Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04Agenda Item 2 Reviewed: AGENDA REPORT City Manager Finance DirectorlA MEETING DATE: MARCH 20, 2012 TO: JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER FROM: ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 AND SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04 SUMMARY: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2011-01 proposes to update existing parks and recreation facilities inventory, update proposed parks and recreational facilities, update parks descriptions, and other minor text amendments. Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04 proposes to increase the allowable number of rental units (max. thirty (30) percent), allow transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning areas, eliminate a 9 -acre park from neighborhood E, require the execution of a development agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project, and implement other minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Planning Commission at the meeting of February 14, 2012, and February 28, 2012, considered the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) 2011-01 and Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04. The Planning Commission had concerns related to the increase of rental units, the elimination of 9 -acre park site, clarification to the status of the blimp hangars, and the references to Redevelopment Agency throughout the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Staff addressed the concerns at the February 28, 2012, meeting and the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4190 recommending that the City Council approve GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 12-26 approving General Plan Amendment 2011-01 by amending the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces; and 2. Introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1413, approving Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 by establishing that 30 percent of total allowable units within the City of Tustin can be rental, allowing transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning areas, eliminating a 9 -acre City Council Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 March 20, 2012 Page 2 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; and set for second reading at the City Council meeting of April 3, 2012. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65353, the Planning Commission is required to hold at least one public hearing to consider proposed amendments to General Plan and shall make a written recommendation to the legislative body (City Council). The Planning Commission recommendation shall be made by affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Commission. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65355, prior to amending a general plan, the legislative body (City Council) shall hold at least one public hearing. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65453, a Specific Plan shall be amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body (City Council). On February 14, 2012, and February 28, 2012, the Tustin Planning Commission conducted public hearings and adopted Resolution 4190 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 by 4-0 vote with Planning Commission Moore abstaining. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 and minutes of the February 14, 2012, and February 28, 2012, Planning Commission meeting are provided as Attachment A. FISCAL IMPACT: GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 is a City -initiated project. There are no direct fiscal impacts anticipated as a result of adopting this ordinance. General Plan Amendment 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 C). The revisions include the following: • Update of existing parks and recreation facilities inventory • Update proposed parks and recreational facilities • Update parks descriptions • Other minor text amendments City Council Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 March 20, 2012 Page 3 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Amendment 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. The proposed SPA 2011-04/Ordinance 1413 (Attachment D) is in response to the recommendation contained in the Disposition Strategy adopted by the City Council. Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2011-04 proposes the following: • Increase of the allowable number of rental units (max. thirty (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 • 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 increase of the allowable rental units to a maximum of thirty (30) percent, elimination of a 9 -acre park site and requirement for the execution of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project can be supported by the following reasons: Apartments 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: ' 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 W Units _._ CodeSPA Columbus Square 1,075' 206 240 240 Columbus Grove 465" 42 0 0 Field 1 376 7800 Meld ll 13 40 0 0° Former aster Developer 2J05 453 31521023 Total Under Current Code 4,210 879 ' Includes Density Bonus 2 123 rental units in Neighborhood D and 192 rental units in Neighborhood G City Council Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 March 20, 2012 Page 4 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 master 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 11, 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. City Council Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 March 20, 2012 Page 5 • The Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocates the number of affordable units that the City needs to create. To ensure that the required numbers 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 an 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. • Tustin's current percentages for owner -occupied and renter -occupied are as follows: • For comparison, the Tustin Ranch housing types are as follows: • 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: City Council Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 March 20, 2012 Page 6 Elimination of a 9 -acre park site • 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. Attachment B 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 B — 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 approximately 141 acres of park sites above the 3 acres/1,000 persons standard. 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 the 9 -acre park to not be 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 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 within the Linear Park (Attachment B). • 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 B, 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 includes 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 on the City's ability to generate resources to construct and maintain park sites. City Council Report GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04 March 20, 2012 Page 7 Development Agreement 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. The proposed SPA 2011-04 would also codify this requirement in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On 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. And, 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 City Council approve GPA 2011- 01 and SPA 2011-04. City Council Report GPA 2011 -01 and SPA 2011-04 March 20, 2012 Page 8 , 140, Jditina Willkom Principal Planner Attachments: Elizabeth A. ginsarl Director of Community Development A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 and Minutes of Planning Commission meetings of February 14, 2012 and February 28, 2012 B. Map of 9 -acre Park Site to be Eliminated and Overall Park Sites at Tustin Legacy; and Parkland Summary at Tustin Legacy C. City Council Resolution No. 12-26 D. Ordinance No. 1413 ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission Resolution No. 4190 and Minutes of Planning Commission meetings of February 14, 2012 and February 28, 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 4190 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, 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 ALLOWING THIRTY (30) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL UNITS AS 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: 1. 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 (GPA) 2011-01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces. Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 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. 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. The proposed updates would provide up to date parks and open spaces information to members of the public. 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 allowing thirty (30) percent of the total unit count as rental can be supported based on: economics of future reuse of Tustin Legacy; the need of affordable workforce housing; the desire to maintain jobs and housing balance; compliance with Tustin Housing Element by providing affordable units for special needs population (elderly, large families, very low income households, female headed households, etc.); dispersion of affordable units throughout community; promotion of equal housing opportunities; financial feasibility of projects; Regional Housing Needs allocation; and provision of a mixture of housing types for the diverse socio-economic needs of Tustin residents. E. That the elimination of a 9 -acre park site can be supported due to the fact that: there are over 287 acres of open space planned at Tustin Legacy, approximately 160 acres are planned within the former master developer footprint; the park sites will be available to the general public through public easements; upon implementation of these park sites, there will be a surplus of 141 acres park sites in the City; the 9 -acre park site was once planned for a detention basin where further refinement of Tustin Legacy infrastructure design has rendered a new detention basin at the corner of Barranca Parkway and Redhill Avenue; the 9 -acre park site is surrounded by proposed commercial and industrial uses in which a park site is not conducive to the surrounding non-residential uses. F. 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. G. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on February 14, 2012, by the Planning Commission. The Resolution No. 4190 Page 3 Planning Commission continued the item to February 28, 2012, asking staff to address concerns brought up at the meeting. H. 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. 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. J. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. K. SPA 2011-04 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master -planned development. Resolution No. 4190 Page 4 11. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 2011-01, and adopt Ordinance No. 1413 approving Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 attached hereto as Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 28th day of February, 2012. JEFF R. TH09PSON Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN 1, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4190 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 I I I MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2012 7:03 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Kozak ROLL CALL: Present: Chair Thompson Chair Pro Tern Puckett Commissioners Eckman, Kozak, Moore Staff Present Elizabeth A. Binsack, Director of Community Development Lois Bobak, Assistant City Attorney Dana L. Ogdon, Assistant Director of Community Development John Buchanan, Redevelopment Program Manager Justina Willkom, Principal Planner Scott Reekstin, Senior Planner Amy Stonich, Senior Planner Adrianne DiLeva, Recording Secretary None PUBLIC CONCERNS CONSENT CALENDAR: Approved 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 24, 2012, PLANNING COMMISSION. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the January 24, 2012 meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Kozak, to move the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Continued to 2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 AND SPECIFIC the Planning PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04. Commission meeting on General Plan Amendment 2011-01 and Specific Plan 02-28-12 Amendment 2011-04 involves amendments to the Minutes — Planning Commission February 14, 2012 — Page 1 Conservation/Open Space/Recreation element of the General Plan by updating the Recreation Plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces; and amendments to the approved MCAS Tustin Specific Plan district regulations 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 form Neighborhood E, requiring a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any development project, and minor text clean-up. The total overall allowable number of residential units and non-residential square footages will remain the same. No change to the General Plan land use or zoning designation is proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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 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. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4190 recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1413 approving General Plan Amendment 2011-01 and Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04. Willkom Presented the staff report for GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04. Commission questions and concerns generally included the proposed increase in the number of apartments, elimination of a 9 -acre park site, and a request for increased clarity regarding efforts made to the historic blimp hangars. The Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:52 p.m. No members of the public stepped forward. The Commissioners reiterated their positions regarding the proposed amendment. Minutes — Planning Commission February 14, 2012 — Page 2 Moore Stated he is generally not in favor of the proposed amendment due to the increase in proposed rental units, removal of the 9 -acre park area, and the lack of correlation between the GPA and SPA. Thompson Stated he has concerns regarding the removal of the 9 -acre park and would like to explore options for possible relocation or reallocation of the park space. He recommended continuing the item for further research by staff. Puckett Is in favor of adopting GPA 2011-01 and SPA 2011-04, although he would like to see a project map of the Neighborhood E area of Tustin Legacy for clarity. Eckman Voiced his concerns regarding the removal of the 9 -acre park space. Stated he is in favor of preserving the park. Kozak Expressed concerns regarding the proposed increase in rental units and would like to explore alternatives for use of the 9 -acre park site due to the density intensification in the area. Requested that the blimp hangars be indicated as being "historic." Also offered a recommendation to modify the title of the Tustin Redevelopment Agency throughout the report. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Puckett, to continue the item to the next Planning Commission meeting on February 28, 2012. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted Resolution 3. CODE AMENDMENT 2012-001, DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. No. 4187 as revised 1411 — MINOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT ORDINANCE. Draft Ordinance No. 1411 would standardize the way Zoning Districts are referenced throughout the Zoning Code to ensure additional consistency with the Tustin Zoning Map. Ordinance No. 1411 would also make minor corrections to the City's Zoning Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Ordinance No. 1411 is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Minutes — Planning Commission February 14, 2012 — Page 3 Motion: Adopted Resolution No. 4190 authorized the Mayor to send a comment letter to SCAG regarding the Draft 2012 RTP/SCS and its associated Draft PEIR. Copies of letters to SCAG from the Orange County Council of Governments (OCCOG), the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and the Center for Demographic Research are being provided. The report is being provided to appraise the Planning Commission of the status of the RTP/SCS and its PEIR as they progress through the approval process. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning ion receive and file the report. by Kozak, to move the �Mwlffjijq Gener Ian dm 011-01 and Specific Plan mend t in ves amendments to the serva en /Recreation element of the eral PI y updating the Recreation Plan to reflect an uture parks and open spaces; and s f e approved MCAS Tustin Specific Plan rict re ns by increasing the allowable number of units, a owing transfer of residential units and non - al square footages between planning areas, iin g a 9 -acre sports park form Neighborhood E, airing a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent City approval of any development project, and minor clean-up. The total overall allowable number of dential units and non-residential square footages will remain the same. No change to the General Plan land use or zoning designation is proposed. 