Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 12-96' i i • •s A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE FINAL JOINT PROGRAM MCAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN FEIS /EIR), AS AMENDED BY SUPPLEMENT AND ADDENDUM, IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE THIRD AMENDMENT FOR DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) 2012 -002, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2012 -002, CONCEPT PLAN (CP) 2012 -003, DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2012 -005, DENSITY TRANSFER, DENSITY BONUS, AND CONCESSIONS OR INCENTIVES AUTHORIZED UNDER TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9123 RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915(1) FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF TUSTIN LEGACY DISPOSITION PACKAGE 1A -NORTH — 225 AFFORDABLE MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT HOMES, TUSTIN LEGACY (ST. ANTON PARTNERS, LLC). AND THAT THE CITY HAS ALTERNATIVELY DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER CEQA REVIEW PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65457. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That St. Anton Partners and City of Tustin have completed and desire to enter into Disposition and Development Agreement 2012 -002, and St. Anton Partners has submitted a proper application for DA 2012 -002, CP 2012 -003, DR 2012 -005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus requesting authorization to develop 225 affordable residential apartment housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1) required for the proposed development of Tustin Legacy Disposition Package 1A- North, to be implemented by St. Anton Partners or its affiliate as may be approved by the City of Tustin. B. That the site is zoned as Planning Area 15, Community Residential, Neighborhood G in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP -1); and designated MCAS Tustin (MCAS) by the Tustin General Plan. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub - element of the Resolution 12 -96 Page 1 of 4 City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with MEMS MIMI the Air Quality Sub-element. iuw There are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions C. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin Certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin pursuant to, among other things, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving the MEN 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 for modifications to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR, Supplement to the FEIS/EIR, and Addendum are collectively referred to as the "Prior Environmental Review." D. That the City prepared an environmental checklist and determined that the proposed project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review. There are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the MEN project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. (Public Resources Code § 21166; Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, §§ 15168, 15162.) The City has therefore determined that no further environmental review is required. E. That Government Code Section 65457, subdivision (a), establishes a statutory CEQA exemption for any residential development project, including any subdivision, or zoning change that is undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR was certified after January 1, 1980. The exemption does not apply if an event specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 occurs, unless and until a supplemental environmental impact report is certified. Here, the proposed project implements and is consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan / Reuse Plan. The FEIS/EIR for the reuse of MCAS Tustin pursuant to, among other things, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Resolution 12-96 Page 2 of 4 Plan, was certified January 16, 2001. And, as set forth above, the City prepared an environmental checklist and determined that none of the events specified in Public Resources Code Section 21166 have occurred. On this basis, the City has alternatively determined that the proposed project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to Government Code Section 65457. F. That in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the checklist provided as Attachment 1 to Resolution No. 12-96 has been considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed. G. That on October 16, 2012, the Tustin City Council continued the matter to an adjourned regular meeting on October 30, 2012. H. That on October 30, 2012, the Tustin City Council continued the matter to a regular meeting on November 6, 2012. 11. The Tustin City Council hereby finds the Project is within the scope of the previously approved MCAS Tustin Final Program EIS/EIR previously certified on January 16, 2001, as amended by Supplement and Addendum and that no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required and an additional environmental analysis, action or document is not required by the CEQA. The City has alternatively determined that the proposed project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to Government Code Section 65457. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at an adjourned regular meeting held on the 6t" day of November, 201?. JOHN,YlELSEN, Mayor ATTEST: znck�) PAMELA STOKER,� City Clerk Resolution 12-96 Page 3 of 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN 1, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 12-96 was duly passed and adopted at an adjourned regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 6t" day of November, 2012, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk Nielsen, Murray, Amante, Gavello, Gomez (5) None (0) None (0) None (0) Resolution 12-96 Page 4 of 4 M M 0 M SON IM M Attachment 1 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 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): Proposed development of Tustin Legacy Disposition Package lA-North — 225 affordable multi -family residential apartment homes. The proposal requests City of Tustin consideration of Development Agreement (DA) 2012-002, Concept Plan (CP) 2012-003, Design Review (DR) 2012-005, Density Transfer, Density Bonus, and Concessions or Incentives authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123 related to the provision of affordable residential apartment housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1) required for the proposed development of Tustin Legacy Disposition Package 1A -North. Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP Phone: (714) 573-3109 Project Location: Disposition Package IA -North is an irregular parcel with 8.073 acres for multi- family development and 4.706 acres for park development (12.779 acres gross), within Planning Area 15, MCAS -Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy), bounded by future Tustin Ranch Road on the east, future Legacy Road on the north, future Park Avenue on the west, and a vacant parcel to the south. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: St. Anton Partners c/o Mr. Steven L. Eggert, 4630 Campus Drive, Suite 111 Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Residential Core, Planning Area 15, which allows Medium -High Density Residential at 16-25 dwelling units per acre. Project Description: Development Agreement (DA) 2012-002, Concept Plan (CP) 2012-003, Design Review (DR) 2012-005, Density Transfer, Density Bonus, and Concessions or B. Incentives authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123 related to the provision of affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1)(MCAS Tustin Planning Area 15) for the purpose of developing 225 multi -family residential apartment homes including 105 affordable units (35 very low income, 20 low income and 50 moderate income), which qualifies the project for a density bonus concessions or incentives authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123 related to the provision of affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1). In addition, the project applicant has partnered with The Irvine Company, LLC, a developer approved by the City of Tustin to develop Disposition Package 2A in Planning Area 13, and requested the transfer of 120 of the 157 affordable housing units from Disposition Package 2A to Disposition Package IA -North with 120 market rate units requested to be transferred from Disposition Package IA -North to Disposition Package 2A. Should the Tustin City Council approve the transfer request, the proposed development of Disposition Package 2A would include 37 moderate unit income units and 496 market rate units (for a total of 533 residential apartment units), and the proposed development of Disposition Package IA -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Surrounding Uses: North/East: Vacant — MCAS Tustin Planning Area 15, Residential Core. West: Vacant — MCAS Tustin Planning Area 8, Community Core South: Vacant — MCAS Tustin Planning Area 15, Residential Core Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Supplemental and Addendum is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Supplemental and Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 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. Preparcr: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP, Ais t Director 'ce C44 Eliza eth A. Binsack, Com- munjty Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached Date: ZO S I Z - Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 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? 111. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IK ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing Iand 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 Substantial 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 a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Xi. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the 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? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — 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? ❑ ❑ 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.TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC — 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ED 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? 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial. New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2012-002, CONCEPT PLAN (CP) 2012-003, DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 2012-005, DENSITY TRANSFER, DENSITY BONUS, AND CONCESSIONS OR INCENTIVES AUTHORIZED UNDER TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 9123 RELATED TO THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65915(1). BACKGROUND On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEISIEIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEiS1EIR. And, on December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 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 (collectively, "Prior Environmental Review"). The FEISIEIR 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 on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEISIEIR, 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 FEISIEIR analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEISIEIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEISIEIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. The project site is 8.073 acres for multi -family development and 4.706 acres for park development (12.779 acres gross) located within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan boundaries affecting only Disposition Package 1A -North, which is an irregular parcel within Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G. The project site is bounded by future Tustin Ranch Road on the east, future Legacy Road on the north, future Park Avenue on the west, and a vacant parcel to the south. The proposed development of Tustin Legacy Disposition Package 1A -North is to construct 225 multi -family residential apartment homes ("Project"). The proposal requests City of Tustin consideration of Development Agreement (DA) 2012-002, Concept Plan (CP) 2012-003, Design Review (DR) 2012-005, Density Transfer, Density Bonus, and Concessions or Incentives authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123 related to the provision of 225 affordable residential apartment housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1). The Project proposes to develop 225 multi -family residential apartment homes includes 105 affordable units (35 very low income, 20 low income and 50 moderate income), which qualifies 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 