anticipated over the next economic cycle. SPA 2011-04 is in response to the recommendation contained in the Disposition Strategy adopted by the City Council. C. To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the "Development Agreement Statute," Section 65864, et seq, of the Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes cities to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and to provide for development of such property and to establish certain development rights therein. Ordinance No. 1413 Page 2 Pursuant to the authorization set forth in the Development Agreement Statute, the City of Tustin is authorized and has enacted procedures for entering into development agreements that are contained, "n Tustin City Code Section 9600'to 9619. Requiring a development agreement for development of undeveloped property within the Specific Plan area will ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and additional development in accordance with the General Plan, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and Final Program EIR/EIS for the Reuse and Disposal of the Former MCAS Tustin and Addendum (the "Final EIS/EIR"). D. All proposed private development projects on undeveloped property at Tustin Legacy are required under the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Final EIS/EIR to install backbone and local infrastructure or make a fair share contribution to the development of backbone infrastructure (the "Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program"), and make public dedications as determined necessary to support proposed land uses within the project and the specific developments; prior to construction of improvements by private owners, the City has entered into agreements with each private owner within the Specific Plan area regarding funding for the infrastructure improvements. E. The City must be able to ensure that a proposed private development project is supported by backbone and local infrastructure, meets the requirements of the Final EIS/EIR, and that it implements Specific Plan requirements. Without the protections provided by requiring Development Agreements to establish the timing, sequencing, financing and development of infrastructure, including the Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program, the City could not assure that the infrastructure will be developed in an appropriate and timely manner to serve Tustin Legacy resulting in a waste or excess expenditure of public resources, escalation in the cost of local infrastructure and Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements, and a failure to complete comprehensive traffic, drainage, .and other Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements required by the Specific Plan, the Final EIS/ElR, and Tustin City Codes F. The processing and approval of Development Agreements is intended to augment and further the purposes and intent of the General Plan, Specific Plan and Final EIS/EiR. The processing and approval of Development Agreements will eliminate uncertainty in planning for and securing the orderly development of Tustin Legacy, ensure a desirable and functional community environment, provide for effective and efficient development of public facilities, infrastructure, and services appropriate and necessary for the development of Tustin Legacy, assure attainment of the maximum effective utilization of resources within the City, and provide other significant and required public benefits to the City and its residents by otherwise achieving the goals and purposes of the Development Agreement Statute. Further, Development Agreements will establish a schedule of performance for Ordinance No. 1413 Page 3 future development including obligations and phasing triggering mechanisms thee' ensure that adequate local and Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program improvernarets are in place to s1,11pport anticipated development in accordance i e "'hE—sIng., Plan ider—iFfled in the MCAS Tustin Specific Pian and Final EIS/EiR and Addendum, and any Tustin City Code requirements. G. That on June 7, 2011, the City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance No. 1401, requiring the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project. On July 5, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1402, extending the requirement for the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project for a period of ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. H. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on February 14, 2012, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 4190 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 2011-04 by adopting Ordinance No. 1413. I. That on March 6, 2012, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held before the City Council concerning SPA 2011-04 (Ordinance No. 1413). J. 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 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. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. 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, K. 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 #1rdinance No. 1413 ftge 4 2pplicable to the project that would substantially reduce effeets of the -troject that have not been considered and adopted. S`,711A 2011-04 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land' 'W.J'se Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the WAS 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 WAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master -planned development. SECTION 2. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with a new Table 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 in the form attached as Exhibit A. SECTION 3. Section 3.2.2 of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 3©. Maximum Dwelling Units The maximum number of dwelling units in each Planning Area may not exceed the numbers as specified on the Land Use Statistical Analysis (Table 341. The calculation of residential density, as stated in dwelling units per acre, shall be based on gross acres for each project unless otherwise noted in specific planning area development standards. Gross acres is defined as total acres less arterial roadways. SECTION 4. Section 3.2.3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.3 Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations If a Planning Area is developed with less than the maximum number of units allowed, then the "unused" residential development potential may be transferred to another Planning Area In RG Gase shall tFansfeFs Gf units Fesult4w. A }unless provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in the overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonuses granted pursuant to the City Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing Ordinance (Density Bonus Ordinance), and subject to Ordinance No. 1413 Page 5 review and approval by the Director of Community Development: 2. TFaRSfeFs shall be GensisteAt with the uses and developmeR 9- ggining or losing Planning Urea_ SECTION 5. Section 3.2.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.5 (SGGtiGA Deleted) Transfer between Residential and Non - Residential Residential dwelling units and Non-residential ADTs may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus granted pursuant to the City Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing (Density Bonus) Ordinance, and that authorization of the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels within the contributing neighborhood agreeing to the transfer. This approval shall be in the form of an agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney prior to approval of the transfer. All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Trip Budget Tracking System. SECTION 6. Section 3.4.2A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 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. • Community care facilities for six or fewer persons P • Condominiums and cooperatives P • Family care home, foster home or group home, for P six or fewer persons Large family day care for seven-up to fourteen P tvveive children on single family detached lots in accordance with the Tustin City Code • Multiple -family dwelling units (apartments) in C accordance with tenure provisions in Section 3.4.2.GH • Residential care facility for elderly, for six or fewer P Ordinance No. 1413 Page 6 persons * Single-family attached dwelling units and duplexas F * Sing le -ha rnl Ily detached divelUng units 7,= 1Single-famlliy can-i'age way units P M; Small family day care foriess than seven children on single family detached lots SECT�10N 7. Section 3.4.2.1-1.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 4. Tenure - Reuse/development in Planning Area 4 shall be preferably ownership tenure, Development of apartments is a discretionary action requiring approval of a concritional use permit. GensideFatien 9 ooRdAiGnal use pei:Fnit should inGlude , the Gfty's pFefeFenGe owner -ship tenWe, and in any event, Re meFe than 25 peFGent of thee total numbeF of uRits permifted WithiR the Gity of Tustin peftion of the SpeGifira Plall may be approved foF apaFtmePA&.- SECTION 8. Section 3.4.3A of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where 3ymbcl 7" occurs or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs. Churches and other religious institutions C • Community care facilities for six or fewer persons P Condominiums and cooperatives P Convalescent hospital C Family care home, foster home or group home, for P six or fewer persons Large family day care for se,,,feer, lotvmaive children P on single family detached lots in accordance with the Tustin City Code Multiple -family dwelling units (apartments) in C accordance with tenure provisions in Section 3.4.3.-= Patio homes P Private school C Public or private preschools C Fire Station P Public/private utility building facility C Residential care facility for elderly, for six or fewer P persons Single-family attached dwelling units and duplexes P • Single-family detached dwelling units P Single-family detached Carriage Way units P Small -family day care for less than seven children P Ordinance • 141 Page 7 SECTION' 9. Seeflon 3.4.3.1.3 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. Tenure - Development in Planning Area 5 of apartments is a discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use permit. 44 i jeFiRg a Genditional use peFmit, no mefe than 25 peFGent of the total Rumber Gf Ullft peFFnitted within the Tustin PGFtiGR of the SpeGift PI area Fnay be appFaved fGF apaFtments, SECTION 10. Section 3.6.2.A.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 5. Residential uses: Family care home, foster home or group home, for F six or fewer persons Condominiums and cooperatives P Multiple family dwellings (apartments) in accordance P with tenure provisions in Section 3.6.2.