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 brought up concerns related to increase in the number of apartments, elimination of a 9 -acre park site, and the need for more clarity as to efforts made to the historic blimp hangars. The Commission asked staff to address these concerns. Minutes — Planning Commission February 28, 2012 — Page 2 TWTAII 1 Kozak Thompson Motion: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: 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 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 thRe FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement are suffi r the proposed project. RECOMMENDA That the tS ommissi opt Resolution No. 4190 recommeat the Tu City Council adopt Ordinanc3 a oving G al Plan Amendment 2011-01 ai Amendm 011-04. Adopted Resolution No. 4189 hea pened and closed at 7:15 p.m., with no the pub is stepping forward. reconvened to discuss the item. in favor of adopting Resolution No. 4190 since there sed increase in dwelling units and the City continues ish its affordable housing goals through providing rental units. A reduction of the park area was also acknowledged since Tustin Legacy exceeds standards in providing an abundance of park space to the area as noted within the report and exhibits. It was moved by Puckett, seconded by Eckman, to adopt Resolution No. 4190. Motion carried 4-0. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 2010-153 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2012-02. Minutes — Planning Commission February 28, 2012 — Page 3 Map of 9 -acre Park Site to be Eliminated and Overall Park Sites at Tustin Legacy; and Parkland Summary at Tustin Legacy WT lip•F &NEW A' 111,111,111M. 9 U rte.. re'�1 � s t mtt: 9b1 �K •r. ;�}Er .Vt h wAa Sit 11 IGT -r q tl f tJ��`ji� Rkat a F�s�i 0000 � r v t . r_. t � I k .i rte.. re'�1 # a ;�}Er .Vt h wAa Sit 11 IGT -r q tl f tJ��`ji� Rkat a F�s�i � r y`. ^��+ fl��tll i6 1�1r ■ ..-. . - It twtna iC 4 1- N 00 M 00 O r� N N N l0 n 0 00 00 N 41 m a O09 01 M O al r -i t0 N r r P O O G) CL N oo� o 0000 Ln o or,° Ui rn 0) c-1 M a 0 mQ)O oo 0 3 Ln r% a t N M OQ M U 0 w = 0 O t 0 w H 00 0 O t H W Z Z +�+ N 01 0) ko H rl N Ln dt M 0) c-1 M a v mQ)O oo N 3 Ln r% a N M 0 0 0 w (7 0 O t H W Z ATTACHMENT C City Council Resolution No. 12-26 RESOLUTION NO. 12-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 BY AMENDING THE CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO REFLECT EXISTING AND FUTURE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES AND OTHER MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council 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 (GPA) 2011 -01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and future parks and open spaces and other minor text amendments. 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 acreages related to parks and open space parcels and implementing other minor text amendments. The proposed updates would provide up to date parks and open spaces information to members of the public. C. 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. D. 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 and adopted Resolution No. 4190 recommending that the City Council approve GPA 2011 -01 and SPA 2011-04. E. 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 Resolution No. 12-26 Page 2 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. F. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. II. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 2011-01 attached hereto as Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 20th day of March, 2012. JOHN NIELSEN MAYOR PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Resolution No. 12-26 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SS CITY OF TUSTIN 1, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 12-26 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 20th day of March, 2012, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 12-26 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 takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. I_��y«:t! ; I ► 1 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, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Barranca Parkway to the south. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the 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. 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 effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. (� I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. lkjPreparer: Date: February 2, 2012 Date: February 2, 2012 Elizabeth )k- Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached D 11 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area`? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment'? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY• — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analvsis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 groundboine vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El XIII. PtiBLIC 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? e) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New 1fore Change From Significant Severe Previous _ Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PtiBLIC 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? e) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-01 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2011-04 3__OM•Mkl On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Envi ro n menta I 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. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 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. I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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 Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 3 is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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 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 MCAS 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 FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There continue to be no agricultural resources on the property. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001, concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 5 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program II1. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) 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 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 6 The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, development on the Project Site could also result in significant unavoidable long-term and cumulative air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. The Proposed Project 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/E[R. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long-term and/or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.- Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were 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 on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 8 The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological 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 biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 9 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? 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 cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, 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 FEIS/EIR, 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 (Pages 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 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 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. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high- intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 12 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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? 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 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 entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. Portions of the Project Site are presently undergoing remediation, and therefore remain under Navy ownership. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 13 Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then -current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100 - foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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 Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 14 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10- 2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? a) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 15 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post -construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 16 more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 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 project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. 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 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 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. Mitigation/Monitoring Required., No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 19 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise -related land use distribution within the Project Site or Tustin Legacy. The 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 20 avoiding significant short-term construction -related noise impacts. There would be no changes proposed that would modify development intensity, traffic generation, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, or other development standards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3-162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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 proposed project. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to population and housing that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3- 34, 4-14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5- 101through 5-112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 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 adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the Project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the 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 plan check. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 23 Schools 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 parks, 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. Other Public Facilities (Libraries) Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that 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 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. MitigationlMonitoring Required., Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3- 57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 9331 d (1 ) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 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? 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 WAS 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 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-127 through 5-147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the serves or may serve the project the project's projected demand commitments? wastewater treatment provider, which that it has adequate capacity to serve in addition to the provider's existing f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 would implement minor tent amendments to the GOR 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 FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. The Project would not result in any changes to the utilities plan presented in the Specific Plan. 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 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 29 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEIS/EIR 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects ,or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 30 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) and Addendum Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. EXHIBIT B OF RESOLUTION NO. 12-26 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 200172011, 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 January 2011 City population of 75,781. The sphere of influenEe contains 10 aEres of par-Idand leaving i 66 -ages short of meeting the needs of both existing and eted populations. 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 T"T, 82012 through the winter months, thus reducing peak loads in the drier summer months. A fourth program is the OCWD 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 Plan" 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 zvater- needy and that irrigation systems are appropriately implemented to minimize mater zvaste. 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 TrTrT�w2012 TABLE COSR-2 EXISTING CITY PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES NAME LOCATION ACRES FACILITIES 1. Camino Real 13602 Park Center At 4.3 Preschool & school-age apparatus, basketball Camine L.aiie court 2. Centennial 14722 Sycaxere & 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 Irvine fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts, gymnasium 4. Frontier 1400 Mitchell & Utt 4.5 School-age apparatus, frisbee golf, fitness course, horseshoe pit, softball fields, barbecue grill 5. Magnolia Tree 2274 C� 4.2 Preschool & school-age apparatus, basketball Fig Tree Drive court, tennis courts, barbecue grill 6. McFadden- McFadden & 0.4 Picnic tables Pasadena Parkette Pasadena 7. Peppertree 230 W. First &-C 5.51 Preschool apparatus, fitness course, horseshoe pit, youth ball fields, barbecue grill 8. Pine Tree 1402 Redhill L Bryan 4.2 Preschool and school-age apparatus, volleyball courts 9. Clifton Miller 300 Centennial Way 0.10 Meeting room, auditorium, microphones, kitchen Community Center 10. Tustin Area Senior 200 South C Street 0.40 Meeting rooms, game room, auditorium, Center microphone, kitchen, pool tables 11. Laurel Glen Park 13301Her-itage & 3.0 Passive park with picnic facilities and a tot lot M ford Road 12. Tustin Sports Park 12850 jamberee and 20.0 Lighted softball/ soccer fields, tennis courts, Robinson multi-purpose court, racquetball court 13. Cedar Grove 11385 Pioneer 9.7 Pre-school age apparatus, group picnic facilities, RoadWay nature/redwood/cedar trees (trader eertstr-uclieFr} 14. Heritage Way Park 2350 Kinsmmiz Circle Read/Hefitage Way 5.0 Tot lot, picnic area, basketball court, roller hockey 15. Tustin Family Newport/Sycamore 0.53 Pre-school, meeting/game rooms, multi-purpose Youth Center Ave. activity rooms, computer lab, after school drop-in program 16. Citrus Rancli 2910 Portola Parkway 17.0 Picnic slielter, playground, restroonis, walkitt trails, hilltop gazebo, on-site lemon tree orchard, parkin , laza area, picidc podS with Uarbecue grill 17. Pioneer Park 10250 Pioneer Road 3.1 Picnic shelter, 2 plaiRrouiids, basketball lialf court, CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 43 jUNE '082012 NAME LOCATION ACRES FACILITIES restroorns, barbecue grill, walking tray , water eature play area 18. Tustin Field 17 Blue Ski Drive 1.3 Plawround, basketball half court, picnic area 19. Tustin Field Il' 631 Halley Drive 1.7 PlayRround, basketball court, picnic area 20. Columbus Squarer Montgomenj Squarer Columbus Square Montgomen Street 1.2 1.0 Playground,picnic area Playground, basketball half court, picnic area Arlington Park' Arlington Street 1.0 Playground, basketball lyaCrcourt, picnic area Paseo MontgomeT Paseo 0.4 Paseo, picnic area Paseor Arlington Paseo 0.3 Paseo, picnic area 21. Coluurbus Grover Co umbos Grove Drive 1.0 Playgroup an picnic area Grove Par Jasmine Place 2.7 Playground, basketball fiill and half court, picnic area Total Acres 821..