2 the Project for a density bonus concessions or incentives authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123 related to the provision of affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1). In addition, the Project applicant has partnered with The Irvine Company, LLC, a developer approved by the City of Tustin to develop Disposition Package 2A in Planning Area 13, and requested the transfer of 120 of the 157 affordable housing units from Disposition Package 2A to Disposition Package 1A -North with 120 market rate units requested to be transferred from Disposition Package 1A -North to Disposition Package 2A. Should the Tustin City Council approve the transfer request, the proposed development of Disposition Package 2A would include 37 moderate unit income units and 496 market rate units (for a total of 533 residential apartment units), and the proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The final proposed allocation of units is as follows: In accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Planning Area 15 allows Medium -High Density Residential at 16-25 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes a density of approximately 17.6 dwelling units per acre. Due to the fact that the Site 2A/Site 1A -North projects propose 262 of 758 total units as affordable rental units (35%), the combined projects include (and qualify for) a request for density bonus, concessions or incentives authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123 related to the provision of affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1). An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that the Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review , substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 88260!.1 PROPOSED ALLOCATION 1A -North 2A Totals Very Low 88 0 88 Low 73 0 73 Moderate 64 37 101 Sub -Total 225 37 262 Market 0 496 496 Total 225 533 758 In accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Planning Area 15 allows Medium -High Density Residential at 16-25 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes a density of approximately 17.6 dwelling units per acre. Due to the fact that the Site 2A/Site 1A -North projects propose 262 of 758 total units as affordable rental units (35%), the combined projects include (and qualify for) a request for density bonus, concessions or incentives authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123 related to the provision of affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1). An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that the Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review , substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 88260!.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 3 AESTHETICS —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The project would be consistent with the permitted uses identified within the MCAS Tustin Specific Pian. The development of residential apartment units within Planning Area 15 were considered within the FEIS/EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR are incorporated with approval of the project. All exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 2.17.3(A) — Urban Design Guidelines for Residential Development of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and the Landscape Concept Section 2.17.2 as they relate to design of Tustin Ranch Road, Legacy Road, Park, Park Avenue and primary street corners and project entries. The proposal includes a design review and concept plan application, which requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review and ensure the design of the project, if approved, is found to be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3 (A) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR, the Supplemental and Addendum. 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 El 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; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement; and applicable measures 882601. l Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 4 will be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-84, 4-109 through 114) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Speck Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3- 70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. As documented in the FEISIEIR, the project site is part of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that contained 702 acres of farmland. The FEISIEIR concluded that there would be no viable long-term mitigation to off -set the impact of converting farmland on MCAS Tustin to urban uses. 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 FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEISIEIR. However, the FEISIEIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related impacts to farmland were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 5 Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-37 to 3-54) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Tustin General Plan Ill. 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. As documented in the FEISIEIR, the project is part of a larger reuse project at Tustin Legacy that was projected to result in air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The site is presently not in use. The project applicant proposes to construct 225 units on 12.779 acres (17.6 dwelling units per acre), which is less that the allowable density of the site (16-25 dwelling units) as identified in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Therefore, no significant impact beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEISIEIR is anticipated. The City must support density bonus requests, concessions or incentives when projects provide affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1), as authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR 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 FEISIEIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEISIEIR. However, the FEISIEIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 6 mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through 153, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54) Table 2, 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEISIEIR 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. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental and Addendum for MCAS Tustin. The FEISIEIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact jurisdictional waterstwetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The project site has been surveyed, and turtles were captured and moved off the site to another location as directed and overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game. Since that time, all former Marine Corps base drainage channels in the area were removed and 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 7 graded by the former owner of the property with the required 401, 404 and 1601 pen -nits issued by Fish and Game, Army Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 FEISIEIR 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 FEISIEIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 to 3-54). 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? 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The former MCAS Tustin contained two National Register listed blimp hangars, and several concrete or asphalt blimp landing pads that were considered historically or culturally significant, pursuant to the federal Section 106 process conducted at the site. A portion of the previously existing blimp pads are within the project site boundary that, through the Section 106 process, were identified as part of a discontiguous Historic District. The Navy, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Advisory Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement (attached as part of the EISIEIR) with City of Tustin and County of Orange as invited signatories that allowed for the destruction of the blimp pads. The EISIEIR noted that it may not be financially feasible to retain the blimp Dangers and there may be irreversible significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 8 the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Consistent with the above referenced agreement, the previous owner of the property removed the blimp pad from the project site and leveled the property. 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 grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures 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 FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project 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; (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 altematives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR was certified as complete. MitigatiorVMonitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 to 3-54). 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? 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 9 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEISIEIR indicates 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 shaming, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." However, the FEISIEIR for WAS Tustin also 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. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEISIEIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4123 and 7-28 through 7-29) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 to 3-54). Tustin General Plan 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 10 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. In addition, construction and residential uses would not emit hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy conveyed the property in 2002 as unrestricted and suitable for residential reuse. In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft -related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of household hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 11 regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project 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; (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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEISIEIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin Tustin General Play. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in 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? 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 12 The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of the project and submitted/approved Water Quality Management Plan. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed housing project will also not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100 -year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). 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. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEISIEIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54) FEMA Flood Map (2009) Tustin General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (2011) 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 13 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable Medium -High Density residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, and the number of dwelling units proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 15, which contemplates the development of 1214 dwelling units in total. The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council approved the Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed project complies with Planning Area 15's development standards for multiple family residential units as noted in Sections 3.9.2.G of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The City must support density bonus requests, concessions or incentives when projects provide affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1), as authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEISIEIR. No mitigation is required. 8$2601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 14 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54). 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Chapter 3.9 of the FEISIEIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse 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 FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Moneoring Required. No mitigation} is required. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54). 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? 