-, Single family attached dwelling units and duplexes P SECTION 11. Section 3.6.2.1.4 and 5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is amended, as follows: 4. Affordability — In the event dwelling units are proposed, the following minimum affordable housing production objectives are intended to reflect the intention of the City to create a redevelopment project area (Community Redevelopment Law, section 33000) and as needed to meet Regional Housing Allocation needs as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan through the provisions of housing for households at very low, low and moderate income levels. Specific housing requirements for redevelopment and Housing Element compliance on a residential housing project will be established at the time of development project approval to ensure conformity with the Housing Element of the General Plan and other applicable provisions of California Law and to achieve the following: a) The number of affordable housing units in Neighborhood D shall be 196, of which 53 must be at the very low income level, 52-53 at the low income level and at the moderate income level. If future amendments to the plan occur at least 15% of additional units for initial occupancy by very low income to moderate income households for redevelopment, with 6% (or 40%) of units affordable to very low income households. b) Restricted affordable housing units shall be reasonably dispersed and located and may be accomplished in attached projects only. The affordable units shall be compatible with the design and use of market Ordinance No. 1413 Page 8 rate unns in appearance., use of materials, and finished quality. Restricted units shall be v-,1TbreJ,-2b'e for at least the minimum period of time Tevured by setete 1,e�vj, or iotiger if required by a construction or n n 0 rl"Z" a s I fiassistance program. c) Prior to issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, a developer shall enter into a legaily binding agreement with the City of Tustin or 31,18 Redevelopment Agency, and agree to deed restrictions an targeted affordable housing units that are binding on property upon sale or transfer. Said agreements shall address the following: 1) Number of units by type, location, bedroom count 2) Standards for qualMfl,,ngj income and maximum rents or sales prices 3) Parties responsible for sales prices and incomes Bj IN Male -1W.1 a TW I - A Me]• --gw 5, Tenure — evelopmeRt. iR NeighboFheed D -of apaFtn;eRts is limited *,'-----,-Zx 123. EaGh Gt to be Wit shall GGRGirt of me greater thaR 66% of the URits low inGe e and 10W iRGeFAe levels (with -a im of 4 0% of the units at the VeFy 10W iAGeme level and 20% at the low inGGme level), 200 at the modeFate iRGOMe level and 29% aki-mafket Fate -levet.- Thirty (30) percent of the total number of units authorized within the City of Tustin portion of the Specific Plan are permitted for apartments. SECTION 12. Section 3.9.2.1.4.e) and 3.9.2.1.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: MV M- F.1 ZT-1 M. EMMMM-WRAMMMIS ............ on Ordinance No. 1413 Page 9 400 of the unft at the veFy low iRGeme level), 20% at t madefate inGeme level and 20% at the rnafket Fate level.—Thirty (30) percent of the total number of units authorized within the City of Tustin portion of the Specific Plan is permitted for apartments. SECTION 13. Section 3.9.4.J.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 4. Tenure ® Reuse/development of Planning Area 21 shall be encouraged to be ownership tenure. Development of apartments is a discretionary action requiring. approval of a conditional use permit. GensideFatien of a s dibeRal use peFM!t should iRGlude the City's pFefeFenGe foF GWRefship teRuFe, and iR ar;y event, no meize than 25 peFrsent of the total numbei: of unitspeFmitted may be appFeved for apartments. SECTION 14. Section 4.2.9 through 4.2.10 of the WAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.2.9 Development Agreement To strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted the "Development Agreement Statute," Section 65864, et seq. of the Government Code. The Development Agreement Statute authorizes the City to enter into an agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property and to provide for development of such property and to establish certain development rights therein. Pursuant to the authorization set forth in the Development Agreement Statute, the City has enacted procedures for entering into development agreements which are contained in Tustin City Code Sections 9600 to 9619. The processing and approval of Development Agreements is intended to augment and further the purposes and intent of the General Plan, Specific Plan and Final EISIEIR and will ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and additional development in accordance with the General Plan, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and Final Program EIWEIS for the Reuse and Disposal of the Former WAS Tustin and Addendum (the "Final EISIEIR'), Further, Development Agreements will establish a schedule of performance for future development including obligations and phasing triggering mechanisms that ensure that adequate local and Tustin Legacy Backbone Infrastructure Program improvements are in place to support anticipated development in accordance with the Phasing Plan identified in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and Final EISIEIR and Addendum, and any Tustin City Code requirements. Accordingly, prior to issuance of any permits or approval of any entitlements within the Specific Plan area, all private development shall