Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 SPA 2012-002 ITEM AGENDI I EPOI T MEETING DATE. JANUARY 22, 2013 T . PLANNING C MMlSSl l FROM. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 201 - 2 (ORDINANCE MCAs TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adept Resolution No. 4215, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt ordinance No. 1426, approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2012-002, implementing text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific p Plan. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council adopted -the MCAs Tustinit' � � 'fan to establish development regulations and procedures for reuse of the former Marin e Corps Air station TCAs The MCAS T Tustin. ustin Specific Plan has been form . ally amended eight times since its original adoption. The City of Tustin is proposing an additional amendment to the MCAs Tustin Specific Ilan. The proposed amends ent will not itsubstantiall alter" the current . adopted MCAS Tustin specific Plan and is intended to: 1 clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current specific Plan language, tables, and regulations; im ler the Cit } implement y Council- approved disposition strategy, andreflect recently approved entitlements; and 3 m „ � alae ether minor text or exhibit/graphic improvements to the MCAs Tustin Specific flan. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, p intensity, and/or residential capacity allowed by the MCAs Tustin Specific Plan. A discussion of the specific modifications that are proposed is provided below- Figures . 3-1 (Land Use Statistical Analysis Organized .and Use Desi gnation , and 3-2 (Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis organized by Neighborhood) are proposed to be simplified and consolidated. The structure of each table has not been significantly revised since the . original 2003 adoption of the Specific cific P la n.currently, each table Identifies "existing" Marine Corps q buildins floor area and residential units assumed in 2003 for possible reuse), aloe `Potential" neer floor area and residential units_ In the years since the specific Plan's 2003 adoption, most of the original Marine Corps structures were demolished. Regardless, the Planning Commission Report January 22, 2013 SPA 2012-002 (Ordinance No. 1426) Page 2 maximum development potential at Tustin Legacy is currently identified within the "Total" square footage and dwelling units' columns. The table's reference to "existing" square footage is confusing since nearly all of the original Marine Corpsstructures have been demolished. In addition, each table included 20 footnotes which added to the complexity of the Information intended to be summarized in each table. The footnotes are repetitious of Information that is provided elsewhere in the Specific Plan, make understanding and Interpreting the Tables complicated, and/or are no longer applicable to development at the site. Consequently, SPA 2012-002 proposes only three footnotes for each Table. • Table 3-3 (Planning Area Trip Budget) is proposed to be deleted entirely. Table 3-3 currently SLImmarizes the square footage of non-residential uses all to each neighborhood by Planning Area, and the associated Average Daily Trips (ADT) assigned to those uses. Residential uses are shown for information only, but are not part of the Trip Budget. This information Is derived from the Environmental Impact Statement Environmental ImpactReport for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, and Addendum and Supplemental El adopted for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The purpose of the tracking system is to ensure that development can be accommodated within the planned roadway capacity of the on-site and off-site roadway systems- ,,A r Y TU 6;h IAL STA10d$11( tir dv A-V JA 2 Pilo&, V 014#WIA AV; kh A 6 PA 8 ■ P A 2 'N AP)kk R AVf PA 13 CITY 4W Of I T SANTA ANA V AA-5L F_ P A P A WQ4N T Ad PA 22 EtARFIANCA CIN W V CITY OF Tustin LegacyPlanni.ng Area IRVINE Consistent with the authorized uses identified within each Neighborhood. the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan currently permits exchanges of residential unit's or commercial square footages between approved land uses in the non-residential Trip Budget subject to review and approval of the total trip generation for a Neighborhood. Also, park acreage may be transferred between Planning Areas Planning Commission report January 2 , 2013 SPA 2012-002 (Ordinance 1o. 1426) Page and/or Neighborhoods provided that such transfer does not increase the total units or square footages allowable in the overall Specific Plan,an, ecept for any density bonus granted. As a result, Table 3-3 does not accuratelyidentify the non-residential . fy res�dent�al trip budget since it reflects only planned ADTs, and does net reflecta - p st approved development or remaining development potential for the ' � site. In order to allow the City greater flexibility ilit in the planning of the Tustin � g Legacy area, Stnte Consulting was asked to simplify and consolidate the trip budget tafreresented in Table' 3-3 � of the specific Plan (see Appendixx-A of the Environmental Analysis i 'Checklist attached to Exhibit A of resolution No. 42 15) f • or use b staff in tracking AfTs at Tustin Legacy. Stantec and Public 1lorks - traf#ic engineering has determined that the proposed revisions do not translate into neer impacts. The Community Development Department and Public � Works department will maintain the revised Trip Budget Tracking form keep it up to date as development occurs at Tustin Legacy, and include an accurate . • � ! urate status each year as part of the City's Mitigation Monitoring Status Report for Tustin n Legacy. Other minor tent amendments of the MCAS Tustine ' � cific Plan are proposed for the purpose of clarification and consistency. y SPA 2012-002 (Ordinance f o. 142 i consistent • . . �#h the pity Council roved Disposition trate a � Strategy, and could not increase the overall development potential residential � � tr ! or capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustineci p fiat Pian. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS F On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the - Program Final Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Re ort' FEl • � � Elr for the reuse and disposal of PICAS Tustin. on April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS Eil . And, on December 6, 2004, the City council adopted resolution No. - 6 approving Supplement�� a P anent to the FEWEIr for the extension of Tustin ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop road. The FEIs/Ell along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIr ander,the California Environmentaluali ty Act CE A . The FEfsElr, Addendum and Supplrnent considered the potential - p environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station Tustin. An. environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval . al of the project {Attached to Resolution f o. 421 . The Environmental Analysis the . . - y Checklist concludes that �t can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity . � t y in question may have a significant effect on the environment since thero osed.refinement finement would not increase the overall development' potential or residential capacity p currently allowed by the Planning Goer-mission Report January 22, 2013 SPA 2012-002 (Ordinaince No. 1426) Page 4 adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS/EIR, AddenclUm and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act the checklist should be considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed. PUBLIC NOTICE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REVIEW A public notice was published In the Tustin News on