882601A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 15 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? Q 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The proposed project could result in implementation activities that generate noise. The FEISIEIR indicates that full build -out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise Elements of the Tustin General Plan. The applicant has submitted a Noise Impact Study for the project that indicates that additional mitigation will not be required (Source: see Exhibit 1). However, the City of Tustin will ensure that construction activities comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and that the proposed multi -family housing units are designed with adequate noise attenuation (i.e., window design, sound walls) to meet the allowable noise levels as required by Tustin City Code for residential use. The project would be sound attenuated against present and projected noise so as not to exceed an exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms to reduce noise -related impacts to a level of insignificance. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. 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 FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the 1=EISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 16 Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162, 4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54). 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? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, and the number of dwelling units proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 15, which contemplates the development of 1214 dwelling units in total_ The City must support density bonus requests, concessions or incentives when projects provide affordable housing units in compliance with California Government Code Section 65915(1), as authorized under Tustin City Code Section 9123. Additionally, the proposed project site is vacant and will not displace people or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54). Tustin General Plan 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 17 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 development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The site is currently vacant. Development of the site would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding demolition, 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 fire stations existing and planned in the area surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of the site would increase the need for police protection services. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The proposed project is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan would provide two 10 -acre sites for elementary schools and a 40 -acre high school site to serve the growing student population within its district. Based on the student generation factors of 0.29 per unit for grades K-5; 0.127 student per units for grades 6-8; 0.153 student per unit for grades 9-12, and the potential of 2,585 dwelling units developed within the TUSD boundaries, the adopted EIS/EIR noted that reuse development would generate approximately 750 students for grades K- 5, 328 students for grades 6-8, and 395 students for grades 9-12 for a total of 1,473 students. The total number of units approved in the Specific Plan for Neighborhood G is 2,383 units; the total number of units approved in the Specific Plan for Planning Area 15 is 1214 The applicant is requesting approval of 225 units (representing 9% of the total number of units allowed in Neighborhood G, and 18% of the total units allowed in Planning Area 15). No other residential units have been previously built in Planning Area 15. The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from the proposed residential development of the site. As a condition of approval for the project, the developer will be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of the building permit. In summary, no new additional students are anticipated beyond what was considered in the FEIRIEIS for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS, Tustin, and in any event, City required mitigation is limited by State law to requiring payment of the SB 50 school impact fees. 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 18 Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. General Implementation Requirements: 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 proposed project will be required to comply with FEISIEIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 public services. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project 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; (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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources. Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54). 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 development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Pian. The project includes improvement of an adjacent, 4.706 acre neighborhood park that will be available to the public. 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 19 Since the Reuse Plan process included public conveyance of city parks and an Urban Regional Park, individual developers were relieved of the requirement to dedicate land for park purposes. However, pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the developers are required to provide in -lieu fees or public accessible park space (where approved by the City). Projects that do not propose the subdivision of property are exempt from the provisions of the Quimby Act. In addition, the Disposition and Development Agreement between the City and the developer will require that the private developer will improve the adjacent park site. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. MitigatiordMonitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54) Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department 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 result in substantial safety risks? 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 20 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? Q Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, and the number of dwelling units proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 15, which contemplates the development of 1214 dwelling units in total. The FEISIEIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. A projected 216,445 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by full redevelopment of the base by year 2020 that, if left unmitigated, would overburden existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base property. The FEISIEIR indicates that traffic circulation activities at MCAS Tustin generated a baseline of 12,400 ADT when the base was fully operational (1993). As a military facility, the FEISIEIR considered the traffic impact and developed a mitigation program to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. This site will be conditioned to participate in its fair share responsibility for both on-site and off-site circulation mitigation and implementation measures. In addition, construction activities are required to be meet all Transportation related FEISIEIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, street/utility construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.). The FEISIEIR implementation and mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to the traffic and circulation system to a level of insignificance. In addition, certain public infrastructure is required to be constructed by the developer as a requirement of the DDA. Also, a parking assessment and gate design analysis was submitted by the applicant which indicates that the project will not adversely impact parking and circulation within or outside the project area (See Exhibit 2). Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. 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 traffic. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project 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; (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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. WigafiorWoniforing Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 21 Sources: f=ield Observation FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54). Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed development of Disposition Package 1A -North would include a total of 225 affordable residential apartment units (88 very low income, 73 low income, and 64 moderate income). The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIRIEIR analyzed medium-high residential development on the proposed site, which is consistent with the proposed project. Development of the site would require on- site improvements and off-site infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway systems, including design and construction of full width improvements on Tustin Ranch Road, Legacy Road and Park Avenue. In addition, certain public infrastructure will be constructed by the applicant which may include storm drain, domestic water, reclaimed water, sanitary sewer, and dry utility service systems necessary to serve the site, and landscape and irrigation on in the public right-of-way. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of wastewater treatment. The number of proposed units can be supported by the Irvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer services. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEISIEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a 882601.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 22 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 effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEISIEIR, the Supplemental or Addendum were certified as completed. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) Reuse Pian and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-38 through 3-54). Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEISIEIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEISIEIR, the Supplemental and Addendum previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEISIEIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIS/E1R to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEISIEIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. 882501.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DA 2012-002, CP 2012-003, DR 2012-005, Density Transfer, and Density Bonus Page 23 Mitigation/Monitoring Required. The FEISIEIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEISIEIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEISIEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 54 through 5-11) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-144 through 3-154). Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEISIEIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEISIEIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. 882601.1 Exhibit 1 Noise Impact Study The Acoustics & Vibration Group, Inc. The Group 5700 Broadway Sacramento, CA 95820-1852 915-457-1444 FAX- 916-457-1475 Consultants in Acoustics, Vibration, Noise Control & Audio Visual Design NOISE IMPACT STUDY FOR TUSTIN LEGACY APARTMENTS IN TUSTIN AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET NOISE LIMITS OF CITY OF TUSTIN Prepared for St. Anton Partners, LLC 1801 I Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95811 Prepared by STEVE PETTYJQ , RMCIPAL CERTIFIED: INSTITUTE OF NOIS NTROL ENGINEERS -1981 August 28, 2012 R12135 TABLE OF CONTENTS Alone 1.0 SUMMARY................................................................. 1 2.0 ACOUSTIC STANDARDS .................................................... 2 2.1 Noise Element Standards .................................................. 2 2.2 Noise Control Ordinance .................................................. 3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SITE .............................................. 4 4.0 SOUND SOURCES........................................................... 5 4.1 Existing............................................................... 5 4.2 Existing + Project....................................................... 6 4.3 Cumulative + Project ..................................................... 6 5.0 EXTERIOR ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 7 5.1 Existing............................................................... 7 5.2 Existing + Project....................................................... 8 5.3 Cumulative + Project ..................................................... 9 6.0 INTERIOR ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................... 10 7.0 ACOUSTIC IMPACT........................................................ 11 7.1 Exterior Impact........................................................ 