first obtain a Ordinance No. 1413 Page 10 Development Agreement in. accordance with Section 65864 et seq. of the Govemment Code and Sections 9600 to 9619 of the Tustin City Code. 4.2.910 General Note A. Where required, approval from the South Coast Air Quality Management District or successory agency(ies) shall be obtained for any devices or processes responding to mandated actions. The City of Tustin or Irvine, as applicable, will assist in this process to the extent possible. B. Whenever the regulations contained in this Specific Plan conflict with the -regulations of the Tustin City Code or Irvine's Codes, as applicable, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall take precedence. The Tustin City Code or Irvine Codes, as applicable, shall apply regarding any standard or regulation not covered by this plan. 4.2.4-0-11 Severability If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, exhibit, table or portion of this Specific Plan is found to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court having jurisdiction, such a decision shall not invalidate the remaining portions in whole or in part of the Specific Plan. SECTION 15. Sevearability 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 th day of March, 2012. ud� PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 1413 Page 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA I COUNTY OF ORANGE ss. CITY OF TUSTIN 061:4 1 1 1 � 1 1 Its! I U4111iiiF 111 1: 11 11 1 1 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. 1413 was duly and regularly introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2012, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of 2012, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Exhibit A of Draft Ordinance No. 1413 TABLE 3-1 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION DesignationlPlanning Area ACREAGE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Gross I Net 2 F.A.J% s Total Floor Area (Sq. Ft a Existing Floor Area (Sq. FL 5 Potential Floor Area (Sq. Ft) t 6 DUs Per Acre 7 Total DUs 8 RESIDENTIAL Low Density 1-7 du/ac Planning Area 4 54.21 43.4 N/A N/A N/A 1 71 304 Plannine Area 21 - Tustin 127.11 115.0 N/A N/A N/A 1 141 793 Medium Density 8-15 du/ac Planning Area 5 51.7 41.4 N/A N/A N/A 15 621 Planning Area 22 Elementary School K-8 10 Nei boyhood Park 10 73.4 61.0 N/A N/A N/A 15 402 Medium -High Densi 16-25 du/ac Planning Area 20 29.41 23,5 N/A N/A N/A 1 251 376 Transitional/EmergencyTransitional/Emergency Housing Planning Area 3 5.11 5.11 0.61 133,2941 85,2151 48,0791 01 0 Residential Core Planning Area 15 112.6 104.3 N/A N/A N/A 7 533 Low Density 1-7 du/ac Medium Density (8-15 du/ac) 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A N/A 15 489 Medium High Density (16-25 8.3 7.7 N/A N/A N/A 25 192 du/ac Elementary Schools 10 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Parks and Open Space 63459 6359 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal, Residential Core, PA 15 22434241.7 2232.0228.8 SUBTOTAL 5867582.6 5333518.2 N/A 133,294 85,215 48,079 N/A 3,710 C010MRCIAL/BUSINESS Commercial/Business Planning Area 9-12 Parks and Open Space Subtotal, Planning Area 9-12 78:988.3 38-H29 117.5117.3 643473.4 38:629 4434102.4 See standards 1,267,324 88,344 1,178,980 0 Planning Area 16 31.0 27.91 0.41 486,1301 206,640 279,490 0 Planning Area 17 16.3 16.31 0.41 284,0111 63,2891 220,722 0 TABLE 3-1 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION DesignationlPlanning Area ACREAGE I NON-RESIDENTIAL USES I RESIDENTIAL USES Total Floor F,xisting Floor Potential Floor DU's Total Gross 1 Net 2 F.A.R. s Area S. FL 4 I Area (Sq. FL 5 Area (Sq. Ft. a PerAcre ' DUs 8 COMMERCIAL/BUSINESS CONTINUED Commercial Planning Area 18 16.71 14.51 0.351 40,8461 40,8461 01 0 Planning Area 19 38.61 38.61 0.41 672,5661 3,9901 668,5761 0 Residential Core Planning Area 15 29.3 26.8 See 1 466,637 8,106 458,531 N/A 0 standards Village Services Planning Area 7 20.7 19.0See 1 248,292 0 248,292 N/A 0 standards Community Core Planning Area 8 84391.1 68.5 See 1,975,992 329,032 1,646,960 25 Park 36:358.6 76758.6 standards Planning Area 13 77.5 59.3 See 2,132,417 0 2,132,417 25 891 Park 42-913.4 413.4 standards Planning Area 14 34.2 26.2 See 648,870 700 648,170 25 standards High School 14 40.0 40.0 N/A N/A Subtotal, Community Core 31"314.8 261-22661 i 4,757,2791 329,7321 4,427,5471 1 891 SUBTOTALI 580.7584.7 509.4511.5 N/A 1 8,223,0851 740,9471 7,482,138 N/A 1 891 TABLE 3-1 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BYLAND USE DESIGNATION Designation/Planning Area ACREAGE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTL9L USES Total Floor Existing Floor Potential Floor DU's Total Gross Net z F.A.R s Area S . FL a Area (Sa. FL s Area S . FL a PerAcre DUs s INSTIT UTIONAL/RECREA TIONAL Education Village Planning Area 1 128.3 124.7 0.3 1,412,651 822,556 590,095 0 0 Planning Area 1-A Elementary School 15 Planning Area I -B Educational Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center20 Planning Area 1-C Children's Care Shelter Planning Area 1-D Child Care Center Planning Area 1-E Educational Planning Area 1-F Educational Planning Area 1-G Other Planning Area 1-H Educational Planning Area 1-I Educational Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center20 Communitv Park Planning Area 2 24.11 24.11 0.1 40,5311 40,5311 01 01 0 Urban Regional Park Planning Area 6 84.51 84.51 0.161 574,9921 496,0681 78,9241 01 0 -AISTTT7/T/11 ,4LI EC,R 4T ,OA74 (GONT7A/rTl.'711 Right -of -Way Arterial Roadways 173.4 173.4 0 0 0 0 0 Drainage (Flood Control, Storm 28.5 28.5 0 0 0 0 0 Drains SUBTOTAL 438.8 435.2 N/A 2,028,174 1,359,155 669,019 00 TOTALS: 41,606-..31606.1 1,466:91464.9 N/A 10,384,553 2,185,317' 8,199,236 1 0 4,601 Notes: 1. Gross acreage for each Planning Area is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the adjacent future arterial and secondary roadway, any public roadway shown on the Land Use Plan, and/or the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways shown on the Land Use Plan is calculated under the Right -of -Way designation. Actual acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process. 