January 10, 201'3, informing the public of proposed SPA 2012-002. A copy of the staff report and proposed SPA 2012- 002 was also forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce prior to the Planning Commission's hearing on the matter. Dana L. Ogdon, AICP Assistant Director Elizabeth A. Binsack J Director of Community Development Attachment I- Planning Commission Reso�ufion No 4215 Exhibit A, Environmenta! Analysis Checklist for SPA 2,012-002 (Ordinance No. 1426) Exhibit B. Ordinance No- 1426 'i C-dperepixts SPA 2012.002(MCAS Tustin report doc RESOLUTION NO. 4215 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1426, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2012-002, IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin is proposing an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is intended to: 1) clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations; 2) implement the City Council-approved disposition strategy, and reflect recently approved entitlements; and 3) make other minor text or exhibit/graphic improvements to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and/or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on January 22, 2013, by the Planning Commission. C. 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 April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, 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. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. D. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified Resolution No. 4215 Page 2 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. E. SPA 2012 -002 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long -term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city -wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed -use, master - planned development. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1426 approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2012 -002 attached hereto as Exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of January 22, 2013. STEVE KOZAK Chairperson ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4215 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 22nd day of January, 2013. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Exhibit A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified /Approved Environmental Documents: Final Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2012 -002, (Ordinance No. 1426 - MCAS Tustin Specific Plan) Lead Agency: City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person: Dana Ogdon Phone: (714) 573 -3109 Project Location: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Harvard Avenue to the east, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Barranca Parkway to the south. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is intended to: 1) clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations; 2) implement the City Council- approved disposition strategy, and reflect recently approved entitlements; and 3) make other minor text or exhibit /graphic improvements to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Surrounding Uses: North: Residential, Light Industrial, and Commercial East: Residential South: Light Industrial and Commercial West: Light Industrial and Commercial Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and I: disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. And, 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. The FEIS /EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation; ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials [—]Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP, Assistant Director Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached Date: Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 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 Sign f cant 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? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XILPOPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ New Significant __Impact 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? No Substantial More Change From Severe Previous Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2012-002, MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN • � k 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 April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, 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. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS/EIR analyzed a multi-year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. The City of Tustin is proposing an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is intended to: 1) clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations; 2) implement the City Council-approved disposition strategy, and reflect recently approved entitlements (St. Anton Partners and The Irvine Company projects); and 3) make other minor text or exhibit/graphic improvements to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and/or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project is a code amendment that applies to all areas within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan boundaries. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS/EIR and that Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 2 pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit the same uses as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. If adopted, the Proposed Project would support clearer interpretation and administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. These modifications would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and there would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality. The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS /EIR. There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 3 effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-5 through 3-68, 4-81 through 4-93) and Addendum (Page 5-3 through 5-8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Ill. 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 4 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? SPA 2012-002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required. In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 5 Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -83 through 3 -88, 4 -109 through 115) and Addendum (Page 5 -8 through 5 -10) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 6 The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long-term and/or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5-10 through 5-28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would th- 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? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 8 waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of IVICAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27 and Addendum pages 5-28 through 5-40) IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan 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? SPA 2012-002 would implement minor text amendments to the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the IVICAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 9 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS/EIR. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V1. 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: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 10 • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR as prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS /EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non- seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high - intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS /EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 11 established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 7-28 through 7-29 and VIII. 