11 7.2 Interior Impact......................................................... 11 8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................... 11 9.0 REFERENCES............................................................. 13 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. Exterior Noise Ordinance Limits for the City of Tustin for Residential Property Affected by Non -Transporta- tion Sources per Section 4614............................................................. 4 TABLE 11. Interior Noise Ordinance Limits for the City of Tustin for Residential Property Affected by Non -Transporta- tionSources........................................................................... 4 TABLE 111. Heavy Rail Traffic Volumes and Types Assumed to Calculate Existing Day -Night Average Sound Levels at MCAS Redevelopment Project, Lot 20, Tustin ................................................ 5 TABLE IV. Roadway Traffic Volumes and Mixes Assumed to Calculate Existing Plus Project L& Sound Levels for the Proposed Tustin Legacy Apartments in the City of Tustin ....................................... 6 TABLE V. Roadway Traffic Volumes and Mixes Assumed to Calculate Cumulative Plus Project L& Sound Levels at the Tustin Legacy Apartments in the City of Tustin ............................................ 7 TABLE VI. Predicted Day -Night Sound Levels for Existing Plus Project Conditions at the Tustin Legacy Apartments in Tustin............................................................................... 8 TABLE VII. Predicted Day -Night Sound Levels for Cumulative Plus Project Conditions at the Tustin Legacy Apartments inTustin............................................................................. 9 TABLE V111. Predicted Cumulative Plus Project Interior Ld„ Sound Levels in Representative 2nd Floor Rooms of Tustin Legacy Multifamily Housing in Tustin ..................................................... 11 R12135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2UI2 1 1.0 SUMMARY This report documents the impact of road, rail and air traffic noise on the proposed Tustin Legacy multifamily housing in the City of Tustin. Because the proposed apartments are part of the Marine Core Air Station (MCAS) Redevelopment Project, few roads exist on the site. Road traffic will be the major sound source at the project site when complete. Other sound sources include commercial flights into and out of John Wayne Airport, heavy rail traffic to the north, activity at the commercial retail site southwest of the project site and activity in the park to the east. The latter two sound sources are non - transportation types. The heavy rail tracks are more than 3,000 feet away. John Wayne Airport is approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site but departures are near the site. Road traffic is expected to remain the dominant sound source at the project site to the design year of 2030. Sound generated by activity in the park east of the site is expected to increase with time. Based on the pro- posed layout, significant group activity is not expected to occur close to the common boundary. Sound generated in the park will be heard and could become excessive at time. This is particularly true for organized events or activities or for random individual events. Sound from commercial properties is expected to increase slightly. The park and commercial property generate non -transportation sound sources that are judged based on the hourly sound level. Sound reduction is difficult for both sources. For park produced sounds, mitigation is limited to building sound walls at the common boundary, monitoring park activity and restricting use near the boundary. The project will create non -transporta- tion sources such as mechanical equipment, parking lot activity and general human activity. These are not expected to adversely influence any nearby residential property. The project will generate road traffic, but the day -night average, Lam, sound level will increase by less than 0.5 dB(A). This is consid- ered insignificant. The project site is on the former MCAS and includes a multi -family residential development and the development of a park adjacent to it, to the northeast. The residential site is bounded by Tustin Ranch Road on the west, Legacy Road on the north and Park Avenue on the east. Tustin Ranch Road and Park Avenue exist, but not near the project site. Legacy will be a completely new street. All of the 15 buildings will lie on Lot 20 and the park will occupy Lot MMM. Nine of the buildings will be next to a street, one will be in the center of the other buildings, and five will be next to an adjacent property or the park. All the apartment buildings will be three stories tall, except for the central build- ing, which will be four stories. Noise Requirements of City of Tustin are given in the Noise Element chapter of the City of Tust- in General Plan [If and in the Noise Control chapter of the Health and Sanitation article of the City of Tustin Code of Ordinances [2]. The California Building Code, CBC, [3] requires a noise study when residential property is exposed to day -night average, L., sound level goal of 60 dB(A) or more in outdoor activity areas. The City uses the Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, as their met- ric of choice for transportation sources. The CNEL divides the day into three parts, day, evening and night with penalties for evening and night sound levels. The City sets an exterior La„ sound level limit of 65 dB for multifamily residences in common recreation areas and patios or balconies of 6 feet or more in depth. The CNEL is typically higher than the Ld, sound level, but by no more than 0.5 dB. The City and the State have an interior L. sound level limit of 45 dB in habitable spaces such as bed- rooms. * - Number in brackets refers to references listed at the end of this letter report. R12135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 A/ine Existing plus project exterior L. sound levels are predicted to be 53 to 67 dB(A) when measured at the buildings' exterior, on balconies, or in common recreation areas. Road traffic is the main source. The impact of the change in exterior Ld., sound level from cumulative to cumulative plus project is insignificant. The changes in all predicted exterior L. sound levels are at or less than 70 dB(A), and less than 65 dB(A) in the common recreation areas or on the balconies, the impact is considered insig- nificant. Additional exterior sound reduction is not required. The cumulative plus project exterior Ld. sound levels were used to predict the interior L. sound levels in habitable rooms closest to roadways. A 45 dB Ldn sound level design goal was used in the evaluation of these spaces with the application of a 2 dB margin of safety. The margin of safety ac- counts for inaccuracies in the model and the use of laboratory data that will not reflect field construc- tion procedures and techniques. Interior Ld. sound levels will not exceed the City's 45 dB Criteria nor the Design Goal of 43 dB(A). Predictions were done based on the proposed construction shown in the architectural drawings [4]. Interior L. sound level impacts will be insignificant relative to the City's limit and the design goal. Special mitigation measures will not be required but certain minimums material and construction techniques must be followed to comply with the assumption used in arriving at these conclusions. Non -transportation sound sources associated with the park could produce levels that exceed the City's Noise Ordinance. The park is not set up for organized athletics or concerts and sound reinforce- ment systems will not be allowed. The park has been designed maximize the distance between picnic areas and play areas and the boundary common to the apartments. Spontaneous or unorganized events such as birthday parties could generate excess sound if held close to the common boundary. Ideally, people should be encouraged to hold such events in the designated areas and to be within 50 feet of the common boundary during such gathers. The design allows visual access between the multifamily dwellings and the park and a gate at one location allows access from the apartments. The proposed wall separating the two uses provides both visual and acoustical views between the park and the apart- ments. That is, the wall not stop people from looking into the opposite area and neither will it stop sound from passing back and forth. Administrative action should be pursued first to prevent excess sound generation by designing the areas closest to the common boundary to prevent any gatherings. If a problem persists with excess sound from the park, building a sound wall along the common boundary could be an option. This would only be undertaken after tests show that the City's limits are exceeded and administrative options have been exhausted. 2.0 ACOUSTIC STANDARDS Noise sensitive projects fall under the jurisdiction of two sets of acoustical criteria as published by the City of Tustin. The first criterion is given in the Noise Element chapter of the City of Tustin General Plan [l ]. The second standards are contained in the Noise Control chapter of the Health and Sanitation article of the City of Tustin Code of Ordinances [2]. These are described below. 2.1 Noise Element Standards Acoustic criteria contained in the Noise Element of the City of Tustin General Plan are based on the Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL, sound level. This criterion addresses the average sound Ievel over 24 -hours and is directed mainly at transportation sources. Table N-3 of the Noise Elements sets an interior noise limit is CNEL 45 dB and the exterior noise limit is CNEL 65 dB. The interior noise standard is with windows closed. For multifamily residences, the exterior requirement 2 R12135: SAP, Nis and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 Alone applies on patios and balconies with a depth of b feet or more and in common recreation areas. For the purpose of this project, common recreation areas are the courtyards of Buildings 8 and 4 and the recre- ation/pool area. Both the CNEL and L�„ metrics address the average sound level over 24 -hours and are directed mainly at transportation sources. The day -night noise descriptor averages measured or predicted sound levels over 24 -hours after applying a 10 dB penalty to nighttime sounds. Hourly average sound Ievels, L.q, are measured or predicted for each hour of the day or for each hour during which a sound source is present. A 10 dB penalty is added to each hourly average sound level measured or predicted from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The penalty is applied because people trying to sleep during these hours are more sensitive to external sounds. The CNEL divides the day into three parts instead of two. Daytime is defined as 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. while the evening is the hours between 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The same nighttime penalty is applied for the CNEL but the evening has a 5 dB penalty for sound measured during these hours. The 10 dB nighttime penalty is equivalent to multiplying the number of train, plane or road "events" by 10. That is, the volume is increased by a factor of 10. The evening penalty used by the CNEL is equivalent to multiplying the number of "events" by 3. Typically, the CNEL is about 0.5 dB(A) higher than the L� sound level at any site. This is within the prediction error for these metrics. However using the CNEL is difficult for many sources because there is no specific information for 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Therefore, the day -night average, L., is used instead for many sources such as road traffic. Excluding or including only certain sources is possible. For example, the sounds of aircraft flying over the site are included only during those hours when they occur. If no events happen during the nighttime, no penalty would be applied. When some sources are excluded from the analysis, it is called the Background L. or CNEL sound level. 