2. Net acreage is an estimated allocation based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area. Net acreage is estimated approximately for each Planning Area, based on permitted use, size of the Planning Area, and typical site planning considerations. Actual net acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process. 3. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) is the gross floor area of all buildings within a Planning Area divided by the net acreage of the Planning Area for purposes of this Statistical Analysis unless otherwise stipulated in development standards for the planning area, except for Planning Area 1 where RAR shall be fixed at 0.3 for all sub -planning areas except for sub -planning areas 1-B and 1-C which shall be fixed at 0.35. If applicable, the F.A.R. column specifies a floor area ratio derived from an assumed mix of uses within a Planning Area. 4. Total Floor Area is the total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage, if applicable, except for Planning Area 1 where total floor area shall be derived by multiplying the fixed floor area ratio assigned to Planning Area 1 and any sub -planning area in Planning Area 1 by gross acreage of a sub -planning area, provided the total floor area within Planning Area 1 shall not exceed 1,412,651 square feet. 5. Existing Floor Area is the square footage of existing buildings by Planning Area. 6. Potential Floor Area is the potential square footage of new development within each Planning Area. T DU's per Acre reflects the maximum density per acre at which dwelling units may be calculated. 8. Total DUs is the maximum number of dwelling units allocated to each Planning Area. Even though actual gross and net acreages may be refined during the site plan and subdivision process, the maximum number of dwelling units in each Planning Area shall not exceed the number designated on the Statistical Analysis, except as specified in Section 3.2.3. 9. PA 22 (402 units) are located within the City of Irvine. The permitted density range in PA 22 shall not exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre at the high end. 10. PA 22 is within the Irvine jurisdictional limits. It includes a 20 -acre allocation for a K-8 school. The precise acreage and location will be determined when the Navy's Record of Decision is issued. PA 22 also includes an 8 -acre allocation for a Neighborhood Park site. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to property transfer to the City of Irvine, however, the total allowable dwelling units in PA 22 will remain the same. 11. PA 15 includes an allocation for park and open spaces. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval, however, the total allowable dwelling units in PA 15will remain the same. 12. PA 15 includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City If the actual acreage varies from 10 acres, then an acreage adjustment will be made to the parks and open space acreages The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval. 13. PA 8 includes a 40 -acre allocation for a High School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City.. If the actual acreage varies from 40 acres, then the acreage adjustment will be made to the Community Core designation, however, the total allowable square feet of non-residential development and maximum dwelling units in PA 8 will remain the same. 14. PA 1 is composed of numerous public conveyance uses as specified in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the Specific Plan. 15. PA 1-A includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School. 16. The actual amount of existing square footage is 2,183,956. However, adjustments to two Planning Areas have been made. In PA 2, Community Park, 40,531 existing square footage is expected to be reused. In PA 5, Medium Density Residential, the 39,485 existing square footage is expected to be replaced by residential uses. 17. The development intensity assigned to the Community Park is .1 FAR; however, the existing 40,531 square feet may be reused. 18. Planning Area 15 is comprised of subplanning areas, which allocates development potential by land use type. The subplanning areas are not site specific on the Land Use Plan in order to allow for flexibility in future master planning. 19. In Planning Area 20, there is 4.1 gross acres in private ownership (with 3.3 net acres estimated for development potential); Planning Area 18 is proposed to be retained in Federal ownership by the Army Reserve with 2.2 acres granted by easement to the City of Tustin, after the Army's acceptance of the 16.7 acres from the Navy, for Barranca right-of-way (leaving 14.5 net acres). The total gross acreage for non-federal disposal is 1,585.4 acres. 