^113.5 vnvate parK accessible to puouc CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 44 iTT,.TF�� ,7z2ow82012 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, Tustin Subdiz)ision Code, -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, parkettes 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. CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 45 iT NE 17-,20082012 082012 TABLE COSR-3 PROPOSED COY PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SITE LOCATION PROPOSED FEATURES AND PARK TYPES ACREAGE (examples only) Required Neig-hber-heed Park Population Rd7jaFnboreeunknow Parkland' MCAS Tustin School Pla rounds School Preschool/seho�s� �rr�-� • Neighborhood acres/ (3 000)Acreages ^i^ ` Eilifie: Variousfacilities t.i�..... ,u� f Par1EsKlPrivate Parks, 19083 base Various locations at designed to support residents and Open Space and 63,78 75,781 Tustin Legacy employees in the project with focus on Greenbelts' 78114 8173 turf areas, picnic areas, and small tot - Future City 76,23679,916 228240 lot features (5)141 114120 of MCAS Tustin site One connrn{nihy Parkin Lighted seftball/mniti use fields E£eRter Various passive MCAS Tustin 25,235 Neighborhood A, another and active recreational facilities on Community P Public 244101 comrnunihj park centrally community parks to meet broad needs Parks 275927,721 located in the project and of residents and employees in the (7-273) 4142 Linear Park elements project including lighted fields and within various other picnic areas, community facilities, etc. neighborhoods. and inclusion of coater features in Linear Park. Count/ of Orange Urban Regional hark 84 Plannin Area 6 of the MCAS Tustin Specific TBD by the Counh/ of Orange Plan TOTAL ACRES 54:268 Source: WAS Tustin Specific Plan, Tract Maps 17144 & 17404, Legacy Park Final Design Guidelines ' Private parks, open space, and greenbelts accessible to public. Portions of community linear park to be privately owned but accessible to the public TABLE COSR-4 EXISTING AND FUTURE PARK ACREAGE NEEDS a,arce: uaujorrua uepartment of t -mance, Population Estimate January 1, 2011, Table LU -3 General Plan Land Use Element 1. Unless alternate ratio are established in an adopted Specific Plan, Development Agreement, or any other applicable agreement. Please note that a higher standard far the provision of public and private parkland has been identified fir the WAS Tustin CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 46 rTn`T>lm.�T?082012 Parkland Acreages Requimd• School Playground Acreages Required Population Required Parklands Parkland' Surplus/ (Short ll) o f School Pla rounds School Surplus/ (Shortfall) of acres/ (3 000)Acreages (y / 11000) Playgrounds Acreages Existing City 63,78 75,781 189227 824113 (10"114) 78114 8173 3(107) Future City 76,23679,916 228240 M381 (5)141 114120 12773 1-1(113) Existing SOIti4t 25,235 76 10 (66) 38 52 14 FutureSOI1141 275927,721 8283 10 (7-273) 4142 52 1110 a,arce: uaujorrua uepartment of t -mance, Population Estimate January 1, 2011, Table LU -3 General Plan Land Use Element 1. Unless alternate ratio are established in an adopted Specific Plan, Development Agreement, or any other applicable agreement. Please note that a higher standard far the provision of public and private parkland has been identified fir the WAS Tustin CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 46 rTn`T>lm.�T?082012 Specific Plan to meet the needs of this area of the Cihj. The Specific Platt identifies by neighborhood required parks and open space acreages that need to be acconnnodated. 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 to active sports facilities that will be available to the community; 263. School playground acreages are based on the assumption that 35 percent of approximately 422W18.9 acres of land (Col nnibns Tustin School) associated withjoint use agreement between the City and sSchool Districts is used for recreational purposes. 14. Sphere of Influence CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 47 1T NE''02012 S S'�I�i�L �° � i iii n i s. � ♦ fie_ ♦� a L� � w. !i �= �_ r� f. 11 ftp �- t �,, � � �•st ` � , ` 11 r--�,✓ x �-i-� � „ s F � � > � � �\ .U':_t_',�!n k' _fj,. z., "E'= -i.:. J...,�.. .:.1. .._.�. !_'ti:.. .._'��� ,�r.� t.ati-�rr._i"o . i �4a �r'[ i � 1 ! � M .,> -� 'het, I t � '� 1,,'+; ;1 � -.. S t i ,'- 1 / �1tj�',. Irl,, j.z �ar�, �_�ItI+:,2�, , r . ...�,. ' :. �5� r., . .a "�. ..:.fit... .. . S�'^S�a z � x _ h _ r! , Parkettes Parkettes are small, passive, local parks, generally less than one acre in size. Most parkettes 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 serve 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 parkettes 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 trees, shrubs, groundcover, turf areas, benches, trash receptacles, picnic tables, shade structures, paved or decomposed - granite trails. The standard minimum size for neighborhood parks is three acres. Neighborhood parks should be located 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 it i�.'��'''�-^82012 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 or aquatic center, and play areas as well as community centers, on-site parking, restrooms, and picnic areas. Amenities such as trees, shrubs,groundcover, large open turf areas, hardscape, benches, trash receptacles, paved and decomposed granite trails, clubhouse 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 Community Linear Park would provide (private and public owned portions) trees, shrubs, groundcover, turf, hardscape, benches, trash receptacles, lighting, small structures (i.e. gazebos, shelters, trellis, sculptures, monuments), shallow hardscape and/or 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 s0 jUNE 1717, 2^2012 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 Public school playgrounds under- the jUrFiSdiEtiOR f the T ti Unified School District open to the PUbliE after- school hou Organized 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 ulith the School District to meet the overall standard of three acres per 1,000 population. At the time of the General Plan update, one school facilihj (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 TrTL�� 17-,20082012 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 ChanneLSever-al 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 WAS Tustin Specific Plan also CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/ GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT 52 j rNE'x- 02012 ATTACHMENT D Ordinance No. 1413 ORDINANCE NO. 1413 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2011-04, 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 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 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. That allowing thirty (30) percent of the total unit count as rental can be supported based on: economics of future reuse of Tustin Legacy; the need of affordable workforce housing; the desire to maintain jobs and housing balance; compliance with Tustin Housing Element by providing affordable units for special needs population (elderly, large families, very low income households, female headed households, etc.); dispersion of affordable units throughout community; promotion of equal housing opportunities; financial feasibility of projects; Regional Ordinance No. 1413 Page 2 Housing Needs allocation; and provision of a mixture of housing types for the diverse socio-economic needs of Tustin residents. D. That the elimination of a 9 -acre park site can be supported due to the fact that: there are over 287 acres of open space planned at Tustin Legacy, approximately 160 acres are planned within the former master developer footprint; the park sites will be available to the general public through public easements; upon implementation of these park sites, there will be approximately 141 acres of park sites above the 3 acres/1,000 persons standard in the City; the 9 -acre park site was once planned for a detention basin where further refinement of Tustin Legacy infrastructure design has rendered a new detention basin at the corner of Barranca Parkway and Redhill Avenue; the 9 -acre park site is surrounded by proposed commercial and industrial uses in which a park site is not conducive to the surrounding non-residential uses. E. 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. 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 in 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"). F. 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. G. 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 Ordinance No. 1413 Page 3 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/EIR, and Tustin City Codes H. 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 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 EIS/EIR and Addendum, and any Tustin City Code requirements. I. 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. J. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on February 14, 2012, and February 28, 2012, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearings, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 4190 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 2011-04 by adopting Ordinance No. 1413. K. That on March 20, 2012, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held before the City Council concerning SPA 2011-04 (Ordinance No. 1413). Ordinance No. 1413 Page 4 L. 