2.2 Noise Control Ordinance The second criteria, the Noise Ordinance [23, looks at the sound produced during shorter times by sources not related to transportation equipment. The one exception is that sound produced by trans- portation equipment while on private property may be regulated by the Noise Ordinance. This Ordi- nance limits the amplitude and duration of sound produced over any given I -hour period. Sound limits are based on the type of source, the duration of the sound, the time of day of occurrence, background sound levels and the tonal content of sound. This is a City code and is enforceable with limited excep- tions. The Noise Control Ordinance applies a 5 dB penalty to the limits when the sound comprises mainly speech or music or if it contains pure tones or impact sounds. When background sound levels equal the limits given in Table I for the individual categories, the limit of that category is raised to reflect the background sound. The exact meaning of this is unclear. Table I summarizes limits of the Noise Ordinance with and without a penalty but without regard to the background sound level. The background sound level is that measured when the source or sources of interest are absent. Sound generated at the project by people or mechanical equipment will be required to meet limits of the Noise Ordinance at all nearby residential property. Sound generated at the park will be required to meet these limits at the multifamily development. The City also has a sound level limit for the interior of multifamily units. Again, the limits are based on the sound measured over an hour. This standard is believed to apply to sources within adja- cent units and for sources exterior to the building. Penalties apply for time of day and sound character- istic. The influence of background sound on the limits is the same as for the exterior. Table II pro- vides a summary of the interior noise standards for non -transportation sound sources. 3 R12135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 A/-tm TABLE I. Exterior Noise Ordinance Limits for the City of Tustin for Residential Property Af- fected by Non -Transportation Sources per Section 4614. Exterior Sound Level Limits, dB(A) .............................................................................................................................................. Without Penalty- With Penalty— ............................................................................................................................................. Cumulative Number of Min- Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Category utes in any 1 -hour period 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. 10 .m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 .m. 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 1 30 (L56) 55 50 50 45 2 15 (L25) 60 55 55 50 3 5 (Log) 65 60 60 55 4 1 (L,) 70 65 65 60 5 0(L,,,,) 75 70 70 65 - Penalty applies when sound is composed primarily of speech or music, contains pure tones or results from impacts or impulsive sources. TABLE IL Interior Noise Ordinance Limits for the City of Tustin for Residential Property Af- fected by Non -Transportation Sources. 9W_ Interior Sound Level Limits, dB(A) .............................................................................................................................................. Without Penalty With Penalty- .......................... enalty ............................................................................................................................................. Cumulative Number of Min- Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime utes in anv 1 -hour oeriod 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. 10 n.m. to 7 a.m. 7 a.m. to 10 o.m. 10 n.m. to 7 a.m. 1 5 (L,) 2 1 (Lp2) 55 45 I 50 40 60 50 55 45 3 0 (LMA) 65 55 1 60 50 Penalty applies when sound is composed primarily of speech or music, contains pure tones or results from impacts or impulsive sources. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION & SITE The project site is on an undeveloped plot of land that was part of a Marine Corps Air Station. The property has been turned over to the City of Tustin for redevelopment. The infrastructure will have to be installed before residential development can begin. A 12.2 acre parcel that is to be bor- dered on the west by Tustin Ranch Road, on the north by Legacy Road, and on the east by Park Ave- nue in the MCAS redevelopment project (Lots 20 and MMM of tract number 17404 [5]) is proposed to be developed for affordable multifamily housing (7.49 acres) and a park (4.71 acres). A total of 225 units is to be constructed at the site in 14 3 -story buildings and one 4 -story building. The latter build- ing includes the rental offices, club room, and fitness facilities as well as several apartments on the ground floor. Four of the buildings front Park Avenue, three front Tustin Ranch Road, one is on the corner of Tustin Ranch Road and Legacy Road, one fronts Legacy Road, one fronts an adjacent Iot (Lot 21), four front the park, and one is in the center of the other buildings. All land that is part of the MCAS redevelopment project is currently vacant. Single-family homes may be built on land surrounding the project site but at this time no land uses are confirmed. Southwest of the project is an existing commercial retail center bordered on the north by the existing 4 RI 2135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 T section of Tustin Ranch Road and an existing section of Warner Avenue. The Google Earth program suggests that the property is currently about 45 to 47 feet above seal level (ASL) while the Tustin Leg- acy civil engineering grading plans suggest that the finish floor elevations will range from 52 to 57 feet ASL. The land will be fairly flat at the project site when complete. Four basic apartment building designs are to be built with nine basic apartment layouts. All apartments have 9 foot ceilings. The 3 -story buildings are designated at Types A (10), B (2), and C (2). The 4 -story building is D and is the apartments cum recreation and rental office building in the center of the development. Only four of the nine apartment layouts are evaluated as representative of the worst case scenarios for this study. A typical exterior wall construction comprises 1 -coat stucco over wire mesh, fastened to 1" thick insulation applied over 2 -layers of building paper fastened to 7/16" shear plywood attached to minimum 2" x 4" wood studs. R -I l insulation is to be installed in all stud cavities with 5/8" Type X gypsum board attached to the interior face of the studs. The ceilings of all living units will be finished with gypsum board. Double glazed windows will be used throughout all units. 4.0 SOUND SOURCES 4.1 Existing The proposed development is part of the Marine Core Air Station redevelopment project. None of this land tract has been developed at this point. This includes a lack of roads on the property. Cur- rently, Tustin Ranch Road borders a commercial retail center southwest of the project site but does not continue onto the MCAS redevelopment land. Once roads are built on the MCAS redevelopment site, road traffic on Tustin Ranch Road, Legacy Road, and Parr Avenue will be the dominant sound source influencing the project site. Other sound sources are secondary in importance and include aircraft flyovers, heavy rail traffic, dogs barking and general human activity. Railroad tracks exist just north of Edinger Avenue, which forms the north border of the MCAS redevelopment lands. These tracks are approximately 3,900 feet from the proposed project site. The volume of traffic on the tracks is unknown. Table III provides the assumptions made regarding vol- ume, number of engines, speed and percent of nighttime traffic. TABLE III. Heavy Rail Traffic Volumes and Types Assumed to Calculate Existing Day -Night Average Sound Levels at MCAS Redevelopment Project, Lot 20, Tustin. Distance to Average Number Number Percent Train Track Center Daily of Whistle of of Trains Train Description Line Ft. Volume Engines Blown Cars at Night Seed UPRC >3900 33 3 no 95 27 40 John Wayne Airport in Irvine is approximately 2.5 miles southwest of the project site. The main runway runs approximately southwest to northeast. Typical flight patterns carry the aircraft north of the project site. The site is outside any standard noise contours generated by airport operations. The airport maintains noise level monitoring sites including three north of the airport ($N, 9N, ION) [6]. 5 R12135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2812 A/9W_ Sites 8N and ION are generally in line with the runway while 9N is offset to the west. This project site is offset to the east further than 9N is to the west, so 2010 published aircraft noise levels for site 9N were used to estimate the noise impact on the proposed project from John Wayne Airport. Standard noise levels for heavy rail traffic moving through urban areas at the same distance were used to predict the sound impacts on the proposed project site from the railroad traffic. 4.2 Existing + Project Once roads are built on the MCAS redevelopment property, road traffic will be the dominant sound source on the project site. Tustin Ranch Road will have 2 -lanes running each direction along the west border of the property. Legacy Road will have a single lane running along the north border of the property of both the apartment complex and the park. Park Avenue also will have a single lane running along the east border of the property of both the apartment complex and the park. Road traffic counts were based on data in Volume 2 of the Final Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, FEIS/EIR [7]. This document provided 2005 and 2020 counts. The project has not started so the 2012 volumes were assumed to be the same as for 2005 since the project has not progressed. Legacy Road was not included in the redevelopment FEISIEiR. The road was assumed to be the Sam as Park Avenue. Table 1V summarizes the data used to model the existing plus project Lda sound levels. TABLE IV. Roadway Traffic Volumes and Mixes Assumed to Calculate Existing Plus Project Ldn Sound Levels for the Proposed Tustin Legacy Apartments in the City of Tustin. Distance Average Percent Percent Percent Percent Vehicle Road to Near Daily Heavy Medium Trucks Autos at Speed Name Lane, Ft Volume Trucks Trucks at Night Night MPHo Park Ave 25 8,000 2.0 3.0 6.0 11.0 30125 Legacy Rd 25 8,000 2.0 3.0 6.0 11.0 30125 Tustin Ranch Rd 25 14,000 2.0 3.0 6.0 11.0 45140 c -Automobile and truck speed respectively Rail and air traffic are not expected to change from existing to existing plus project. The infor- mation given in the section on Existing Sound sources was used to find the exiting plus project L, sound level. 4.3 Cumulative + Project Road traffic on Tustin Ranch Road, Legacy Road and Park Avenue are expected to remain the dominant sound source at the Tustin Legacy Apartments in the year 2030. Traffic generated by the project will have a small impact on the total volume on these roads because the developments on the other lots on Tract 17404 are expected to be built at approximately the same time as the proposed pro- ject. Train movements and aircraft flights will remain sound sources of secondary importance. Very little change is expected in the volume of traffic for these sources. The information in the section on Existing sound sources will be applicable. Other secondary sound sources will include general avia- tion flights, mechanical equipment and general human activity. Only vehicle volumes could be quanti- fied. 6 R12135. SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, Augusl 28, 2012 TMe The project will potentially be impacted by non -transportation sound sources and will impact other residential areas because of such sources. The project will add new non -transportation sound sources including mechanical equipment, trash collection, vehicle movements in the parking lot and general human activity. Commercial sites southwest of the site are potential sources of non -transporta- tion sound. This includes public address systems, mechanical equipment body work tools, people talking, vehicles moving in and out of parking lots and other general activity. Activity in the park will be another source of non -transportation sound. Adults and children playing or yelling could generate excessive sound. In general, quantifying these sources is difficult. Traffic volumes will grow from existing plus project to cumulative plus project conditions as shown in the FEIS/EIR for the redevelopment project[7]. That environmental study was based on the year 2005 as existing and 2020 for the cumulative plus project. Traffic volumes on Tustin Ranch Road were projected to grow at an annual rate of 4 percent to the year 2020. An assumption was made that the 2020 projected volumes were still applicable and faster growth would occur from 2012 to 2020 to give these volumes. Between the year 2020 and 2030, road traffic was assumed to grow at an annual rate of 1.5 percent on this road. Park Avenue traffic volumes were not expected to grow from 2005 to 2020 in the FEIS/EIR. Then, the volume was assumed to increase at an annual rate of 3 percent per year to the year 2030. Legacy Road traffic volumes were not available but were assumed to be compa- rable to those on Park Avenue. The same growth rates were used also. The traffic mix and speeds were assumed to stay the same on all roads. A summary of road traffic information used to compute cumulative plus project L. sound levels is given in Table V. TABLE V. Roadway Traffic Volumes and Mixes Assumed to Calculate Cumulative Plus Project L. Sound Levels at the Tustin Legacy Apartments in the City of Tustin. Distance Average Percent Percent Percent Percent Vehicle Road to Near Daily Heavy Medium Trucks Autos at Speed Name Lane, Ft Volume Trucks Trucks at Night Night MPHo Park Ave 11,000 2.0 3.0 6.0 11.0 30125 Legacy Rd 11,000 2.0 3.0 6.0 11.0 30125 Tustin Ranch Rd 29,000 2.0 3.0 6.0 11.0 45/40 (-Automobile and truck speed respectively No changes were assumed in air and rail volumes or mixes to the year 2030. Information given in the Existing Sound Source section was used to predict cumulative plus project Lam, sound levels. 