Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 12-72RESOLUTION NO. 12 -72 1 1 •i 1 •. .i. •i + ' i ' ! i WE rilli The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That the Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement DDA 04 -02 (Retail Development) is proposed by and between the City of Tustin and Vestar /Kimco Tustin, L.P., a California limited partnership (the Developer). B. That the Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement DDA 04 -02 (Retail Development) is considered a "Project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; C. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Final Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council certified a Supplement to the FEIS /EIR for the Tustin Ranch Road project. On April 3, 2006, the City Council approved an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. The FEIS /EIR, its Supplement and Addendum are collectively, herein referred to as the "FEIS /EIR Documents ". The FEIS /EIR Documents are a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The FEIS /FEIR Documents considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin (the "Tustin Legacy project "); D. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for the Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement DDA 04 -02 (Retail Development), attached as Exhibit A hereto. The Environmental Checklist concluded that the proposed project does not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantial changes or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant Resolution No. 12 -72 Page 1 of 2 impacts in the FEIS/EIR Documents. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR Documents. 11. The City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR Documents and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the 17th day of July, 2012. A J( M PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE SS CITY OF TUSTIN a 1, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 12-72 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 17th day of July, 2012 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Nielsen, Murray, Amante, Gavello, Gomez (5) COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None (0) COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None (0) City Clerk olution No. 12-72 Page 2 • 2 I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified /Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin This checklist and the following evaluation of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement 04- 02 between the City of Tustin and Vestar /Kimco Tustin, L.P. Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Christine A. Shingleton Phone: (714) 573 -3107 Project Location: Within portions of Barranca Parkway and Warner Avenue within Planning Areas 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Vestar Development/ Kimco Tustin, L.P. 2425 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: SP -1 Specific Plan, Planning Areas 16, 17, 18, and 19 Project Description: The Project is located within portions of Barranca Parkway and Warner Avenue generally within Planning Areas 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan. Construction of all on -site improvements within The District at Tustin Legacy, and a majority of the associated public infrastructure are complete. The Project consists of the exchange of property between Vestar Development (the "Developer ") and the United States of America through the Secretary of the Army (the "Army "). The exchange consists of approximately 3.0 acres of property within The District shopping center (New Army Property or the "Release Property ") containing permanent parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements for approximately 3.0 acres of property within the adjacent Army Reserve Center property (New Vestar Property or the "Additional Property ") containing temporary parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements serving 10 The District. The Project includes the land exchange and associated parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements and associated Sixth Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement 04 -02 to add certain property currently owned by the Army to The District shopping center and constructing permanent parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements, and removal of certain property currently owned by the Developer at The District and adding it to the Army Reserve Center property. In order to accommodate the Project, the Developer has requested and the City has agreed to release the Release Property from the terms and conditions of DDA 04 -02, the CC &Rs and the Special Restrictions and from various other documents affecting the Release Property pursuant to certain terms and conditions in the Sixth Amendment subject to the Developer agreeing to the imposition of certain restrictions set forth in the DDA, the CC &Rs and the Special Restrictions upon the Additional Property to be acquired by the Developer. Surrounding Uses: North and West: Vacant Property at former MCAS Tustin South: Light Industrial /Business Parks East: Jamboree Road /Industrial Uses Northeast: Existing Single- Occupancy Hotel Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS /EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse #94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 and its Addendum approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Matt West, Project Manager Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant Executive Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attachment A attached to this Checklist Date: 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 OUALITY: 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? New No Substantial Significant More Change From Impact Severe Previous ❑ Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IR ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 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 59 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.59 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school'? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER 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? I) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE — Would the project result in a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ 11 ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Attachment A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement 04 -02 between the City of Tustin and Vestar /Kimco Tustin, L.P. PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the EIS /EIR was prepared by the City of Tustin and the Department of the Navy (DoN) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy (NEPA). The FEIS/EIR 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. 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/Reuse Plan. The FEIS /EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The DoN published its Record of Decision (ROD) on March 3, 2001. On December 6, 2004 the City certified a Supplement to the FEIS /EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and Warner Avenue. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR related to Zone Change 05 -002 and a Master Development Plan for the Tustin Legacy Project. The original FEIS /EIR and the Supplement and Addendum are collectively referred to herein as the FEIS /EIR. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the FEIS /EIR analyzed a multi -year development period for the planned urban reuse project. When individual activities with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed, the agency is required to examine individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS /EIR and Addendum if the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent environmental document is required. The proposed "Project' is the proposed Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement (Retail Development)- 04 -02" (the "DDA 04 -02 "). The Project consists of the exchange of property between Vestar Development (the "Developer ") and the United States of America through the Secretary of the Army (the "Army "). The exchange consists of approximately 3.0 +/- acres of property within The District shopping center (New Army Property or the "Release Property ") containing permanent parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements for approximately 3.0 +/- acres of property within the adjacent Army Reserve Center property (New Vestar Property or the "Additional Property ") containing temporary parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements serving The District as shown in Attachment 1. The Project includes the land exchange and associated parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements and associated Sixth Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement 04- 02 to add certain property currently owned by the Army to The District shopping center and constructing permanent parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements, and removal of -1- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 2 certain property currently owned by the Developer at The District and adding it to the Army Reserve Center property. In order to accommodate the Project, the Developer has requested and the City has agreed to release the Release Property from the terms and conditions of DDA 04 -02, the CC &Rs and the Special Restrictions and from various other documents affecting the Release Property pursuant to certain terms and conditions in the Sixth Amendment subject to the Developer agreeing to the imposition of certain restrictions set forth in the DDA, the CC &Rs and the Special Restrictions upon the Additional Property to be acquired by the Developer. The City prepared a comprehensive Environmental Checklist for the Project and the analysis is provided below to determine if the Project is within the scope of the FEIS /EIR and Addendum and if new effects would occur as a result of the Project. PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is within portions of property near Barranca Parkway and Tustin Ranch Road within and adjacent to the retail shopping center, The District at Tustin Legacy, which is within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area and also known as Tustin Legacy. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs and was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is also located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (I -5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (1 -405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the west, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the north, Harvard Avenue on the east, and Barranca Parkway on the south. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the north providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. The Project is located within portions of Barranca Parkway and Warner Avenue generally within Planning Areas 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan. Construction of all on -site improvements within The District at Tustin Legacy, and a majority of the associated public infrastructure are complete. On -site improvements will consist of the Developer constructing permanent parking, circulation, and landscaping improvements within the Additional Property -2- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 3 and other minor improvements within and adjacent to the Release Property to facilitate the land exchange. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. Development activities associated with the Project have been previously considered within the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the site. There are no designated scenic vistas in the project area; therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. No change in original uses identified or permitted in the Specific Plan is being requested; therefore, the type of use to be developed is consistent and would result in similar visual changes as those previously analyzed. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The mitigation measures applicable to the project have been implemented with adoption of original Specific Plan. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations -3- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 4 FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -58 through 67) and Addendum (Pages 5 -3 through 5 -8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project will not directly cause agricultural impacts. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. The Project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes and would not impact prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use. Development activities proposed by the City of Tustin have been previously considered within the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed project. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS /EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement in Overriding Consideration concluding that impacts to agricultural resources were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00 -90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations -4- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 5 FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -84, 4 -109 through 114) and Addendum (Pages 5 -8 through 5 -10) Resolution No. 00 -90 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin General Plan 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 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. Development activities for the proposed Project have been previously considered within the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no new effects, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur as a result of the proposed Project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001, to address significant unavoidable short-term, long -term, and cumulative air quality impacts. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR and Addendum for operational and construction activities. However, the FEIS /EIR and Addendum also concluded that the -5- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 6 Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and could not be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00 -90). No new mitigation measure is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -143 throughl53, 4 -207 through 4 -230, 7 -41 through 7 -42 and Addendum Pages 5 -10 through 5 -28) Resolution No. 00 -90 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis The proposed Project will not directly cause impacts to Biological Resources. The proposed Project would result in a relatively Ell Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 7 even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. The FEIS /EIR and Addendum found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species; however, the FEIS /EIR and Addendum determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle, which is identified as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), or have an impact on jurisdictional waters /wetlands. Mitigation measures were included in the MCAS Tustin FEIS /EIR to require the relocation of the turtles and establishment of an alternative off -site habitat, and to require Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary for areas affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands. There are no waters or wetlands within the Project site. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project or as conditions of approval for the Project. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Submitted Design Review Application 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 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? -7- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 8 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project will not directly cause impacts to Cultural Resources. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA -ORA -381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the MCAS Tustin FEIS /EIR that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project or as conditions of approval for the Project. No refinements need to be made to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -68 through 3- 74, 4 -93 through 4 -102, 7 -24 through 7 -26, and Addendum Pages 5 -40 through 5 -45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) 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: me Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 9 • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of the required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. Development activities associated with the proposed Project have been previously considered within the Program FEIS /EIR for WAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative geology or soil effect on the site. The FEIS/EIR and Addendum indicate that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and WAS Tustin Specific Plan would include non - seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high - intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure. However, the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. lE Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 10 No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No new mitigation is required. 