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 12 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? q 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? SPA 2012-002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. Portions of the Project Site are presently undergoing remediation, and therefore remain under Navy ownership. These areas may be available for limited used by future owners under a LIFOC (lease) agreement. They will not be conveyed until the Navy determines that its remediation of hazards and hazardous materials in these areas have sufficiently progressed to the point that the property can safely be developed and used. The FEIS/EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then-current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 13 foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5-55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10- 2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care-out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALI'T'Y: - 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 14 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? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor tent amendments to the WAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 15 increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to hydrology and water quality. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology /water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hydrology /water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology /water quality. As concluded in the FEIS /EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS /EIR. No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan. The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The drainage pattern and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS /EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 16 alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -98 through 3 -105, 4 -124 through 4 -129, 7 -29 through 7 -30 and Addendum Pages 5 -56 through 5 -92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to land use and planning. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. The SPA does not substantively change the Specific Plan and does not increase development intensities or introduce incompatible uses. Implementation of the Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 17 Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -3 to 3- 17, 4 -3 to 4 -13, 7 -16 to 7 -18 and Addendum Pages 5 -92 to 5 -95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan 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? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no known mineral resources located at the site. The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to mineral resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to mineral resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 18 implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to mineral resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. MitigationlMonitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -91) and Addendum (Page 5 -95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 19 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SPA 2012-002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, a rail line located north of Edinger Avenue, and construction and remediation activities on surrounding parcels. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise-related land use distribution within the Tustin Legacy site. All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan. Consequently, long-term traffic-related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS/EIR; implementation of any future project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction-related noise impacts. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 20 revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 through 3-162 and 4-231 through 4-243) and Addendum (Page 5-96 through 5-101) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan 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? SPA 2012-002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 21 previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -18 to 3- 34, 4 -14 to 4 -29, and 7 -18 to 7 -19) and Addendum Pages (5- 101through 5 -112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI11. 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: SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to public services. There would be no change to development intensity, which would lead to an increased demand for public services. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and facilities that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 22 Fire Protection Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of any future project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS/EIR. Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K-12 students and there is no impact to K-12 schools. Future developers would be required to pay school fees for public uses on the Tustin Legacy site consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998. Parks There is no change to the proposed park locations or uses as a result of the Project. Other Public Facilities The FEIS/EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The Project is administrative only and would not modify conditions or proposed development which was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS/EIR; therefore, no substantial change is expected. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 23 The FEIS/EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4- 67 through 4-70) to be complied with as appropriate. Proposed SPA 2012-002 will result in no changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3- 57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) and Addendum (Pages 5-112 through 5-122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan 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? SPA 2012-002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 24 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3- 57, 4-56 to 4-80, 7-21 to 7-22 and Addendum Pages 5-122 through 5-127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 25 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? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SPA 2012-002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. Stantec Consulting prepared a traffic evaluation technical memorandum in December 2012 that evaluated the potential impacts of the Proposed Project. The memorandum is attached as Appendix 1. Stantec has simplified the approved land use and trip generation data for the Project Site in support of the proposed administrative revisions to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no net changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip generation. There are no new or increased significant adverse project-specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that was not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 26 Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required. Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Future projects will be evaluated to ensure consistency with this EIS/EIR and subsequent studies to ensure there are no new impacts. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-118 through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42) and Addendum (pages 5-127 through 5-147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Pages 3-35 through 3-62, pages 3-70 through 3-81, pages 3-82 through 3-88, and pages 3-104 through 3-137) Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 27 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities /services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. The FEIS /EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future individual development projects identified as "Mitigation" or "Implementation Measures" (pages 4 -43 through 4 -46) to be complied with as appropriate. Proposed SPA 2012 -002 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. 