HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 12-26RESQLUTIQN NQ. 12-26
A RESOLUTIQN OF THE GITY CQUNCIL OF THE CITY QF
TUSTIN, CALIFQRNIA, APPRQVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 2011-01 BY AMENDING THE
CQNSERVATIQNIQPEN SPAGE/RECREATIQN ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO REFLECT EXISTING AND
FUTURE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES AND QTHER
MINQR TEXT AMENDMENTS
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follaws:
The City Council finds and determines as follaws:
A. That the City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the
GonservationlOpen SpacelRecreatian element of the General Plan and
MGAS 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 Cauncil
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 ConservationlOpen SpacelRecreation
element of the General Plan by reflecting the refined acreages related to
parks and open space parcels and implemen#ing other minor text
amendments. The proposed updates would provide up to date parks and
open spaces information to members of the public.
G. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held an 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
an February 28, 2012, by the Planning Commission. The Planning
Commission considered staff responses to their concerns and adopted
Resolu#ion No. 4190 recommending that the City Council approve GPA 2011-
01 and SPA 2011-04.
E. On January 16, 2001, the Gity of Tustin certified the Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEISIEIR} for
the reuse and disposal of MGAS Tustin. Qn December 6, 2004, the City
Gouncil adopted Resolution No. 04-7fi approving a Supplement to the
FEISIEIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue
and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the
Resolution 12-26
Page 1 of 3
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
FEISIEIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential
environmental impacts associated with development an the farmer Marine
Carps 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
na 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.
I1. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment 2011-01 attached
hereto as Exhibit B
PASSED AND ADAPTED by the City Council of the City of tin, a~ a regular
meeting on the 20th day of March, 2012.
~,
JOF1N NIE~SEN,
Mayor
ATTEST:
PAMELA STUKER,
City Clerk
Resolution 12-26
Page 2 of 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN }
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whale 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: Nielsen, Murray, Amante, Gomez (4)
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: Gavello (1)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None {0)
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (p)
PAMELA STOKER,
City Clerk
Resolution 12-26
Page 3 of 3
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.
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 ConservationJOpen
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 FEISlEIR 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/BIR 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.
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
^Land Use and Planning
^Population and Housing
^Geology and Soils
^Hydrology and Water Quality
^Air Quality
^Transpartation & Circulation
^Biological Resources
^Mineral Resources
^Agriculturai Resources
^Hazards and Hazardous Materials
^Noise
^Public Services
^Utilities and Service Systems
^Aesthetics
^Cultural Resources
^Recreation
^Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
^ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect an the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
^ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects} on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Fotentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
(~ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1}have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2} have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
^ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1 }have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2} have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparers I~?> : Date: February 2, 2012
~~, -'~~ - ~~f ? . r . .~ ~ =~~. ~.t ~--~ r ~~„ Date: February 2.2012
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attached
l
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 ~~tore Change From
5igniftcant 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
D ^
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 sail Chat 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 lass,
injury or death involving wildland tires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY• -Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river,. or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows`?
i} Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Stcbstantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state`?
b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE
Would the project result in:
a} Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome 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 AiyD 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
rVew More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
No Substantial
New :1'fore 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?
(7ther 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`?
a ^
^ ^
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?
~ Result in inadequate parking capacity?
0 0
^ ^
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?
fj 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
^ ^
^ ^
o ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
^ ^
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAt_ 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 StatemenUEnvironmental Impact Report (FEISlEIR) 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, amulti-year
development period for the planned urban reuse project {Tustin Legacy). When
individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency
is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully
analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the
scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to
Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects
would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects occur, then no supplemental ar subsequent EIR is required.
PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Tustin is proposing a minor amendment to the Conservation/Open
Space/Recreation (COR) Element of the General Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan. The proposal involves minor amendments and will not "substantially alter" the
current adopted General Plan or the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. General Plan
Amendment 2011-01 involves updates to the recreation plan to reflect existing and
future parks and open spaces. Specific Plan Amendment 2011-04 involves minor
amendments intended to: 1) increase the allowable number of rental units; 2) allow
transfer of residential units and non-residential square footages between planning
areas; 3) eliminate a 9-acre sports park from neighborhood E; 4) require the execution
of a Development Agreement prior to or concurrent with City approval of any
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 FEISJEIR 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 mitigatian 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 FEISIEIR 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 FEISIEIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; ar (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
FEISIEIR 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 ar revised mitigation measures are required for
aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related.. to the Project are necessary
to the FEISIEIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are
required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the
FEISIEIR, Addendum and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended
as conditions of entitlement approvals far 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 PIanlReuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62,
pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-8$, and pages 3-104
through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
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 FEISIEIR 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 na 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. Asa 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 an 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 andlor
cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in
the FEIS/EIR.