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 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? -10- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 11 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. The FEIS /EIR and its Addendum include a detailed discussion of the historic and then - current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The DoN is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. As identified in the FEIS/EIR and the Addendum, the Project site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The proposed Project does not propose changes to height limitation included in the Specific Plan, nor does it pose an aircraft- related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The proposed Project will consist of at -grad and subsurface improvements. The Project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No new or modified mitigation is required for the Project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3 -106 through 3- 117, 4 -130 through 4 -138, 7 -30 through 7 -31, and Addendum Pages 5 -49 through 5 -55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of 11- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 12 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? e) 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. Development activities associated with the Project have been previously considered within the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum and have been found to have no demonstrable negative hydrology and water quality effect on the site. The Project site is located within the Peters Canyon Channel Master Drainage Area. As concluded in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, preparation of a required Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from the development activities to a level of insignificance. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more 12- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 13 severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. The proposed Project would not alter the land uses proposed for development or the location of the land uses in relation to communities within the Specific Plan area. The amount of impervious surface proposed for construction would not change substantially; therefore, analysis and conclusions in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed substantially. In addition, portions of the Project within Barranca Parkway and Warner Avenue will have a positive impact to the backbone drainage system by resulting in the construction of required storm drain and channel facilities; therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patters, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the implementation of the Project. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would reduce any potential impacts related to water quality and groundwater to a level of insignificance and no mitigation is required. Mitigation measures related to hydrology and drainage were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -98 through 3- 105, 4 -124 through 4 -129, 7 -29 through 7 -30 and Addendum Pages 5 -56 through 5 -92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure. The -13- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 14 proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center consistent with the Specific Plan. The Project site area is within and adjacent to existing development and development on -site would not physically divide an established community. Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. The FEIS /EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable land use impacts. The proposed Project does not increase the severity of the land use impacts previously identified in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements needed to be made to the FEIS /EIR mitigation and no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations 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 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. The FEIS /EIR and Addendum indicated that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Specific Plan area. The proposed Project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. -14- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 15 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -91) and Addendum (Page 5 -95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. The severity of the long -term traffic related noise impacts would not be increased more than previously identified in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. -15- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 16 As discussed in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, John Wayne Airport is located southwest of the Project site. Based on review of the Airport Land Use Plan for John Wayne, the Project site is not located within the 60 CNEL contour for airport operations. The proposed Project would not involve the development of any uses that would expose people to excessive noise related to aircraft operations. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS /EIR and Addendum concluded that with implementation of identified mitigation measures, there would be no impacts related to noise. The proposed Project does not increase the severity of the noise impacts previously identified in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum; therefore, no refinements need to be made to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures would be required. Sources: Field Observations 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 2 -97. 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The proposed Project will not directly impact the population or housing. The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Because no significant impacts were identified, no mitigation was included in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum related to population/housing. The proposed Project does not change the conclusions of the FEIS /EIR and Addendum and no new mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations 16- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 17 FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -18 to 3 -34, 4- 14 to 4 -29, and 7 -18 to 7 -19) and Addendum Pages (5 -101 through 5 -112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. The FEIS /EIR and Addendum for MCAS Tustin requires developers to contribute to the creation of public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. Fire Protection. The Project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (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 would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of existing fire stations in the areas surrounding the site will meet the demands created by new development in Tustin Legacy. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non - residential uses, etc. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was anticipated in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. Schools. The impacts to schools resulting from the implementation of the overall development proposed 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 -17- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 18 developers to pay applicable school fees to the TUSD, IUSD, and SAUSD to mitigate indirect and direct student generation impacts prior to the issuance of building permits. The proposed Project will have no impact on schools. As a public entity, the City of Tustin is exempt from paying school fees associated with the proposed fire station. 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 new, larger library is a public facility that directly benefits 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. The proposed Project will have no impact on libraries. 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 Tustin Legacy proceeded. The proposed Project would not increase the demand more than what was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS /EIR and Addendum; therefore, no substantial change is expected. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS /EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to public services. The proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to public services beyond that identified in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations 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 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) 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? The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a ME Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 19 relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. hnpacts associated with recreation facilities were analyzed and addressed in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS /EIR and Addendum concluded that there would be no significant unavoidable impacts related to recreation facilities. Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in the severity of impacts to recreation facilities beyond that identified in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. Therefore no new mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3 -47 to 3 -57, 4 -56 to 4 -80, 7 -21 to 7 -22 and Addendum Pages 5 -122 through 5 -127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC —Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? -19- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 20 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. The FEIS /EIR and Addendum concluded that traffic impacts could occur as a result of build out of the Specific Plan. The FEIS /EIR concluded that there could be significant impacts at 18 arterial intersections (see Table 4.12 -6 of the FEIS /EIR for a complete list) and the levels of service (LOS) at two intersections would improve compared to the no- project condition. The trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum would create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation of 216,440 trips. The original Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non - residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The construction of the required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements associated with this Project will not result in added ADTs. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Project than were originally considered by the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. Therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. 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 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) 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? -20- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 21 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed Project would continue to allow for the construction of required Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure improvements. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. Development activities associated with the Project have been previously considered within the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. The FEIS /EIR and Addendum analyzed new off -site and on -site backbone utility systems required for development of the site as necessary to support overall development of WAS Tustin Specific Plan, including water, sewer, drainage, electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, and solid waste management. In accordance with the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, most developers are required to pay a fair share towards off -site infrastructure and installation of on -site facilities. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on -site and off -site, and water availability. As concluded in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, no unavoidable significant impacts would result. The proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts than what was evaluated in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe impacts would result from implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3 -35 through 3- 46, 4 -32 through 4 -55 and 7 -20 through 7 -21) and Addendum (pages 5 -147 through 5 -165) WAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) -21- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 22 Tustin General Plan XVIL 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 and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the proposed Project. With the enforcement of the FEIS /EIR and Addendum mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project or as conditions of approval, the proposed overall development Project, including the proposed Project, would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings either directly or indirectly nor degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. To address cumulative impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 (Resolution No. 00 -90) for issues relating to aesthetics, cultural and paleontological resources, agricultural resources, and traffic/circulation. The proposed Project does not create any impacts that have not been previously addressed by the FEIS /EIR and Addendum. 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 2 -97, 3 -89 through 3 -103) and Addendum Resolution No. 00 -90 Tustin General Plan -22- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 Page 23 CONCLUSION The proposed Project's effects for construction of The District at Tustin Legacy shopping center were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. No new effects will occur, no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects will occur, no new mitigation measures will be required, no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the Project that have not been considered are needed to substantially reduce effects of the Project. Implementation of activities and development at the Project site could be subject to subsequent environmental review under CEQA as may be required by law. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the Program FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin and Addendum. -23- Attachment 1 PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE Between VESTAR AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY General property locations to be supported in Sixth Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement 04 -02 by legal descriptions to follow. Prepared by City of Tustin (JUL12) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ® Fee Exempt per Govt. Code Section 6103 Project Title: Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement 04 -02 between the City of Tustin and Vestar/Kimco Tustin, L.P. State Clearing House No.: 94071005 Type of Document: Environmental Analysis Checklist was prepared which compares the project against the previously approved Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin and Addendum adopted and certified January 16, 2001 and April 3, 2006, respectively. Project Location (including County): Portions of Barranca Parkway and Warner Avenue within Planning Areas 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan (Adjacent to Reuse Plan Disposition parcels 9, 10, 11, and 12). Name and Address of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Christine A. Shingleton Phone Number: 714 -573 -3107 Project Description: Sixth Amendment to the Tustin Legacy Disposition and Development Agreement 04 -02 between the City of Tustin and Vestar/Mmco Tustin, L.P. The Sixth Amendment to DDA 04 -02 would facilitate a land exchange between Vestar /Vimco Tustin, L.P. and the United States of America through the Secretary of the Army. The proposed Project would result in a relatively even land exchange of improved property and result in the replacement of existing temporary parking, circulation, and landscape improvements with permanent facilities to better facilitate the operation of The District shopping center. This is to advise that the City of Tustin ( ®Lead Agency []Responsible Agency) has approved the above described project on July 17, 2012 and has made the following determinations regarding the project: The project did not require the preparation of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( "SEIR) because none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and California Code Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15162 has occurred. An Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin (a program document) and Addendum adopted and certified January 16, 2001 and April 3, 2006, respectively were prepared for the project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. The project { ®will ❑will not } have a significant effect on the environment. 4. ® An FIR was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. ❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 5. Mitigation measures { ®were ❑ were not) made a condition of project approval. 6. A Statement of Overriding Consideration {® was ❑ was not) adopted for this project. 7. Findings { ®were ❑were not) made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the 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. All documentation pertaining to this determination, including the subject EIR/EIS, is available to the general public at: City of Tustin, Community Development Department, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780. Date t 12 -2-012— U:W OD (Vc tar 6th Amendment to DDA 04- 02).docx Christine A. Shingleton Assistant Executive Director