5.0 EXTERIOR ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 5.1 Existing As the MCAS redevelopment land is currently undeveloped, no measurements of existing sound levels were made, nor were predictions of existing exterior sound levels completed. The existing CNEL or L. sound levels are not important if there are no receivers to be impacted. 7 R12135: SAP, MS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 rho 5.2 Existing + Project Predicted La„ sound levels due to road traffic were made using the Federal Highway Administra- tion (FHWA) Highway Noise Prediction Model [8]. The FHWA model was modified to include the CalTrans noise emission levels [9]. Road visibility and ground conditions were considered in calcula- tions of the hourly average sound levels at the worst case position outside each apartment or outdoor area considered. The ground was assumed to be acoustically hard for all vehicle types. The day -night average sound levels were predicted at the project site based on the data given in Table IV for road traffic and for other background sources. Exterior sound levels were predicted for ten positions: seven for the exterior of the apartment walls, three for balconies, and two for common outdoor areas. Predictions for the seven apartments were done at the exterior wall of each of the seven evaluated apartments in what was determined to be the worst position for each. The courtyard and pool were evaluated in what was determined to be the worst case spot in terms of exposure to road noise. Three balconies were chosen, each representative of the worst case for each building. Accord- ing to the Noise Element [I ], exterior noise standards have to be met in common recreation areas and patios or balconies with a depth of six feet or more. This requirement means that exterior noise stan- dards do not have to be met on the balconies of apartment floor plans 131, Cl, Al, or A2. Predictions of the exterior Ld. sound level on the balconies were made for approximately three feet front the bal- cony edge. Table VI gives the predicted day -night average sound levels for existing plus project con- ditions at each of these nine positions. TABLE VI. Predicted Day -Night Sound Levels for Existing Plus Project Conditions at the Tustin Legacy Apartments in Tustin. Predicted L& Sound Level, dB TotaI Lm„ Bldg # Unit Type & .......................................................................................................................................................... Heavy Medium Total JW Air- Heavy Other dB, All Sources & Type Position Trucks Trucks Auto -mobiles Roadway ort` Rail Sources #2, A 132 58 52 59 62 43 42 45 62 #2, A B2, Balcony 55 49 56 59 43 42 45 60* #2, A C1 58 52 59 61 43 42 45 62 #8,C B2 59 56 65 66 43 42 45 66 #8, C B4 59 56 65 66 43 42 45 66 #8, C B4, Balcony 51 48 56 58 43 42 45 58* #8,C Courtyard 54 51 60 61 43 42 45 62* #10, B B2 60 55 62 65 43 42 45 65 #10, B B2, Balcony 58 52 59 62 43 42 45 62* #10, B C1 60 57 65 67 43 42 45 67 #10, B B4 -Alt 59 56 65 66 43 42 45 66 #15, D Rec/Pool 45 42 50 52 43 42 45 54* - John Wayne Airport sound levels are in CNEL rather than L, * - Denotes outdoor areas to which the Noise Element's exterior noise standard applies 8 R12135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 The Existing plus project La„ sound levels do not exceed the 65 dB limit in the pool, courtyard, or any of the three balconies. These are the areas of primary concern to which the Noise Element's exterior noise standard applies. The exterior Ldn sound levels are not excessive at any of the buildings also. 5.3 Cumulative + Project Road traffic is expected to remain the dominant sound source influencing the L. sound levels at the project site to the year 2030. The FHWA model was used to predict the Ldp sound levels for road traffic for cumulative plus project conditions using information in Table V. Though the number of trains and planes is not expected to increase significantly, each of these was increased by 1 dB to ac- count for the worst case scenario. Similarly, the other sound from other secondary sources was in- creased by 2 dB to account for increased activity and varied land uses in the future. Table V1I presents the predicted Ldp, sound levels at the same nine positions outside the seven apartments and in the Build- ing 8 courtyard and pool area. TABLE VII. Predicted Day -Night Sound Levels for Cumulative Plus Project Conditions at the C1 Tustin Legacy Apartments in Tustin. 53 60 63 44 Predicted La Sound Level, dB 47 63 Total Ld,,, B2 ................................................................._................................................................................. 59 dB, All Bldg #, Unit Type & Heavy Medium Total JW Heavy Other Sources Type Position Trucks Tnicks_ Automobiles Roadway Air2ort- Rail Sources 68 #2,A B2 59 54 60 63 44 44 47 64 #2, A B2, Balcony 57 51 58 61 44 44 47 61 * #2, A C1 59 53 60 63 44 44 47 63 #8, C B2 62 59 68 69 44 44 47 69 #8,C B4 62 59 68 69 44 44 47 69 0, C B4, Balcony 54 51 60 61 44 44 47 61 * #8, C Courtyard 57 54 63 65 44 44 47 65* #10, B B2 63 58 66 68 44 44 47 69 #10, B B2, Balcony 59 53 60 63 44 44 47 63* #10, B C1 63 60 68 70 44 44 47 70 #10, B B4 -Alt 62 59 68 69 44 44 47 69 #15, D Rec/Pool 48 45 54 55 44 44 47 56* - John Wayne Airport sound levels are in CNEL rather than Ldn * - Denotes outdoor areas to which the Noise Element's exterior noise standard applies The predicted Ld, sound level for cumulative plus project conditions at the exterior varies from 56 to 70 dB(A). The Noise Element's 65 dB(A) noise standard applies to the two common recreation areas and the three balconies. All of these spaces meet the noise standard, though the courtyard just meets it with no safety factor. The exterior L. sound level at the face of the apartment reaches 70 dB(A). Sound generated by people and animals using the park east/northeast of the Tustin Legacy apart- ments could exceed the Noise Ordinance of the City. Predicting accurately sound levels for these 9 R12135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Eloise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 sources is not possible without complete knowledge of the people using the park, what they are doing, where are they doing and the time of day they are doing the activity. If a typical group activity occurs near the west boundary of the park, the sound limits will likely be exceeded. Noise making activity that occurs farther from this boundary will result in little or no impacts. Organized sporting or musical events could result in excess sound at the residences, especially if a sound reinforcement system is used. 6.0 INTERIOR ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT The State of California assumes that a 15 dB reduction can be expected from the building exterior to the building interior with the windows open. Thus, any Ld„ sound level greater than 64 dB will cause interior sound levels to be greater than the 45 dB limit [1 ] if the windows or doors are allowed to be open. The Noise Element specifies that the interior noise standard of CNEL 45 dB is with the win- dows closed. The 45 dB limit with a 2 dB margin of safety was used to evaluate the wall construction of the Tustin Legacy apartment buildings. A margin of safety is used because the highway noise pre- diction model is only good to f1.5 dB(A) and because laboratory test data is used for construction materials. The laboratory data is called the Sound Transmission Class, STC, ratings of building com- ponents. Laboratory construction techniques can seldom be duplicated in the field. The State assumes up to a 5 dB reduction in sound loss from the laboratory to the field. The STC rating of building prod- ucts is used in the calculation of interior L� sound levels. Interior Ld,, sound levels were predicted for bedrooms on the second floor that were closest to the street. Interior Lm, sound levels are typically higher in smaller rooms, rooms with more than one exte- rior wall, and rooms closest to Tustin Ranch Road which has the highest traffic volume and projected speed. Because no sound measurements were made at the site, road traffic sound spectra measured at another site with similar traffic volumes and speeds was used to calculate interior L. sound levels based on the exterior Ld, sound level shown in Table VII. The wall construction described in the Pro- ject Description Section was used in the prediction. A 5 dB reduction in the sound transmission was assumed because of the source location outdoors with no reflecting surfaces nearby [ 10]. The sound transmission loss of materials used in exterior constructions was taken from publications by the Na- tional Institute of Tests and Standards [11] and the State of California [12]. Some data was taken from literature published by manufacturers or computed from in house computer models. Table VIII summarizes the predicted interior Ld„ sound levels for representative units closest to each of the three roads. Exterior La„ sound levels shown in Table VII were used for these calculations. Interior L� sound levels are all less than the 45 dB required by the City and less than the re- quired level with a 2 dB(A) margin of safety. Sound impacts will be less than significant and mitiga- tion measures are not required. The predicted results are true assuming the construction materials and practices meet minimum requirements. These general requirements are described in the mitigation section of this report. The influence of road traffic on sleep interference and speech interference was evaluated also. The maximum sound levels in bedrooms will be less than 50 dB(A). This will be sufficient to prevent speech and sleep interference. 10 R12135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 A/_*W_ TABLE VIII. Predicted Cumulative Pius Project Interior Ld, Sound Levels in Representative 2"d Floor Rooms of Tustin Legacy Multifamily Housing in Tustin. Bldg No. Bldg Type Unit Type Room Name Interior L,,, dB 2 A B2 Master Bedroom 32 2 A B2 Bedroom 1 32 2 A Cl Bedroom 1 32 8 C B2 (North) Master Bedroom 38 8 C B4 (North) Master Bedroom 37 10 B B2 Master Bedroom 34 10 B B2 Bedroom 1 37 10 B C1 Master Bedroom 38 10 B C1 Bedroom 1 38 10 B C1 Bedroom 2 28 10 B B4 -Alt Master Bedroom 37 7.0 ACOUSTIC IMPACT 7.1 Exterior Impact Exterior Ld„ sound level impacts for cumulative to cumulative plus project conditions due to transportation sound sources are insignificant for multi -family residences. The noise impact due to the absolute L. sound is insignificant because the predicted L. sound levels are at or less than 70 dB(A) and because backyards do not exist. The Ld. sound level on the south side of the club house will be less than 60 dB(A) and this was assumed to be the "backyard" for these units. Sound levels produced by transportation and non -transportation sources associated with this pro- ject could be significant. Sound reduction could be required, but too many unknowns exist. Both administrative and physical sound reduction is possible. 7.2 Interior Impact Interior La„ sound level impacts are insignificant for cumulative plus project conditions based on the County's limit 45 dB in habitable spaces. Impacts are insignificant relative to the design goal of 43 dB and the maximum sound level. These conclusions are based on the proposed floor plans and con- struction. All walls and windows must meet minimum acoustical requirements in all areas for these conclusions to be correct. 