Based an 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 FEISIEIR 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 adapted 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 FEISIEIR.
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 ar
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 FEISIEIR, 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
FEISIEIR 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 PIanlReuse 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 18-1-8 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 sails. 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
VI1. 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 adapted
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-
speci~c 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-cun'ent
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 sails 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 far 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 (POST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-
2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41
Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSI.} 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
I) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas
of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor
work areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial
uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding
areas?
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 pattem and water
management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The drainage pattem
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
FEISIEIR 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 far development of the site.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR far 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-$8, 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 nat 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-$2 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 FEISIEIR. 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 FEISJEIR 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 far 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
X11. PQPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (far
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; ar (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
XI11. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Wouid 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 ar 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 farmer Master
Developer Footprint adapted 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.
MitigationlMonitoring 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 far
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 FEISJEIR, 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 Praject 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 enviranmental 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.
MitigationlMonitaring 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
MGAS 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 Cade 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?
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, na new mitigation measures are
required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation.
Based on the foregoing, Wane of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent ar
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 ar 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 FEISIEIR, 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 an the foregoing, Wane 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
FEISIEIR 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 PIanlReuse 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
XVI1. 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 ~'roject. 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 adapted 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 ~~2011, the City had X113 -acres of existing local and
community parks, but needed an additional X114-acres to
serve its population based on a standard of three acres per
1,000 persons based on Janit~r~ 2011 City pop~~lation of 75,781.
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 rr 1^T~~~~, ''0002012
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 picrpose is to promote the design,
installation, and maintenance of landscaping in a manner tluzt conserves regional
water resources by ensuring that landscaping projects are not unduly water-
need~ and that irrigation systems are appropriately implemented to rninirnize
mater waste.
Water resources and features, including watersheds and riparian
habitats, are very important to Southern California, and riparian
habitats are quite rare. The most prominent water feature in Tustin is
Peters Canyon. Several mitigation measures were adopted for Peters
Canyon as part of the East Tustin Specific Plan. These mitigation
measures continue to reflect City policy. For several years, the Lower
Peters Canyon Retarding Basin contained a small riparian habitat.
This habitat severely deteriorated in recent years. The City will work
with the County of Orange, which recently constructed a replacement
CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
34 Tr r"T~. '~wQ2012
TABLE COSR-2
EXISTING ~L'F~-PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
NAME LOCATION ACRES FACILITIES
1. Camino Real 13602 Park Center ~t 4.3 Preschool & school-age apparatus, basketball
E~n~i~~c-3 Reall.n~~e Court
2. Centennial 14722 S~tx~eKe-~ 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
13~e fields, tennis courts, volleyball courts,
gymnasium
4. Frontier 7400 Mitchell ~ EJtt 4.5 School-age appazatus, frisbee golf, fitness course,
horseshoe pit, softball fields, barbecue grill
5. Magnolia Tree 2274 C-heri~weetfc~ 4.2 Preschool & school-age appazatus, basketball
Fig Tree Urrne court, tennis courts, barbecue grill
6. McFadden- McFadden & 0.4 Picnic tables
Pasadena Por•kette Pasadena
7. Peppertree 230 W. First ~ E 5.51 Preschool apparatus, fitness rourse, horseshoe
pit, youth ball fields, bazbecue grill
8. Pine Tree 1402 Reel-hill 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 20U South C Street 0.40 Meeting rooms, game room, auditorium,
Center micro hone, kitchen, ool tables
11. Laurel Glen Park 1.3301I Ierl tage~ 3.0 Passive park with picnic facilities and a tot lot
M ford Road
12. Tustin Sports Park 12850 k}~~lx~~-argil 20.0 Lighted softball/soccer fields, tennis courts,
Robinson multi- ose court, rac uetball court
13. Cedar Grove 71385 Pioneer 9.7 Pre-school age apparatus, group picnic facilities,
RondW~}~ nature/redwood/cedar trees {u~~ler
ear~s#~t3err}
14. Heritage Wad-Park 2350 Ki~ismnn Circle
T' •c
~ 5.0 Tot lot, picnic azea, basketball court, roller hockey
{~E~
'~iL3
iStY-1f~
H
~
'~
"
r fl~ {(3H~
l
1
3
E
3f31~~-k3i
il
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
ro am
16. Citrus Raancla 2910 Portofa Pnrlarnay 77.0 Picnic shelter, plray$round, resh•oonas, zunikiii trrails,
hilltop gn_>ebo, on-sate pm•kingg, lenroaa tree orc~nrd,
Inzn Wren, icatic ods with bnrbeaae rill
17. Pioneer Pnrk 10250 Pioneer Roru7 3.1 Picnic shelter, 2 Im rounds, bnsGetbnll hnl court,
CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
~ i~'r`T~~_,~, ~r~o2012
NAME LOCATION ACRES FACILITIES
restroonrs, barheare grill, tonikirtg trail, water (eahur
rLn/area
78. Tustin Field It Blne Ski Drive 1.3 Plait ronrul, basketball half court, iau~c area
79. Tustta Field Itr 631 Hailer Drive 1.7 P(ai round, baslCetbnll court, icnie m•en
20. Columbus Square'
Ntorttgonrer
S
uarer Cohnnbus Square
Mont
omen
Street 1.2
7
0 Playground, picnic urea
Pl
d
b
k
tb
ll h
l
i
i
y
q
Arlington Parkr g
~/
Arlington Street .