20. See Section 3.3.2A for use restriction. TABLE 3-2 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTL4L ACREAGE NON-RESIDENTL4L USES USES Total Floor Existing Potential Floor DU's F.A.R. Area (Sq. Floor Area Area Per Acre Total Desi nation/Plannin Area Gross Net z s F>! a S . Ft.)s S . FL)s 7 DU's a NEIGHBORHOOD A Planning Area 1 14 10.0 0.3 1,412,651 822,556 590,095 0 0 Planning Area 1-A 10.0 Elementary School 15 Planning Area 1-B 10.0 Law Enforcement Training 10.0 Educational 4.0 Animal Care Center20 Planning Area I -C 2.4 Children's Care Shelter 4.0 Planning Area 1-D 1.9 Child Care Center 2.4 Planning Area 1-E 15.0 Educational 1.9 Planning Area 1-F 18.5 Educational 56.5 15.0 Planning Area 1-G Other 10.0 14.9 Planning Area 1-H Educational 56.5 Planning Area 1-I Educational 10.0 Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center20 SUBTOTAL PLANNING AREA 1 128.3 124.7 N/A 1,412,651 822,556 590,095 0 0 Planning Area 2 24.1 24.1 0,1 40,531 40,531 0 0 0 Planning Area 3 5.1 5.1 0.6 133,294 85,215 48,079 0 0 SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD A 157.5 153.9 N/A 1,586,476 948,302 638,174 0 0 NEIGHBORHOOD B Planning Area 4 54.2 43.4 N/A N/A N/A 7 304 Low Density 1-7 du/ac Planning Area 5 51.7 41.4 N/A N/A NIA 15 621 Medium Density 8-15 du/ac TABLE 3-2 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE NON-RESIDENTM USES USES Total Floor Existing Potential Floor DU's F.A.R. Area (Sq. Floor Area Area Per Acre Total DesignationlPlanning Area Gross t Net 2 3 Ft a S. Ft.s S. Ft.B 7 DU's 8 Planning Area 7 20.7 19.0 See 248,292 0 248,292 0 standard s SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD B 126.6 103.8 N/A 248,292 0 248,292 N/Al 925 NEIGHBORHOOD C Planning Area 6 84.51 84.51 0.161 574,9921 496,0681 78,9241 01 0 SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD C 84.51 84.5 N/Al 574,9921 496,0681 78,924 N/Al 0 NEIGHBORHOOD D Planning Area 8 Mixed Use 89:591.1 68.5 See 1,975,992 329,032 1,646,960 25 Park 36458.6 5 58.6 standard s High School 13 40.0 40.0 Planning Area 13 77:677.5 59.3 See 2,132,417 0 2,132,417 25 891 Park 42,113.4 4 913.4 standard s Planning Area 14 34.334.2 26.2 See 648,870 700 648,170 25 standard s SUBTOTAL NEIGHBORHOOD D 34&6314.8 263-.2-266 N/A 1 4,757,2791 329,7321 4,427,5471 25 891 NEIGHBORHOOD E Planning Areas 9-12 78:988.3 64.573.4 See 1,267,324 88,344 1,178,980 0 Parks and Open Space 3829 3829 standard s SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD E 117.5117.3 103.1102.4 See 1,267,324 88,344 1,178,980 0 standard s NEIGHBORHOOD F Planning Area 16 31.0 27.9 0.4 486,130 206,640 279,490 0 Planning Area 17 16.3 16.3 0.4 284,011 63,289 220,722 0 Planning Area 18 16.7 14.5 0.35 40,846 40,846 0 0 Planning Area 19 38.6 38.6 0.4 672,566 3,990 668,576 0 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD F 1 102.61 97.3 N/A 1,483,553 314,7651 1,168,788 N/A 0 Notes: TABLE 3-2 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTL4L ACREAGE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES USES Total Floor Existing Potential Floor DU's F.A.R. Area (Sq. F1oorArea Area Per Acre Total Designation/PlanningDesignationlPlanning Area Gross t Net 2 3 Ft.) a S. Ft. s S. Ft.6 7 DU's 8 NEIGHBORHOOD G Planning Area 15 112.6 104.3 N/A N/A N/A 7 533 Low Density 1-7 du/ac Planning Area 15 51.8 47.8 N/A N/A NIA 15 489 Medium Density 8-15 du/ac Planning Area 15 8.3 7.7 25 192 Medium -Hi Density (16-25 du/ac Planning Area 15 Schools 1z 10.0 10.0 0 Planning Area 15 Non Residential 29.3 26.8 See 466,637 8,106 458,531 0 standard s Planning Area 15 Parks & Open Space 6-3-.459 43-459 N/A N/A N/A 0 Planning Area 20 29.4 23.5 N/A N/A N/A 25 376 Medium -Hi Density 16-25 du/ac Planning Area 21 - Tustin 127.1 115.0 N/A N/A N/A 14 793 Low Density 1-7 du/ac SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD G 431.6427.5 3982-394.1 N/A 466,637 8,106 458,531 N/A 1 2,383 NEIGHBORHOOD H Planning Area 22 9 73.4 61.0 N/A N/A N/A 15 402 Medium Density (8-15 du/ac) Elementary School K-8 to Neighborhood Park 10 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD H 73.4 61.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 402 RIGHT-OF-WAY Roadways 173.4 173.4 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 Drainage(Flood Control, Storm Drains 28.5 28.5 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 SUBTOTAL RIGHT OF WAY 201.9 201.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 TOTALS: 4 21,606.1 1,466.91,464.9 N/A 10,384,553 2,185,317'6 8,199,236 N/A 4,601 Gross acreage for each Planning Area is an estimated allocation measured from the edge of the adjacent future arterial and secondary roadway, any public roadway shown on the Land Use Plan, and/or the boundary of the Planning Area. The amount of land devoted to roadways shown on the Land Use Plan is calculated under the Right -of -Way designation. Actual acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process. Net acreage is an estimated allocation based on gross acreage reduced for internal circulation (local roads) within a Planning Area. Net acreage is estimated approximately for each Planning Area, based on permitted use, size of the Planning Area, and typical site planning considerations. Actual net acreages will be refined during the site plan and subdivision process. 3. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) is the gross floor area of all buildings within a Planning Area divided by the net acreage of the Planning Area for purposes of this Statistical Analysis unless otherwise stipulated in development standards for the planning area, except for Planning Area 1 where F.A.R shall be fixed at 0.3 for all sub -planning areas except for sub -planning areas 1-B and 1-C which shall be fixed at 0.35. If applicable, the F.A.R. column specifies a floor area ratio derived from an assumed mix of uses within a Planning Area. 4. Total Floor Area is the total square footage of non-residential development derived by multiplying the floor area ratio by the net acreage, if applicable, except for Planning Area 1 where total floor area shall be derived by multiplying the fixed floor area ratio assigned to Planning Area 1 and any sub -planning area in Planning Area 1 by the gross acreage of a sub -planning area, provided the total floor area within Planning Area 1 shall not exceed 1,412,651 square feet. 5. Existing Floor Area is the square footage of existing buildings by Planning Area. 6. Potential Floor Area is the potential square footage of new development within each Planning Area. 7. DUs per Acre reflects the maximum density per acre at which dwelling units may be calculated. 8. Total DUs is the maximum number of dwelling units allocated to each Planning Area. Even though actual gross and net acreages may be refined during the site plan and subdivision process, the maximum number of dwelling units in each Planning Area shall not exceed the number designated on the Statistical Analysis, except as specified in Section 3.2.3. 9. PA 22 (402 units) are located within the City of Irvine. The permitted density range in PA 22 shall not exceed 12.5 dwelling units per acre at the high end. 10. PA 22 is within the Irvine jurisdictional limits. It includes a 20 -acre allocation for a K-8 school. The precise acreage and location will be determined when the Navy's Record of Decision is issued. PA 22 also includes an 8 -acre allocation for a Neighborhood Park site. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to property transfer to the City of Irvine, however, the total allowable dwelling units in PA 22 will remain the same. 11. PA 15 includes an allocation for park and open spaces. The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval, however, the total allowable dwelling units in PA 15will remain the same. 12. PA 15 includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City. If the actual acreage varies from 10 acres, then an acreage adjustment will be made to the parks and open space acreages The precise acreage and location will be determined prior to final subdivision map approval. 13. PA 8 includes a 40 -acre allocation for a High School. The precise acreage and location will be determined by the City.. If the actual acreage varies from 40 acres, then the acreage adjustment will be made to the Community Core designation, however, the total allowable square feet of non-residential development and maximum dwelling units in PA 8 will remain the same. 14. PA 1 is composed of numerous public conveyance uses as specified in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the Specific Plan. 15. PA 1-A includes a 10 -acre allocation for an Elementary School. 16. The actual amount of existing square footage is 2,183,956. However, adjustments to two Planning Areas have been made. In PA 2, Community Park, 40,531 existing square footage is expected to be reused. In PA 5, Medium Density Residential, the 39,485 existing square footage is expected to be replaced by residential uses. IT The development intensity assigned to the Community Park is .1 FAR; however, the existing 40,531 square feet may be reused. 18. Planning Area 15 is comprised of subplanning areas, which allocates development potential by land use type. The subplanning areas are not site specific on the Land Use Plan in order to allow for flexibility in future master planning. 19. In Planning Area 20, there is 4.1 gross acres in private ownership (with 3.3 net acres estimated for development potential); Planning Area 18 is proposed to be retained in Federal ownership by the Army Reserve with 2.2 acres granted by easement to the City of Tustin, after the Army's acceptance of the 16.7 acres from the Navy, for Barranca right-of-way (leaving 14.5 net acres). The total gross acreage for non-federal disposal is 1,585.4 acres. 20. See Section 3.3.2A for use restriction. TABLE 3-3 PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET Planning Area No. Land Use Category Units Residential/Parks Non Residential Amount ADTs Amount I ADTs NEIGHBORHOOD A 1-A Elementary/Middle School STU 5-50 561 Leaming Cane T -S1= 1,293.86 9?9 I -A, 1-E Learning Center(A TEP) TSF 893.85 5,471 I-13 Learning Center (Laic EnforeenzentlAninzal Care Center) TSF 152.46 933 1-C Learning Center (Child Care Shelter) TSF 60.98 373 1-D Learning Center ( Child Care) KV 31.36 192 1-11, Learning Center (RSCCCD) TSF 196.02 1,200 Neighborhood Commercial TSF q7.1224.85-' X03-32, 784 1-G Tustin Facility SG TBD 4,.) 