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. M. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. N. SPA 2011-04 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long-term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city-wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed-use, master -planned development. SECTION 2. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of the MCAS 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 B. SECTION 3. Section 3.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.2 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 3-1). Ordinance No. 1413 Page 5 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 wG" supports residential in O se shall transfers of units result in• r_'1 1Tahle 4.1) 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 City Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing Ordinance (Density Bonus Ordinance), and subject to thethe fol1GWiRg nru�te_rria are met, suubjeGt co a FitteR finriing review and IVIIV yy approval by the Director of Community Development: INMEMNWIMM, - - IT .. . .. SECTION 5. Section 3.2.5 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.2.5 (Section 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 the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels within the contributing neighborhood consent in writing 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. Ordinance No. 1413 Page 6 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 twelve 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.OH • 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 SECTION 7. Section 3.4.2.H.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 conditional use permit. GORditional use permit shouldORGludeetthe City's pre ferenne fpr ownership tenure and in any event, RG more than 25 peFGentofthe total number of�i units permitted within the Git y of Tustin portion of the Spedfin Plan may he appreved for apartments. 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 the symbol "P" occurs or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs. Ordinance No. 1413 Page 7 . 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 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 on single-family detached lots SECTION 9. Section 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. In Genciderinn a nonditional use permit, no mere than 25 pernent of the total ...... ........... ...y ... ...........uv..u. aavv Nva . � na, � w mere w� v --cis number of unitspermittedvrth-In the Tustin portion of the-Spe6,if,in DIarea may be approved fGF apaFtments. 2S+r Fl 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 P six or fewer persons • Condominiums and cooperatives P Multiple family dwellings (apartments) in accordance P with tenure provisions in Section 3.6.2.3/ Single family attached dwelling units and duplexes P Ordinance No. 1413 Page 8 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, Q-53 at the low income level and 9-1--90 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 rate units in appearance, use of materials, and finished quality. Restricted units shall be affordable for at least the minimum period of time required by state law, or longer if required 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 the City of Tustin or its Redevelopment Agency, and agree to deed restrictions on 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 qualifying income and maximum rents or sales prices 3) Parties responsible for sales prices and incomes m_W - im 1"M"WAR - - - - .- Ordinance No. 1413 Page 9 Development ■ f fn him.. .. .. . _•M •� . .. / I' • • . I' • .wigF 'I • 11 • • I' � . • •' '1 • M 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: Development5. TeRure Area 15 of apartments.. ited to atotal of 192. EaGh rental projeG-t to be built shall Gonsist of no greatei, thall _0% .. 40% •0% at themoderate mnGE)rne level and 20% at the market rate level. -Thirty (30)percent of the total number of units authorized within the City of Tustinportion 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 aconditional use permit. Consideration of a Gend'enaIuse permit should in uethe Git 's prefernno for ownership tenure, and in any event, no more than 25 PeFrcont of the tot n�ber of units permitted may he approved for apartments SECTION 14. Section 4.2.9 through 4.2.10 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: - -MINEMAN - - - ... . . . . .. . . . .. .. e- . MMEnr M. .. .1M nu Development5. TeRure Area 15 of apartments.. ited to atotal of 192. EaGh rental projeG-t to be built shall Gonsist of no greatei, thall _0% .. 40% •0% at themoderate mnGE)rne level and 20% at the market rate level. -Thirty (30)percent of the total number of units authorized within the City of Tustinportion 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 aconditional use permit. Consideration of a Gend'enaIuse permit should in uethe Git 's prefernno for ownership tenure, and in any event, no more than 25 PeFrcont of the tot n�ber of units permitted may he approved for apartments SECTION 14. Section 4.2.9 through 4.2.10 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as follows: Ordinance No. 1413 Page 10 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 EIS/EIR and 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'). 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 EIS/EIR 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 Development Agreement in accordance with Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code and Sections 9600 to 9619 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. 4.2.11 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 Ordinance No. 1413 Page 11 court having jurisdiction, such a decision shall not invalidate the remaining portions in whole or in part of the Specific Plan. SECTION 15. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this t" day of March, 2012. JOHN NIELSEN MAYOR ATTEST: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK Ordinance No. 1413 Page 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1413 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 20th day of March, 2012, and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3rd day of April, 2012, by the following vote: COUNCILPERSONS AYES: COUNCILPERSONS NOES: COUNCILPERSONS ABSTAINED: COUNCILPERSONS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk 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 takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): 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, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Barranca Parkway to the south. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the 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. 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 effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer:. J1*3 Date: February 2, 2012 I if V 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 light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ rq ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ rq ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 wiidlands 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 Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of 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 groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proj ect? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection'? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated'? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 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. I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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 Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 3 is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts G PA 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 MCAS 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 FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There continue to be no agricultural resources on the property. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001, concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 5 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-8 through 5-10) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 1111. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) 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 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 6 The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, development on the Project Site could also result in significant unavoidable long-term and cumulative air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. The Proposed Project 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 FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required.- Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were 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 on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 444 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 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. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 8 The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological 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 biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 9 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? 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 cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, 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 FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts G PA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 10 Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (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 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 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. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high- intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS/EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. MitigationtMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 12 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in 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 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. Portions of the Project Site are presently undergoing remediation, and therefore remain under Navy ownership. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 13 Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then -current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100 - foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a 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 Impacts G PA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 14 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10- 2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? a) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 15 Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post -construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 16 more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30 and Addendum Pages 5-56 through 5-92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 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 project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. 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 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 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. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and Addendum (Page 5-95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 19 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 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 would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise -related land use distribution within the Project Site or Tustin Legacy. The 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 20 avoiding significant short-term construction -related noise impacts. There would be no changes proposed that would modify development intensity, traffic generation, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, or other development standards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3-162) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-99) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. 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 proposed project. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to population and housing that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3- 34, 4-14 to 4-29, and 7-18 to 7-19) and Addendum Pages (5- 101 through 5-112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts G PA 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 adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the Project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the 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 WAS Tustin Specific Plan would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum. As a condition of approval, future development projects would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at plan check. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 23 Schools 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 parks, 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. Other Public Facilities (Libraries) Since certification of the FEIS/EIR, the Orange County Library (OCPL) entered into an agreement with the City of Tustin for the expansion of the Tustin Branch library. The expansion of the library is a capital improvement of a public facility that 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 the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3- 57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 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 FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-127 through 5-147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? 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. 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 FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. The Project would not result in any changes to the utilities plan presented in the Specific Plan. 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 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) and Addendum (pages 5-147 through 5-165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011 -01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 29 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The FEIS/EIR 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 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts GPA 2011-01 AND SPA 2011-04 Page 30 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) and Addendum Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR and Addendum, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. EXHIBIT B OF ORDINANCE NO. 1413 col O CT N O O M 00 O� co M Q� 1p M z z T �i y a h n An APA r- In N O &� An , An N A � z z z o ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ®O ¢ ¢ ® ® N zz z`z z z z o cl ' O lz00 � o gz o ti u7 Q �' CD (71 W Q rQy z yQ z .Qy z z z C- ��y z �Qy z y\ z z y� z y„�,�y ' i� M �t 00 Ci N O 90 00 CO O �O N O Wok zz zz z M z zz zz May N1 Z IC N O ET 00 N on Z31 P. An In M 00 9— O 01 Go CV O "F C" "F 01 h M t 1�0 N A C �y An N Af'1 t - CIA m'A : 00 M ti Ot Ckn N r: F o ,m g 0 N 00 to �5 U '� • V1 © c O VI CUd A NG� VA Cl O N M W P6as o r , cdcd ANS a� n3 N cd 0 a) � � 0 A ai N 5• ea � cd N L •r. w � Q �i ODcn � ®.12 � •� Cd ® ,r7. N cc'2� w d� w a3 •5; .5 c.� 3 to t4 a a`iaac`d� c`dWzE c`dc`dc�"vW�n a F a v O O O (0 .-... r-0) 00 00 00 � y z z W N N N z z hn� � v 0. � 0 o zttM to N O GL M � 00 M N ONO 1p �t N Oa► ILto to O_ O A W ON M O O M d A.1 M 00 N M N M h W •� � W M o A raj 00 c o OO r- N o O 0 "r r- 10 "tr r M dam' Rn N • V 7 N as ~ V w ti ��� W O N yy Vyj Ny yy 49 yy M 'd V] QO N h h g g o0 O to "O to b M 'r N O '.0N G C 'O M N O\ 00 In t M "tro N ~ V l O Vj r-: h "F N O 00 Vy .- ~ M N N4= M el' C M I1 h } y OP W Cti 0 G U 0o a %n t- oo Cd Cd Cd C13 4) cd A sa �cn 8 aa. 3a, �aPLO a.aa. a � a A O wti O O O O O O A y A o 4 so O N O O ON t7 O O .a GLS o rn 00 Ory. �c 00 y a W tn A W n o 0 0 k W Gi G" 00ON o ." 'n t- fV 44 O O en v rA O �L O � IO N M V'1 O C� 4 r rl V1 In O 'd' tn 00 of 00 C N co o ti N 0�0 IMS N a � �V U 06 O0 N N00 r- el �M b ry o � a V � F 75 d �ct1 euUU 0 PC Q N N taN Q N b N N N O U1i eq N O U m Q Aaq `� oo b on � an o cn on to v on g as ' J., d O 00O ,�, b 5 O LO O C �Irg � L aai c U o S3 _ on 0 c o 'fl � � y � � .'CJ p, •y '� ... N � •� v C p sa N L p 3 07 b y Q ou co C y o p T +' J c�tl y U �G� U• w C� C OA cmcc,, ttd bn y y U y 30 '' J cC y �a w �> c N ra td o $ .� 7E, L � na ri tq °' two 'd-.25-B w a .N rNi w .5 'ter. EE :: •� ,a, °L' .5 0 oafli .? yaC w u H •° c7 C o a>> Qv 3 n o •°^: Z ¢i •? w0 °' G Q aUi aCi �.� ❑�a a°xi vU ebod x v ° 'o 4. ybo 3 t7 ❑ a,' y aU+ N a. '^�, .y oo •C OD W v' L O C U rwn � t� O DA O C c? d E, .5 d nL°n oE ca '>ptoc3°L°C� Z 2,a C '3u 0— 5 a•Ri r«g ump45 0C o U Ea popSc a) y ta.Ebo0o W*0crd.' n❑ c 5a, c c'a c> 5 0 y �•o F gg o CIS �aj" JU] U ° �a � 5 Pp •° '8 rkE k a> a 5 = D °4. 