LO nygronn
,
as
e
a
a
f court, p
cn
c area
Pla
round
basketball bolt cotu~t
rcnic W
P
d yg
,
, p
ren
ose Nlontgornen~~ Pasco 0.4 Pasco, picnic wren
Posed Arlington Pnseo 0.3 Pnseo, picnic area
21. Columbus Grroz~er Cohurrbus Grove Drive 7.0 PLn/grortnd and ricnic area
Grove Pnrk~ nsrnine Place 2J PLri/oround, bas~etbnll fall arul ludf~court, picnic area
Total Acres ~k173. i
rrt~nce pnrK nccesstbte to public
CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
44 a rr">~_= r '~, ''0902012
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 Subdivision 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
TT ii~TT~~ zllwo42~12
TABLE COSR-3
PROPOSED C~T~PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
NAT NEW PROPOSED FEATURES AND
SITE ACREAGE LOCATION PARK T l "PES
exam les onl
~rrEEt+r~~i'-hi•l~ 1~{3
,~,l.ereeal~r~f'+3rtE~la ~Irlltiltx-L,E~sc~~l~trr~larts-f~etk}S;
Ek~r-L4 ,-6 @~l-S~~BGI'
~(:k~}~ArhE39E1--hi4Flc ~:~ ~1HRt'@rJa4N~6rE'E'
I~cd- r r~~"~0i'~tl
MCAS Tustin {'r•esc-kHel~sekeal~ge ~Pl~ara#r~
Neigl~Iic~r•Ix~HCI tN-rt~stcleliEit31-~~1'eas erg
t'`rz~~-:ate:==T.;e~etF Various facilities
I'arles«>Private Prn~ks, L9:E183 lase Various locnliolts nt tlesignerl to support resirlerrts earl
Open Space hurt Tustin Legnct~ employees in Nte project ruith focus on
Greenheltst ~ turf nrens, picnic nrens, and snmll tvt-
lot features
~lOrtl3WC'StC'ri~I36rtiOH C
1
/
1
J
e~n Ar'AC T.... ti' •F FL.
1
,F~,
.....la; .. ~'2iEiS
Ir1~
~0mc~c-n
One conrnnulih~ Park in ~~~,,.~„~ Various passive
MCAS Tustin Neighborhood A, mrother and active recreational facilities on
EHrrta,~;~ Fa~Ptrblic ~-1I01 colauuurih~ perk centrally coramunih~ perks to meet broad needs
Pnrlcs located irr the project and of residents and employees in tlrc
Linear Pnrk elements project inchrding lighted frelds and
within vm•iotrs other picnic nrens, comnnntity facilities, etc.
neighborhoorts. mrd inclusion of mater fenhrres in
Linear Pnrk.
Counh of Ornu~e
Urban ~egionnl Pnrk
N4 Plarntin Arch ~ of the
MCAS Tustin Sped/ic
T(3D by the Courrtrj of Orange
Plan
TOTAL ACRES 5~12G8
_Ey
Source: MCAS Tustin Specific Plnn, Tract Mnps 17]44 £~ 17404, Legacy Pnrk Final Design Guidelines
1 Private parks, open space, ntut greenhel is accessible to puhlic. Portions of community linear perk to he privntelyoruned but nccessihle to the
public.