8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Exterior sound reduction is not required for this project for transportation sources. Non -transpor- tation sound generated in the park could have a significant impact. Options are included for providing relief for such sources, but they would be implemented only if it is determined that a need exists for such measures. Interior sound reduction is not needed to meet noise limits for transportation sound 11 RI 2135: SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 26, 2012 Aifte sources. General acoustical requirements must be met for any of the conclusions to be accurate. The general requirements are given in the following outline. General Requirements A. All joints in exterior walls shall be sealed airtight around windows and doors, at the wall perimeter and at major seams. B. All above ground penetrations of exterior walls by electrical and plumbing components shall include a'/a to %2 inch airspace around the perimeter. This space shall be filled loosely with fiberglass insulation. The space shall then be sealed airtight on both sides of the wall with a resilient, non -hardening caulking or mastic. C. Basic exterior wall construction for the main prayer hall shall include the following or an equivalent: 1. Minimum 2" x 4" wood studs at a minimum 16 inches on center. 2. Minimum R-11 insulation in the stud cavities, 3. Minimum 518" Type X gypsum wallboard fastened to the interior face of the wood studs. The wall shall be fully taped and finished including where perpendicular walls intersect and where the wall meets the ceiling. The base of the walls shall be sealed with a combination of backer rod and resilient, non -hardening caulking, 4. The exterior surface shall be finished with the following or with another product with equal or greater surface weight. a. Minimum 1 -layer of minimum 7/16" shear plywood with b. 2 -layers of building paper fastened over plywood. C. 1" thick dense insulation applied over building paper and fastened to studs or ply- wood, d. Minimum 20 gauge 1 " wire mesh, and e. 1 -coat stucco over wire mesh, D. Windows shall have a minimum STC rating of 29 or better. Windows shall have an air infil- tration rate of less than or equal to 0.20 CFM/lin. ft. when tested with a 25 mile an hour wind per ASTM standards. A good quality window with '/$" float glass, '/2" airspace, float glass window should meet this requirement if the seals meet infiltration rates. E. All exterior doors shall have a minimum STC rating of 29. F. Sliding glass shall have a minimum STC 29 rating. G. There shall be no need to open windows, doors or other exterior openings to provide ade- quate ventilation. Il. Non -transportation Sound Sources in Park A. Administrative 1. Ensure park is closed for general use by 10:00 p.m. 2. Encourage people to gather at the picnic areas and playgrounds that are farther from the residential boundary. 3. Design park to limit gatherings such as birthday parties from being within 50 feet of the west property line. 12 R12135, SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apts, August 28, 2012 rhe 4. Enforce the restriction on the use of sound reinforcement systems in the park and do not allow the use of such equipment after 8:00 p.m or dusk, whichever comes first. 13. Physical Mitigation Measures (If administrative efforts are insufficient. Use only as a last resort) 1. Construction a minimum 6 foot tall sound wall along the boundary between the apart- ments and the park where the current combination solid and open wall is to be built. 2. Any such wall shall have a minimum surface density of 3.5 to 4 lbs./sq.ft. 3. The wall shall be continuous along its length and height with no gaps or holes. 9.0 REFERENCES I . Anon., "Noise", from City of Tustin General Plan, adopted June 17, 2008. 2. Anon., "Chapter 6: Noise Control" in "Article 4: Health and Sanitation", from City of Tustin Code of Ordi- nances, adopted May 15, 2012. 3. 2007 California Building Code, Appendix Chapter 12 Amended, Division IIA, Sound Transmission Control. 4. Anon., "Tustin Legacy, Tustin, CA, Development Application", for St. Anton Partners, Sacramento, by Archi- tects Orange, Orange, CA, July 23, 2012. 5. R.S. Williams, L.S. 6654, Hunsaker and Associates Irvine, Inc., Date of Survey: August 2007, Tract No. 17404, in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California. Received via email from St. Anton Part- ners, LLC. 6. Anon., "Table 2: Long Term Measured Aircraft Noise Levels" from JWA Noise Abatement Program Quar- terly Report, retrieved from http://www.ocair.com/reportspublications/AccessNoise/noiselevels.pdf. 7. Anon., Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmentallmpact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, Volume 2. 8, T.M. Barry & J.A. Readgan, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, FHWA-Rd-77-108, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research, Office of Environmental Policy, December 1978. 9. R.W. Hendriks, California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, FHWA/CA/TL-87/03, Office of Transportation Laboratory, California, Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California, 95819, January 1987. 10. G.E. Mange, S.R. Skale, L.C. Sutherland, Background Report On Outdoor -Indoor Noise Reduction Calcula- tion Procedures Employing The Exterior Wall Noise Reduction (EWNR) Method, FHWA Report TS -77-220; March 1978. 13 R12135- SAP, NIS and Recommendations to Meet Noise Limits; Tustin Legacy Apt&, August 28, 2012 The I I. Anon., Acoustical and Thermal Performance of Exterior Residential Walls, Doors and Windows, NBS Building Science Series 77, National Bureau of Standards (National Institute of Tests and Standards), Depart- ment of Commerce, 1975. 12. R. DuPree, Catalog of STC and IIC Ratings For Wall and Floor/Ceiling Assemblies with TL and ISPL Data Plots, Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health Services, Berkeley, California, 1981. 14 Attachment 2 Gate Design Study Septernbei 2 1 21.112 %4-, RaLllt,16recn 'it Anton P'1rtnerti 1301 1 Strua Suitt 00 Sacramento ( tilifornla 90811 subject Pal bine assessment .Anton Legac-, Apartments Nff VS Tustin Specific Plain Disposition Package 1 % North fait SU D( •n 1,41( 11( I Pur -,11,11 -it to voul requetit ire 111, pl01.1SLd to Lubimt this parking alssc.ssmerlt fol. Anton legacy Apartments to address concerm, expre-ssed by C.it% of I"List.rn Staff on the appropriactness of this protect providing parkin, spaces haled oil -,vity afffol-d.able housing pai king requirements This projt.ct is providing 435 parking spaccs while the State parking code requires 1 total of .372 pat king Space,, and NICAS TL1atlil Spec ilio l'lctn rc tlurrc'$ a WOO of 163 p`irkmg, spaces Using the Clt� of Tu,�tlll specific plait the proposed ':It. amrnClit 1)1.11jeut dot , 11(.,t C:oIII pli %VI111 the CI s 1)'11h1iig rvgtlirerile nts I Iowe vot thiti Imi kilit, -lssessment «111 demonstrate that the pai-kml ,paces provtdLd hu Olt- IM -01) Sed rIp•Irtment pr(ijet-t •iri ,wff i Tent and v ill not idversvIv impact, pailzln;; .ind L1rc.ulatlon w lthlll or outside the project MVIl Project Description St lnton is proposing to dcvc.lclp 22,55 affordable multifalliih dwelling unit,, in tho City of Tustin MC. 1S'lustln SpCcific Pi -in, Dlspotii 1011 T'cic,ktzge 1A North The project is loLated oil Lot 0 in Neighhoi hood 6 A Pl i sling Arca 15 11L, lot is •ippromin-itc.ly 7 I •icres and hounded by Leg -w% Road to the north c fUtln-e paik to the efast. Palk lveriuL to UAL South and future Tustin Rani.h Road to the %%est, see kttachment i There will be a total of 78 oro- Ixdrlacitll uilit� (:35%,o of total) 117 two bedroom units (52% of total) and 30 throe bedroom units (13`Yo of total) The projects dwcllint units tre furtllet wep tl -ited into 88 verN low income units 77 to%r income units 'Ind b4 moderate income: units A total of 4.35 parking spac>15 ;are provided tot rtsidcnts and guests including gai-agcti tuck undei p -irking •ind surface pmking rhe parinng',}1acLs zinc clistributL-ci tllrougllout the project site to nerve the fifteen buildings The apartment project is 5ulijLct to p;ai-kin�z requirements contained in the City of Tustin 1ICAS Tustin Specific flan Chapter 3 1.3 Off Street Parking The, rL side ntlal off Street parking requirements are detailed in Ch ipter 3 13 `? 1ablc .3 1 and rilclLide separate requirclnc tits for all rc.uS( plan disposition parcels except f arca! 16 and for Parcel ,30 only NIs Rachel Green Page ) Septembei 21 ` 012 Phe. requirements lou condoin in] U als and 111111tiple famll% tar( uzwd and arc aunaln,ariz d in Table I Table 1 ' MCAS Tu 41111 Specific Plali Residential Off Street Parking heyun•c cents \umbel of Spaces t�ovcredf,�sstgr3ed 14umbe�, of si Houng Type L nassigned C,uc:�t He[lun•eci Spaces pea ilnit %aces Condominium and Uultipk Family l'nrt Stuttro _. 1..0 _- 1 Bedroom - 1 5 Bedroom .1 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 1 Garage tri Carport 1 Garage of carport 1 Garage o3 carport I Garage 01 I (garage or 0 2D pti unrt 0 25 Pei unit 0 25 per unit 0 25 pee unit 0 25 per Blit Bused oil thio. specilic plan requirements the proposed apartment project require:. 111 parking spaces loo residents with 37 2 of thein in ka �,anige or carport and 57 guest pai king; spaces, foi a total of 465 parking spaves The proposed tal3artment projet t also satlsfie; the State ii side ntial off "Areet pal king rt'quirLments Pel t.hc. State ul C-ilifornia Government Code'Section (iiitilil, one density bonus shell he granted if t.hc housing development contains 10% feel 10%%el ineolilc households of 5% foi very iow inconae hoUseholds to s n.tor citizen housing oi. 10% fol modenitu in--ome households The proposed Apartment project contains 3I"/,. fol. lower income.:3J"/„ loi icri to%c income and 28%. fbi ►nuclei~ate income As the, proposed apartment project contains unit percentages fear -ibovL the calculation shown in Section l' St Nnton is requesting, to ww the parkin; ratio,, ,,IiokN n in Scc.txin I' {sets 1'•ihle ?) Table 2 St•rtt of [ al.ifornia Residential Off Street Parking T C,overnment Code 05910 Section 1' Housing Tye 1 0 to l Bedroom 2 to 3 Bedrooin 1 and inert: Bedi-ooi, On site. Parking 5 ieii'enit'ritti Spaces Based on the State. requirements the proposed apartniL nt, project require,..; 3-42 parking '5p.at;e5 iii4lU4i%i- Of ll IR11t el.rl)ed M -id guest Paikllig :paccIi 141:,, Rat hel Green Page 1 September 2.1 2012 Existing Parking Deniarnd When the City Code required paalcrng rate for e.ondominrum and multiple family is applicd to the proposed apartment projuct 468 parking; spaces are required However when the State's Code required parking rate is applied '372 parking sp-ices are required Uuc to the large difference In parking requirements a pat king accumulation survkv was conducted to determine the, actual parking utilization it snn1181 sites The counts were conducted at two similar affordable apartment projects to the ('rtv of Irvine the "Oodbury Walk :Apartments and the h1k):ntu4_ato Vista Apartments on �1edrresda)' September •i 2012 and on Saturday, SepteinbLi 8 2012 These two exr:strrrg; apartment locations contain 100`,'' affordable units whruh a5 consistent with the proposed apartment project The Count hours were 6.00 ANT to 9.00 111.7 and ti 00 Phi to I 1 00 PNI ori Wcadrnsdays and ,8 00 :1M to 12 00 PINJ On Saturdays all at 31) anrnute intervals I'll( locations and count hours were coordinated with .and approved by City of Tustin Staft The existing sites that were used to conduct the founts are -shown in lttac,hinent 2 and 3 I'he parking accumulation counts at both cxrsting sites arc provided in J�ppendrx -k foo reference The existing 1Voodbur� 11 alk 1partnients rs located in Planning; Area 9'1 rrr the ( rte of Ire me and has 1.) afford-ible multrfanlik clNti•ellungt units, out of a total of 150 unit; There arc. 30 one bedroom unit; (20% of total) i 1 t« o bedroom units (49% of total) anti 16 three bedroom units (3t% of total) 1 total of 366 patkrng spices art provided on site, with 267 regular splices (135 single cal garages) 25 guest Splices, and .7 handicap spaccs U the parking~ aCCU111Lila tion counts show the peak parking do nYand occurred on Wednesday at 6 00 .1.