1 o on °f1 v' •N v o a^°i R m y o to "o c ° a , 'S °� axi `� ^� 5 'o .". °> a>i cF 0� �' ° � C N y cr It O C a� ' i 0. .� N O �v o cc.0 N.5 7 ci �i�p�c o ami c.5�b 0 8 °o w°4. 4. civ > ynN ^ "L' p an S a 3 w L 0. 0o C d 3 C ry o u ° d�'"�Jz w N ccdi.•5x ° �� c o b axi o y ci 000n�>avim m�>¢o pWp �_u en «' 7 p c'a .., C C> g td U'o bn C w 2 b 0 3 O W lV N E E 4' ° aQ ° c E ° pq dao C� a0-95 �;Mm�b'-,-, � °aa��y Qb M p U � QN N O N N M'b W 50. 50.pc u 5o w a>i°n�cC°i a i 2 x$47 p9by >� d��:: F•� o c 6 o N.fi p �G x A v end.E H aN y a o U o L a cb cis3w E H ro a� o E °`60 .� enw� c y ass U Ecy w c oo$ o p o axi c n -c w° 3° aCi aEi m v' 30 arm on 5 0 abi cd L y° p ° p awi 1'^ Cl 40. 000 u o .r5 c° N �c V7 qqbA pU wpCw oLl Ay ° � Op,N N X 40-M w .0 U ,O C oo �aoa� ^A�a> o> y°cp,•y ��p`,aC� a O C bCOD y.,"$CF5 c°n:1N.0 m�o�, �c`ycaypb ioa.UXCna 6 °ao°' 5L'.N[ -0 .3paE°,;-g°,7Fx ° :°ppcq �QA? •tC y°op EoI A°°obtaNEanrE' N w O 4 'a ca o=i' v040.dd O .-, - >,. p N E ON UU ;.0 ��= ° foo^ gtaO jowa i.o>°.03 y yN ��N 0 �Uy pd � C L G y wI N 0c>$ o 0u yaL gz �M a� E ypj 4-2, a won .14? a .5 °L' .S pv o �a .5 S E w tq .p5 3 �° .5 y CL �- k w p C..I, N A .� N N .0 5 V7 cn tO Qcz y 'p0C S� td O Cj awicdv3d Lon z ow h.nF- N 3waAF E0.a'S aa-••�a�a 8aat--�':Haw�w4�v� N y z^ N M 7 hbN 00 Q\ .-. — ,M-, ——- —oma O O O O O N O N hM ON W W Oi O O (0 O O [7 Y1 Q 'z iJ !� iJ �' n nri q a 0 0 C Z z m cz 00 06 N 00 N 00 A ts w� to � �b N N 4 Q a 4 .)C' � � '� VMeq ~ ONO ONO 0 kn 00 00 le QQ q °o tj"44 .r ��Na ¢ Z Q Z N ' `- A CAI � 0 C wi s qu d� •7 '7 M .--i 00 Vl 00 d' N N M� �co z 0-4 C O O v C1 O l� .-• .-. 01 v O o0 C VV ti C11 M MC4 N "o rl M �O kn 00 IC C 06 c 4 N h r in 4 to to N ti col H 4 a � F. �-• � CR V1 �" O p p N 0 00 U Q! �"� CO y cd W Cd '� as 0 'G� Id N cV FaFyye' a�j� o o U a� y, a� ,� a� o any; 0 1ay� iay� o o yoy V lr 8Qi bQi�.�. �QU�'R Qi Qi Qi zo-� 12 G on o ao � oA 'c� H p 0 a� a� 9 O O� co a� Cd a� A Cd a� 00 Ak �w Ox O .� �aw 03-1 9wwWWa��.�. p.� o. v.� 2 o a a c+. C7 a a a c7 h� W) w� z z O N ON N O .�� O� B— O 0� ti m 00 � 00 d' N 00 Cf) vi lz N O� 0000 � (2N � or,® wl � � N a N N D w^ In 7i M O 00 O [� N r M M z Z Q 2 00 Yy .� O ot) O O Itt ®1 00 N \p S O CN C VD N 00 00 GO 00 M CD M 00 Y et w p C M M O N d' r�r M m Y N N 00 N l� O o Q1 N M 7t 01O vl M z Z p +n et �' •� t ^ N eV 00 00 N � l— ,Z C3 jy N v� �F rM c d' C°r Q `IO V] N Vi NCO rn v� .� 'D fn ca bo Cl) 0 0 ® o f Ln a oQ ON TV � 00 O � 00 r--: © 00 � CN w M � 00 00 MO N.� M O ® M q �' n M op M O 00 N 4 U w A A O O x® � � •� .� � Iii ^CJ HI.vl ��� � 'r • in Q N M�+I I.Vy �a Q A� A M w o cd c �, o w F A O a O A O ® w A d. �.. FW a� O o h �, •� O •� k ,x .5 p O .� C x c� bb 5 3-E bA.- 118 bn.. bn a C7a a. a c7 as p c7aaaa p c7a a s en w 5 N b � a A zw w z z z A4 zzz s CO zz z z z A a ' w ^" O y4 � 00 � N A w� o Q zzz Iq zz z z z M� N� Q cn o vcli N � z W U N b IT (� A C V7 N a .ri N •y U b a U -a H od fV Cd N Q� O cd 0 Aa0wzR �aa � O u. 'p N on �•+rOJ .a O a a O ap cCd to W abi ° 3 on 0 yp� O v ami ° O •^ A 1p ^� 8 a 'p 3 a yc� � '�� �� � �o � � a°i '•�aai Gp � �'n cd�C . °°3N Z•p xa �w act y a°i� b3U �o yh$ bo'a'S o a o4 ap9�' N0 3 w U O oD 4� 'a°i j w co 799 Q aw°.S '9. v 0 ., z� eiaap alp o p 3 y y 'O Ry cic,,?11 •y to, G y V Q U .Y�" i.. t�,y5 00'x.°� oQ d �F ave'p� cQa �iy d'� ,7 'O ami °� a� '.d y .�i' ^-� d ° y • � � � °� `' a+�i � ¢' � U ❑ o A h 'a U ';" "°��y' C. ,L7 ° a d ^ CY G A, ,, M v •o ami 7b UO Yin .^i, ^� CaO � a N N a� DDJD � q* °8 ap� y 7.5 >ubm ' Ha>� Cd�oga,'°, {ag�ud �y O RI p•--.,' ,h N y N ?, 4" Ogp CA "80 ..2 te a AIR � i cd �U„ b � rn •F7 � � ,rJ' b � y y U O t0 y'T" •y C p�j E•' °v .°..'"•� � as �i `� yb eai 3 ° °�� �'^� � � � °'° `�`°�n '�' •" gw v� yO cc 00'G wi° gad a�'i aoi a� v 3 a�4' �°opoS3enr��o ?�.,t �°i .�.. mE y aa°i=>c��M �aUi e ° 14 0 64 0 a W� dy °ow O�� m. °wok ca�v a0°� i o y'�yyw g cy o•." `o ai yUw ."p4b? au{o o N vi pp •O N a N � a A ..p. + O. O Rpf, cr 9bIn O •y a 7) y„� OD T qn. N fl l� ° qaa p •C y 4" O y b a oD y U^v y Vii N CD `.`' a yya �,vi b¢� w a� p� a. v a HcQJ ° a O ''� y N � ..y, •O LYi � GO � .� Pr 8 O � 0 P. 003 .�4�+ � Q N � � M a a a dG a 5 ° a 63� a"°iw�•� OgDc yA 3�.� ��^N 9 a�oi ° o �a o oa 3�Sao O aua E, IgoaA, S'nQua V1 %.I ti (V t'7 e1' h �G t� 00 Oi .r Nr ,Mi b 00 O� TABLE 3-3' PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET Planning�5ar1�n�?di/P�a's� Non-r���%1aal Area No. _ Land Use Cate o Y172 A DTs Amount A DT3 NEIGHBORHOOD A - 1-A Elementary/Middle School STU 339 561 I4urnii'- G-fltcr 4LS- . 1,293. I -A, I -E Learning Center(ATEP) TSF 893.85 111� 5,471 I -B Learning Center (Law TSF 152.46 933 Enforcement/Animal Care Center) 1-C Learning Center (Child Care TSF 60.98 373 Shelter) 1-D Learning Center (Child Care) TSF 31.36 192 1-F Learning Center (RSCCCD) TSF 196.02 /,192 200 Neighborhood Commercial TSF X224 85 3-,43-32,784 1-G Tustin Facility SG TBD4,5 6,220 PA 1 Trip Budget Total '320.981,4 17,734 12.656 2 Sorts Park ACRE 24.1 _ 1,297 3 Transitional Housing ROOM 192 941 Neighborhood A Square Footage Total 'TSF 1,320.9 1,4 12.65 Neighborhood Trite et 1 otal _ _ 17,734 NEIGHBORHOOD B _ LDR (1-7 DU/Acre) - DU 145 1,388 4 MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) DU 120 960 Senior Housin 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 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 TSF 243.3 Nei hborb®od B Trip Budget Total 8,974 NEIGHBORHOOD C Community Commercial TSF 57.5 3,920 6 Regional Park ACRE 84.5 423 PA 6 Trip Budget Total ---57.5 3,920 Neighborhood C Square Footage Total TSS 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 8 Office Park TSF 1,383.8 11,280 Industrial Park TSF 319.51 3,803 Park ACRE 10.3 52 Sorts Park ACRE 46 2,475 PE18 Tri Budget Total 1,976 28,487 MHDR (16-25 DU/Acre) DU 891 5,907 Hotel 380 TSF) ROOM 500 500 4,115 13 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 1,091 Community Commercial TSF 117.1 7,984 General Office TSF 1,512 20,065 Park ACRE 12.91 65 TABLE 3-3 PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET Planning Area No. Land Use CaYegoU Units Residential/Parks Amount ADTs _ Non -Residential Amount I ADTs Health Club TSF 30 988 Hi -Turnover Restaurant TSF 12 1,526 PA 13 Trip Budget Totnl _ 2,060.86 35,769 Community Commercial TSF 11.11 757 General Office _ TSF _ 136.9 1,818 14 Office Park _ TSF _ _ 547 _ 5,645 Theatre (25 TSF) SEAT _ _ 1,00_0 1,250 High -Turnover Restaurant TSF 6 763 PA 14 Trip Budget Total _ 726.01 10,233 Neighborhood D Square Footage Total _ TSF 4,762.87 Neighborhood D Trip Budget Total 74,489 NEIGHBORHOOD E Industrial Park TSF 44.61 7-1-41,0.12 9 Park ACRE 1.1 6 Spo4,s4-1 r;- ACRE 6-4 3-28 PA 9 Trip Budget Total 44.61 7441.042 General Office TSF _ 156.82 -2,0912,312 Industrial Park TSF _ 124.41 1,569 10 Park ACRE 1.4 7 PA 10 Trip Budget Total 281.23 3,6503,881 Neighborhood Commercial TSF 18.13 2,028 General Office TSF 371.89 '4,935 11 Office Park TSF 278.78 2,663 Industrial Park TSF 138.52 2,002 Park ACRE 25.7 130 PA 11 Trip Budget Total 807.32 11,628 12 Office Park TSF 134.17 1,281 PA 12 Trip Budget Total 134.17 _ 1,281 Neighborhood E Square Footage Total TSF 1,267.33 Neighborhood E Trip Budget Total 17;:7317,3 32 NEIGHBORHOOD F 16 Shopping Center TSF 448 13,772 PA 16 Trip Budget Total 448 13,772 17 Shopping Center TSF 47 1,445 PA 17 Trip Budget Total 47 1,445 18 Military (Office) TSF 40.85 542 PA 18 Trip Budget Total 40.85 542 Shopping Center TSF 435.6 13,391 435.6 13,391 19 Multiplex Theater 70 TSF SEAT _ 3,500 6,300 PA 19 Trip Budget Total TSF 505.6 1 19,691 Neighborhood F Square Footage Total TSF 1,041,45 Neighborhood F Trip Budget Total I _ I 1 35,450 TABLE 3-3 PLANNINGAREA TRIPBUDGET Planning ResidentiaUParks Non Residential Amount ADTs Amount I ADTs Area No. Land Use Cate o Units NEIGHBORHOOD G LDR 1-7 DU/Acre) DU 533 5,102 MDR 8-15 DU/Acre DU 489 3,912 MMR 16-25 DiJ/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. F 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 Footage Total TSF 466.63 Neighborhood G Trip Budget Total 1 1 14,855 NEIGHBORHOOD H LDR 1-7 DU/Acre DU 1661 1,589 22 MDR (8-15 DU/Acre) DU 243 1,944 Elementary/Middle School STU 650 663 Neighborhood H Square Footage Total TSF 0 Neighborhood H Trip Budget Total 0 1 Residential andark uses are shown for informational P 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._ ° 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. s See Section 3.3.2A for use restrictions a 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.