TABLE COSR-4
EXISTING AND FUTURE PARK ACREAGE NEEDS
Parkland Acreages-I~e~ui~I School Playgrornrd Acreages
Required
Population Required
Par mots
~
(3
Oaere
Parkland=
Surphts~
(Shortfall) of Se{tool
Plat rounds
J~
(1
Schuol
SnrphrsJ
(Shortfall) of
.
s
1000)' Aorn ~5
g ~~ ~
. acres
1000 PLrygrounds
~
Acreages
Existing City 63;78875,781 139227 32-I713 (19(3Fi174) 7$114 3173 x(107)
Future City 7Fr,23(379,916 223240 223381 {x}141 1120 X773 X3(113)
Existing SOIL"t 25,235 76 10 (66) 38 52 14
Future SOIc'~~ 275927, 721 328.3 10 (7273) -I-142 52 1-110
~~~~ ~ ~nltjorrtrn uepnrtrnent of tntnnce, Population Estinrnte Jrtnunnd 1, 2011,
Table LU-3 General Plnn Lnrui Use Element
I'~Y:::u.:,,., n,,... r,,..,,., rR,.l , a r n ~
1. Unless alternate ratio are established in nn adopted Specific Plnn, Development Agreement, or any other applicable ngreenrent.
Please note tTtnt n higher standard far fhe provision of puhlic and private parkland lms been identified for the MCAS Tustin
CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
~ ~ rr T"TF~w42012
tilreciJic P/nn to meet the needs of tlris area of Nre Cih~. l~he 5/recijic Plan identifies hq neighborhood required pnrhs and uherr spare
rrrreases Hurt nred to he accomnrndated.
I : ~. This standard is satisfied by neighborhood and community parks. Peters Canyon Regional Park is not used to meet this
standazd. However, the MCAS Tustin urban regional park is included due to active sports facilities that will be available to the
community; '~w~r~ar'ti~ate t~arit~i~t-moist ~irsEirrz}ee also Ei7rlxt{er~
23. School playground acreages aze based on the assumption that 35 percent of approximately -I?E1-18.9 acres of land (Cr~l rrrnhns
Tnstin Schuul) associated withjoint use agreement hehueen the Citr~ nml stichool f~istricts is used for recreational purposes.
3~. Sphere of Influence
CITY OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
47 ,T „~, ''2012
' $.
t''
'
' t.'i:r~7.
~ :
.:.. ;~
'
~y ff F~Tf CF C14 ~~
2 E 4~ c'e '~~~,~~, ~
~am
~
~~ ~~
~
~
`
~
~
~5
~ ,/
~~ d
k
BIT~IOD~
P
6t9fB
ri
~
j
~~:' `~
~
ri
a.
~
C'1
~~
~ ~
E''?
~~
~
~~ ~
g
y
~~
g
I
~` 4 A d~fd P ~ 1~
~
~
~ ~ if, r~4t ',f~'~~~`r p L k44~x~~~ '~E
IS
i~~i
~ ~
~
~~~
~~~ ~~
~t~~' ~
~t
b~7
~~ ~1~1 r
Q~~s "
~Ti
~ ~~~~ ~ 4 ~~
_
~
~
I
~~
f
t 4 .tl a
~4r F '~f ~) ~
~~~~~4
~-~' ~4~v
~
n
`U x.
~2 t ~~°-~ ~
~ ~~ ~ 3 ~
•~ ~\ v
~ ~ ~~5~~~.-.,,~., ~ ~1
~~`~ ~r t ~
~
•
c
~Y
f ~~(~~~ f ~~
i e„~ ~. sart eta ~ ~~ T~~a lzh w r [,~~rC
~` ~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ` ~ tx"~~ cry ,+
~ ~~, ~~~ ~~`r
~f .
~z..~'~~`~~-`~,~ 4,e~.`_4~~~Lec r~~»'+.~.~ ~`~~Tx ~
`
I
. _ ~ ~. ~ ~~t~ ~~r~K,~' t('L".~~.~,."~
~ ~R~~~:`~z..~~ ~~,=n k~
K yr k ~~~~h.~`~*~~
cty ~.~ s~ ~']~'~ ~'~ ~ !/
J
'
d !
~
4.
sr i ~ u.
1 , of ~~}a~~~ ~ ~ re„
y
` ~~: ~~'. r`G. ~~ ~ Z x. ~„ ~ I
~.~^~.;.~T~~~f~, ~i )J
~~ i~r '
~
~~~ ~„a'
~-~-rTa` ~ ~ ..
~ a ~ ~~
r~
.
~ r
~ ~
VI
ZA
~y~
~ '4~
~
' ~
,~ ~
~~
//.