6,220 PA 1 Trip Budget Total 1,320.981,4 12.65' 17,734 2 1 Sorts Park ACRE 24.1 1,297 3 1 Transitional Housing ROOM 192 941 Neighborhood A Square Footage Total TSF ',a�/,4 12.65 Neighborhood A Trip Budget Total 17,734 NEIGHBORHOOD B LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) DU 145 1,388 4 MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 120 960 Senior Housing Attached DU 72 250 MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 132 1,056 5 MHDR 16-25 DU/Acre DU 438 2,903 Senior housing Attached DU 170 590 Community Commercial TSF 1 103.46 7,052 7 General Office TSF 144.84 1,922 PA 7 Trip Budget Total 248.3 8,974 Neighborhood B Square Footage Total I TSF 248.3 Neighborhood B Trip Budget Total 8,974 NEIGHBORHOOD C 6 Community Commercial TSF 57.5 3,920 Regional Park ACRE 84.5 423 PA 6 Trip Budget Total 3,920 Neighborhood C Square Footage Total TSF 57.5 Neighborhood C Trip Budget Total 3,920 NEIGHBORHOOD D High School STU 1,850 3,312 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 65.69 7,345 General Office TSF 207 2,747 Office Park TSF 1,383.8 11,280 8 Industrial Park TSF 319.51 3,803 Park ACRE 10.3 52 Sorts Park ACRE 46 2,475 PA 8 Trip Budget Total 1,976 28,487 MHDR 16-25 DU/Acre) DU 891 5,907 Hotel 380 TSF ROOM 500 4,115 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 9.76 1,091 Community Commercial TSF 117.1 7,984 13 General Office TSF 1,512 20,065 Park ACRE 12.9 65 Health Club TSF 1 30 988 Hi -Turnover Restaurant TSF 12 1,526 PA 13 Trip Budget Total 2,060.86 35,769 14 Community Commercial TSF 11.11 757 TABLE 3-3 PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET Planning Area No. Land Use Category Units Residential/Parks Amount ADTs Non -Residential Amount ADTs General Office TSF 136.9 1,818 Office Park TSF 547 5,645 Theatre (25 TSF) SEAT 1,000 1,250 Hi -Turnover Restaurant TSF 6 763 PA 14 Trip Bud et Total 726.01 10,233 Neighborhood D Square Footage Total TSF 4,762.87 Neighborhood D Trip Budget Total 1 74,489 NEIGHBORHOOD E Industrial Park TSF 44.61 -7441,042 Park ACRE 1.1 6 9 �perts-P-ark ACR[= 64 3a-8 PA 9 Trip Budget Total 44.61 7+41.042 General Office TSF 156.82 2-,0842,312 Industrial Park TSF 124.41 1,569 10 Park ACRE 1.4 7 Sports A- fkC-IUB 4-3 2-34 PA 10 Trip Budget Total 281.23 3;6503,881 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 1 18.13 2,028 General Office TSF 371.89 4,935 Office Park TSF 278.78 2,663 11 Industrial Park TSF 138.52 2,002 Park ACRE 25.7 130 PA 11 Trip Budget Total 807.32 11,628 Office Park 'TSF 134.17 1,281 12 PA 12 Tri Budget Total 134.17 1,281 Neighborhood E Square Footage Total TSF 1,267.33 Neighborhood E Trip Budget Total 4737317,8 32 NEIGHBORHOOD F Shopping Center TSF 448 13,772 16 PA 16 Trip Budget Total 448 13,772 Shopping Center TSF 47 1,445 17 PA 17 Trip Budget Total 47 1,445 Military Office TSF 40.85 542 18 PA 18 Trip Budget Total 40.85 542 Shopping Center TSF 435.6 13,391 1 435.6 13,391 19 Multiplex Theater 70 TSF SEAT 3,500 6,300 PA 19 Trip Budget Total TSF 505.6 19,691 Neighborhood F Square Footage Total TSF 1,041.45 Neighborhood F Trip Budget Total 35,450 NEIGHBORHOOD G LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 533 5,102 MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 489 3,912 MHDR 16-25 DU/Acre DU 192 1,273 Elementary/Middle School STU 1,200 1,224 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 26.68 2,983 15 Community Commercial TSF 130.68 8,908 General Office TSF 150.28 1,994 Park ACRE 49 249 Senior Congregate TSF 158.99 970 Sports Park ACRE 14.1 758 PA 15 Trip Budget Total 466.63 14,855 20 MHDR 16-25 DU/Acre DU 376 2,493 21 LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 189 1 1,809 MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 465 3,720 Neighborhood G Square Foota a Total TSF 466.63 Neighborhood G Tri BudgetTotal 14 855 TABLE 3-3 PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET Planning Residential/Parks Non -Residential Area No. Land Use Catego Units Amount ADTs Amount F ADTs NEIGHBORHOOD H LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 166 1,589 22 MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 243 1,944 Element /Middle School STU 650 663 Neighborhood H Square Footage Total TSF 0 Nei hborhood H Trip Budget Total I I 1 0 Residential and park uses are shown for informational purposes only and are not part of the non-residential trip budget. As a result of the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment, the amount of square footage and allowable ADT's within the SOCCCD site went up. 3 To accommodate the increase in the SOCCCD site, as a result of the 2010 Specific Plan Amendment, a portion of the ADT's located within the Neighborhood Commercial Category have been transferred from the Neighborhood Commercial land use category to the SOCCCD site (250 ADT's). Pursuant to Section 3.2.4 the Public Works Department and Community Development Department shall maintain the Trip Budget Form contained in Table 3-3 of the Specific Plan and amount of ADT's available for development or for transfer. This will result in a portion of the allowable 27,120 square feet originally shown for Neighborhood Commercial uses being reduced by the amount of ADT's transferred from the Neighborhood Commercial land use category to the SOCCCD site. No separate land use acreage is shown in that it is assumed to be within the Tustin Facility. 4 The ADT budget will be sufficient for a variety of potential land uses on the Tustin Facility particularly when viewed in the combination with the square footages and ADT's assigned to the Neighborhood Commercial land use category. 5 See Section 3.3.2A for use restrictions 6 Note the individual sites noted above total a maximum square footage of 1,359,535 which does not include development on the Tustin Facility which can accommodate development supported by up to 6,220 ADT's. However, Table 3-2 in the Specific Plan and the EIS/EIR would permit a total of 1,412,651 within Planning Area 1, provided such square footage is also supported by available ADT's in the Table 3-3, as administratively adjusted as it relates to Planning Area 1 as noted above. Depending upon any uses proposed on the Tustin Facility, Table 3-3 may need to be adjusted with a Specific Plan Amendment and a modification.