-M and 6 , ANI when 211 regular spaces (including 1 35 inside the garages and I handicap spaces) and &.I guc5t SpE1MS wurc parked on site The peak parking; domand Occurred on '-jaturdin -at 8 00 L'il when 207 regulat spaces (including 1.35 inside the. garages and 3 handrLap spaces) .and 18 guest sp'WeS were parked on site To determine the actual parking rate for tlae txisting apartments '218 vchacles observed on Wednesdm at 6 00 AM N%as divided by the total dwelling units Based on this information WoodburN Walk -Apartments during the peak period observed was parked at an average rate of 1 i9 parking spaces per dwelling units (238 spams1150 dmi-11ing units) It should be noted that the percentage of 2 bedroom units is samil,ar to the proposed apartment project (49% vs 52%) but the percentage, of 3 lwdrexJm unit-, r. higher (31' , vs 13%) flue unit m,x suggest. -3 that rnorc parking spaces would be required at I-Voodbur% Apartments The ext Crng Nlontecrto 1 r,ta :Apartments r5 lo(-ated In Planning Aired 4 in the Gity of Irvine and has 162 affordable inultrftnril-, dwelling umtS out of a total of 1132 units There are 84 two bedroom urtatL (52% of total) and 78 three bedroom units (48% of total) A total of 34; pati king; spaces are provided on site %%2th 319 regular spikes 12 guest spaces, 6 handicap spaces, 9 community spades and 1 reserved space As the parking.; accumulation counts show, the peal. parking dernand occurred on Wednesday at ii 00 1711 when 230 regular spaces and I guest spaces were parked on site The peak parking demand occurred On Saturday at S 00 AIM when 209 regular spaces and 3 guest spac:cy wcrc parked on site To determine the actual parking; nate. for the existing apRrtments 234 vehicles observed on Nl,i Rachel green Page 1 Septeinhei 24 '01? IN edicesdar at 6 00 AM w ais divided b-, the total di% elhng; units Based on this information NlonteTit.0 1 alta kpartnients during tht peek period obscrvcd Ni as parked at an average rate of 1 44 parking spaces pet dwellings units (23.1 spaces/162 dwOhn, units) it should bi, noted that the l.ierccntagc of 2 bedrouni units is sinidni (521%) ,s 5__ ,O but the percentage of 3 bedrooin unity is higher (18% vs 1.3%) i`he unit mix sug;g ",. t.s that mom parking spaces would be ri.quired at Monteexto Vista Npartinents, As can be seen there is to significant difference between the City s coat required larking rate foi condominiuin and Multiple fainil} units shown in fable 1 (2 08 parking, spaces pel dwelling; units for the proposed apartment project) -ind the observed pax -king rete of 1. 59 spaces and l I l spaces per dwelling; units Using the Institute of Transportation Englneerti Parking; Generation Manual ft.h Edition the .ivcrtage peak period parkins; mite foi low/mid rise ap.arttnent,i is 1 23 vehicles pet dwelling units Thii nate is snnilai but loxvei to the observed peak parking; irate The State code required }larking rate for the proposed apartment project is 1 65 vehicles pei dwelling unit,; Using, the average obser%ed parking rate (1 52 vehicles poi dwL_lhng units) at the existing affordable apartments and applying it to the proposed 225 dNNt.11ing units erould rccluirc .312 parking spices This is a vem close correlation to the 37, 2 pit king; spaces c.alcul,ited pci the Mate code Proposed Patking Den-iand The proposed .Anton l.eg;aci -Apartments locates] iia tht ( it% of I ustin us providing; a total of 4 15 on site parking spaces When the Citi s code required pal king lui condoininiurn ani# niultiplr faint]} units is applied to clic proiec.t 108 parlong; spaces are required which exceeds the numbet of paiking spaces pruxided b3 33 packing; ,pacts Using the overage obseiA,ed parking rate of 1 52 vehicles pt; i dwelling; units would i'laquire 3-42 parkins; sp.li:es which is a surplus of 93 parking; spaces Using the Mate pai long; code of 1 65 vehicles per dwelling units would require, 372 parking npn=c ,, whiuh is a,i surplus of 63 parking space,', A�, a coinptarvson the parking rate contained in the lnstitutL of 1 ransportation l::ngineers Parking Generation Manual nth Edition foi low/mid rise. ,apartments ti%OUld require 277 parking sptave;+ tiw hick i.: a surplus of 1;58 parking, .pains 1 comparison of the, pai kin; rates .arcshown in Table, 3 SUui'ek I Mite C,t3 2 08/d Li wirag011 i 15'_'/du State f 1 iia/du ITF("� 123/du T:ilife ; — -- - P:irking; Hatc Goinp.ari ion Dwelling Parking; larking; surplus/ t. nits Provider] Required Deticit 225 1:3;1 468 22;) 1 -335 :112 3 93 ?`Lo 135 ?2,3 1a1 (1) average of the two observed parking rales (2) institute of fransportnnon Engineers i,2 63 _277 158 Nis Ratlael6re n Paage 5 Septenibei 21 2012 Parking ratus are based on acceptable design criteria that gener-illy use dwelling units as the basis for dttLrnnnnig tlac requirLd parking fui rLsidtntlaal develupinents In the casL of Anton LegaLY 1partments the parking demand and parking Lharacteristics observed at two similar sites generate a parking rate that is similar to the parking requirements contained in the ')tit(. of California Goaerninent Codc 1)591ci Gate_Stackinr The 4ite Klan prepared by Fu!(coe Engineering dated August 27 2012 shows that Anton LegaL3 Apartments will share an access off' of Park Avenue with the future park see Attaac.hmtnt l 111i:i aacc(.sti will ha a gated acct -ss with the entry/exit gates and call box located past the future park parking drive aisles The gate stacking foi the proposed apartment project is reviewed leased on the Count-, of Orange Standard Plan 1107 which is one foot of stacking per dwelling unit Therefore, a minimum of 225 feet of stacking 19 required All rt sidi.nt and gut st parking spaces foi the proposcd apartment project erre located inside the gated area Hie re is an entry and exit gate; separated by a 5 foot raised center inedian Roth the enntry and exit gates are 2 piece swing gates Rosidents will iceess the gate with entry devices (remote) while guests will use the call box to gain enti-, The gates will tike approxiinatel) 30 Seconds foi one full open L10se cycle but sensors will i -e 0en thL gates when additional vehicles are detected it is anticipated that aaftei the mitril least- period the gates will reinain closed during all hours In the event of a powei outage the gates will nutomaatically swing open and stay open until pow(.i has becii restored The Lail box is located approxnnately halt way between thL future. park drive aisles and the gate.') In addition there is i turnaround area between the call box and the gates sere Atvichnient 1 The project dram provides full atcecs to the site and future pack and is approximately 10 feet wide at Park Avenue 11 feet wide at the call box and is feet at the gates (see Attachment 1) The 10 foot wide cross section of the drn e consists of two inbound lanes and two outbound lanes and a raised center median at the call box The inbound drive consists of two 10 foot wide lanes at the entry and at the dill box that narrows down to a single 20 toot wide lane at the gate ['he raised inediaan at the call box 11, 5 feet wide The outbound drive consists of one 13 font wide lane at the gate and one lei foot wide lane at the call box that widens to one 10 foot «ide= shared through/left turn lane and a 10 foot wide right turn lane Per Orange County Fire Authority (OCF 1) requirements the entry and exit lune at the gatcs shall lx a miniMUM of 13 feet There is a secondary gated emergency vehicle access west of the project drive along Paik Avenue but it will not be accessible b4 msidents and guests The distance of the guest lane from the prolongation of the curb to the (.rill box is 173 feet and the resident lane from the prolongation of the curb to the gate is 280 feet The total stacking distance for both lanes is 453 feet which is more than the required 225 feet As a worst dist scenario the stacking distance is taken from the prolongation of the (.xit Line curb of the future park The distance of the guest lane to the call box is 61 feet and T1s Rachol61'0411 Pato (3 Scpteanilwi 2-1 2012 the resident lane to the gate is 168 feet. 'I'll(, total stacking distance uncles the worst cast: stienario is 229 feet, t-, hick is still snore than the required 225 feet. The proposed grates are located at the casteily portion of the project site The throat distance from the proposed gates to the first on site drive aisle is 81 feet Yet OCFA requirements t.hc miininium trate setbacks are 27 feet behind the gate; and 56 feet in front of the ;;sates Therefore the operation of the gates A -ill not negatively affect the on site circulation The proposed on Site garahes, tuck under parking and surface parking arc distributed throughout. the site to serve the fifteen buildings and none are located within the throat area Therefore the operation of the gates will not negatively affect the on site parkins; and distribution As detailed above, the trate stacking distance for the proposed apartment project is snore than the required distance even under the worst case scenarto Therefore, the operation of the gates wall not negatively- affect vehicles utilizing the future pork I'he operation til the gates allo will not negfativc.ly :affect vehicles oil P -irk Avenue Conclusion St Anton is proposing to develop the Anton Legaev Ipartnicnts in the City of Tustin N%ithin the MCAS Tustin Specific flan circa The proposed 22.5 multifatnily dwelling units are 100% afford able and contain 1o1ALi MCO ltc untt.s, loN% incoinc. units, :ind moderate inc:onic units The proposed pi-oject is pro%iding a total of 1,3,3 parking spades, which is less than the -168 paiking spaces required by City of Tustin but inure than the 372 paiking spaces required by State of( ialifornia fon affordable housing developments 5t Anton is requesting the .applicAIDIi of the State packing requirements fol iaffordrablk housing developments Therefore a parking accumulation -,tudy was conducted at two existing sinulat apartments in the City of Irvine cin a wcc.kdav and one weekend day to establish the: observed parking ratio The Woodbury %Valk Apartments and hlontecit.o Vista Apartmcnt5 art 100% affordable and similar sired Based on the results of the study the average observed parking ratio tot both sites is .1 2 spaces per dwelling units whish is significantly different than the parking ratty calculated troni City requirements of 2 08 spiaccs per dx%cl.ling units However, this compares: closely with the parkins; ratio calculated from the State parking requirements of 1 6o spaces pet dwelling unit,, Applying the State pitrking requirements will result in a total of 372 parkins; sp,lces Therefarc the proposed apartment project will hw,e a surplus of 63 parking -spaces In addition tlae knit infix at the two existing apartments suggest that more packing spaces arc required compared to Anton Denary -'Apartments A gate. stacking analysis was also conducted fon the :Anton Legacy Apartments brasc.d on the County of Orange Standard Plan 1107 which is one foot of stacking per dwelling unit for a total of 225 feet of stacking The separate entry and exit gates are 2 piece stip ing tater: with sensors to rc� open the gates if additional vehicles are detected The inbound dive consists of one 10 facet guest lane and one 10 foot restde.tlt lane. which narrows down to a Vit) foot lane at the gate The distance of the guest lana Froin the: prolongation of the entrN curb is 171 fcs;t anis the resident lane to the gate i5 280 feet The total stackang distance of 45.3 feet itl, RaLhel Green P,iv( 1 5CptLnibel 24 2012 is more than the ?'.::a fiet of Stacking regmred HUL1ei-4-1 the pro)ect dritiL is is Shared drive with •i future baa] k and therefore a %VOvzt terse �;connrio tot the Stacking past the future Park ptaikink drive aisles %as conducted The_ distance of the guest lane to the call Max is 61 feet and the resident lane to the gate is 168 feet. The total stacking dist;inee uncle] the worst i.aast, 8c:c nano IS 229 Fel t, which Is Still more. I ban the required ?`yea feet The location of the entry and exit gates will not. negatively affect the on site paiking and circuliation Mince the stacking distance is mart. than the Minimum required, the gates will not mgativel" affect veliicles utilizing the suture park -klro the grate,, NN ill not negatively affect %chic,les on Park Avenue ]'lease call me it fou have any questions regarding the alcove anal}sis of if you need an,, additional information Sincerely Pc tet Hsu I' F Prolact Managct AttaLhnlLnts I 11 1 MD -1 %, Vi I 012 ar`las p L 1 r \ 7 l C,� U � x _ �1 1 } �s Attachment 1 4al Park Aveni Attachment 4 ,kppendix A � w 0 ■I �; m� em going. NUNN �000mmm 0000�m ooNm �� 18111111111111111 eoe IMMUNE 0 go 1801111111111111 811111111 mill minm�0000mom �omem��MINE WHOSE 181111111111 €ou�mn 101111111111 oil 1811111111111111 1811111010 11110011IN101u 181111111111oei 18112 1011111111111111111 gal m� Namu" eo�aeme 0�� so IIIIIIII 81111111111ON181111111111ERROR 8111111111181111811111111111110 mn 18111111111111111 � w 0 ■I m� �B 0000�m ooNm �� eoe IMMUNE 0 go NINE WHOSE 1-81-111111111 €ou�mn 101111111111 1811111010 181111111111oei gal Namu" I 0�� so IIIIIIII 81111111111ON181111111111ERROR �iNwlllYlwll NO ■iu�nua VIII Mulmm UNION n �I�INI 8111111111 MINE -IM. m9tlI�C I�f�pll mica e�ma Bill PI'l, NO ■iu�nua Mulmm UNION n �I�INI 8111111111 -IM. m9tlI�C I.S if Bloom omo�0weuu Milli mo�o0 MI 0oe�e�nn 11 111 - 18111111111 loll HIM 1111111 - MINIM 18111111111 1811111111111 1811111111 ae�omuea �BI �I v'o� 18111eaoe 11111 11111 �i IAB COMMON e� eco e�mme �o �o same �coe� 181111111111 18111111111111111 �cnomenmeo� if Milli MI 11 111 - 18111111111 HIM 1111111 - MINIM 18111111111 1811111111 ae�omuea �I �i COMMON eco e�mme �o same �coe� 181111111111