1 ~
~
~ ~` ~ ~`~--`~~, e z- ~
~
'~ ` ~ a.,~'ti~
~ 4
/
~
~~
^
r ~~ ~i r ~ I r~- r ~ ~ ~
~
'fie ! .~ s +, k F ~
~ ~ ~ 1 "
~ ~
~ ~
.~+
~ 9 C ~s
~
~ v
y / ,
l G 4 ` ~ ~ ~
I
, /F 4~4lx ~~ l ~~! ~Y' •~ f '
.~
~ ~ ~
w
' .• `
' ~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~~
4 ~ _
`Y`
..~
Y -~7 t'4~~-~`°(~"hy~. ,-. GG `u7 a
.~
z s ~~ti r id` ~ r_ S .
4 P a' ~,, +
~4
4
\l Y 1 ~"lir"/ Y`I ~4
l~
~~ fi
, Y •.r~'~r a Am
i f ~~T f• y /~ .
~J
ll 4
Ia •
.
r i. ' ~ `~ s ~ ~.. '
/ .
//
~, MCAS "Tustin \;;` ~
* ~ ''~ E~Q$7iNG16QF{OOL.. .
'
• Specific Plan , 'PROPS®LOOAL.B(`~i00t
~ EJ087iN(i {+OMM[HVITif FACILITY .
i
"
~
!~ ~ ~. ~ ~ -
EM3T1N{3 PUBUC PARK .
. / - .cl`r' ' PROPOSE PUBLIC PARK
'
~ge,..r.r~.,r.s.,~ ^~`" •ti•~,
-
~~E3aS11lIC•I PRIVATE FECREATION '
~arrwa. ~N E70B71NO BIOYOIE ROUTES,
. ~- ~"~''{..~ ~ ' A ..~~REQIbNN.16Uti!-USETRNL
.... .. _ ._ .. _... _.. _~. ., . ___. ~' . _._ _ ._ .:.... _.. - ~ See MCAS Tustin Specific Plan .. .. ~ ._. -_:
80iJRt~ CAydT+MkLAsa~e7tonrlAaeowaulnlMTtwtlnM~{90D0~,
MCJ18 Ttretl118PecMa F'19NRBWa PIBn {18W)
'
' .~®~.~
~~;~, p~ ~
Figure COSR-5'
Ferry ~, 2oas 'Recreation Plan
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 deeds to
include amenities such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, turf areas, benches,
trash receptacles, picnic tables, shade structitires, paved or decorriposed-
grariite 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 TT'^'~To~T'? =9w~2012
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 aciuntic
center, and play areas as well as community centers, on-site parking,
restrooms, and picnic areas. Amenities srrch as trees, shrubs,groundcover,
large open turf areas, hardscape, benches, trash receptacles, paved and
decomposed granite trails, club house with storage area, lighted parking lots to
meetfacility and amenity demands, picnic tables, barbeques, shelterstructures,
and restroom buildings should be provided.
Community Linear Park
A Communift~ Linear Park is envisioned at Tustin Legacy. The Community Linear
Park would provide (private and public owned portions) trees, shrubs, grourtdcover,
turf, hardscape, benches, trash receptacles, lighting, small structures (i.e. gazebos,
shelters, trellis, sculptures, monuments), shallow hardscape and/or riparian
zuaterzuay, simulated streams and other water features with connectivih~, paved and
decomposed granite trails for pedestrian and bicycle trail connectivift~ across the
parkland network in the Tustin Legacy Project.
CTI'Y OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
50 rr"`T~=.~'' ''0002012
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
n~,l-,1;~ ~,.t•„,~,~ nl~yc~r~ ,-1 ,a +1, ,-~• +• ~+b, rr ~• r r •F• a
~r`hnnl nip}ri~+ ..~ .,r^~< <., ~1~,~ r«Ln ~+ r. ^'o~«-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 ~~school recreational facilities in znhich tlce City has a
joint use agreement zoith the School District to meet the overall geaf
standard of three acres per 1,000 population. At the time of the General
Plan update, one school facilihy (Coh~mbus Tustin) is used jointly by t1Te
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 Tr'nr~.~ ~~~"no2012
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 hitting 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
adecomposed-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 Channel.
A number of policies included in this Element are concerned with the
expansion of the City-wide system of hiking and biking trails. Precise
development standards for the various types of trails are difficult to
establish since trail width and gradient will depend on topography,
surface features, and availability of an easement. The City's trail
system includes pedestrian and bike trails within open space corridors
and along regional trails which link to local and regional parkland.
The bikeways located along the City's street system are addressed in
the City's Circulation Element. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan also
CTI'Y OF TUSTIN CONSERVATION/OPEN SPACE/
GENERAL PLAN RECREATION ELEMENT
52 ,r r"T~ooo2012