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, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 28 there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. MitigationlMonitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3 -35 through 3-46, 4 -32 through 4 -55 and 7 -20 through 7 -21) and Addendum (pages 5 -147 through 5 -165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3 -62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81, pages 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 29 Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR; there are no new mitigation measures required; and there are no new significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project - specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR will be incorporated into subsequent development project approvals. Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and would be included in future development projects as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5 -11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3 -62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81, pages 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) and Addendum Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, that no new effects would occur, that no Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 30 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to future development projects, as applicable. � • •' i To: KmnNkahikawe From: KrysSa|divar City ofTustin 8tantec. Irvine File: 2073007400 Date: December 20.2O12 Reference: Tustin Legacy Trip Budget Table In order to allow the City greater flexibility in the planning of the Tustin Legacy area, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. has taken the contents of the trip budget table for the Tustin Legacy presented in Table 3-3 from the Specific Plan, and consolidated the detailed uses into general categories. The resulting table for buildout of Tustin Legacy is summarized in the attachment. Revisions in the table itself do not translate into new impacts. Rather the table is used as reference to ensure that the trip generation for future and existing uses will not exceed the trip limits shown here for residential or non-residential categories in each neighborhood. By staying within the limits, the findings and conclusions from previously carried out traffic studies (i.e., 2006 Traffic Study for the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Amendment) would apply. However it does not preclude further analysis should the developer propose a significant shift in land use intensity within a neighborhood which was not previously assumed. Thank you for the opportunity to assist the City of Tustin in this important planning effort. Please contact me with any questions regarding the contents of this STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. , � � KrysSaldivar Principal, Transportation Planning Tel: (049) 923-0002 c. Attachment [)ne Teonn-infinite Soluhons. ks TUSTN LEGACY DAILY TRIP GENERATION BYNEIGHBORHOOD l2deg-adt.msx 1znyoo1z Buildout Res/Park Trip Budget Non-Res Total Per Neighborhood Neighborhood A School 561 Learning Center 8,169 Commercial 2,784 Tustin Facility 6,220 Sports Park 1,297 Transitional Housing 941 Neighborhood A Total ADT 2,238 17,734 19,972 Neighborhood B Residential 7,147 Commercial 7,052 Office 1,922 Neighborhood B Total ADT 7,147 8,974 16,1211 Neighborhood C Commercial 3,920 Regional Park 423 Neighborhood C Total ADT 423 3,920 4,343 Neighborhood D Residential 5,907 High School 3,312 Commercial 25,819 Office 41,555 Industrial 3,803 Other (Park & Sports Park) 2,592 Neighborhood D Total ADT 8,499 74,489 82,988 Neighborhood E Commercial 2,028 Office 10,960 Industrial 4,844 Other (Park) 143 Neighborhood E Total ADT 143 17,832 17,975 Neighborhood IF Commercial 34,908 Office 542 Neighborhood F Total ADT 35,450 35,450 Neighborhood G Residential 18,309 Commercial 12,861 Office 1,994 Other (School,Parks) 2,231 Neighborhood G Total ADT 20,540 14,855 35,395 Neighborhood H Residential 3,533 Other (School) 663 Neighborhood H Total ADT 4,196 4,196 Total Tustin Legacy ADT 43,186 173,254 216,440 l2deg-adt.msx 1znyoo1z s 1 i ORDINANCE NO. 1426 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2012 -002, IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin is proposing an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not "substantially alter" the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and is intended to: 1) clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations; 2) implement the City Council- approved disposition strategy, and reflect recently approved entitlements; and 3) make other minor text or exhibit/graphic improvements to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on January 22, 2013, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 4215 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 2012 -002 by adopting Ordinance No. 1426. C. That on February 19, 2013, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held before the City Council concerning SPA 2012 -002 (Ordinance No. 1426). D. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. And, 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. The FEIS /EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. E. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project. The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives Ordinance No. 1426 SPA 2012 -002 (MCAS Tustin) Page 2 applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. F. SPA 2012 -002 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long -term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city -wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed -use, master - planned development. SECTION 2. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as provided in Attachment 1 (with strike -out indicating text to be deleted and underlined text indicating text to be added. All page numbering to be corrected at publishing). SECTION 3. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this 19th day of February, 2013. ELWYN A. MURRAY, Mayor JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1426 JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1426 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 19th day Ordinance No. 1426 SPA 2012-002 (MCAS Tustin) Page 3 of February, 2013 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of _, 2013 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: JEFFREY C. PARKER City Clerk Published: Exhibit 1 IC) ,�7-3 10) L D ND COD R� �Ct) 7C (CT r Ali L� fJ C-7) C _KZ Q, ro IS I(D 3D tul ks J 7 j n 5',' �, 2il) 7) 5� u Q LIN co x� co icn a rl Cool ot ju ILL L LIN J 5 75 Mq) M 0 �c D L�' U `l rc O LC) S 9 r 2 U O C r S0 JQZ 0� i_ i t e IV, C 00 a, M O O U �. 9 as o, o � U y 1 oc O 4) O I- s-9 4) N �J SJ Planning Area 9 -12 See Allowed Uses Parks and Open S,pace3 Subtotal Plannin Area 9 -12 _ 88.3 29 117.3 73.4 29 102.4 See Standards 1,267,324 Planning Area 16 31.0 279 0.4 486,130 Q Planning Area 17 16,31 L6.31 2840111 1 0 Commercial Planning Area 18 L6.71 _ Q.351 40.846 1 1 0 Planning Area 19 L8.61 38.61 Q.41 6725661 1 0 Residential Core 29 Planning Area 15 .3 26.81 See Standards 466.637 N!A Q Villa a Services Plannin Area 7 ZO.71 19.0 I See Standards 248,292 N/A 1 0 Community Core Planning Area 8, 13, 14 See Allowed Uses Park and Open Space Hi h School 202.8 72.0 40.0 154.0 72.0 40.0 See Standards 4.757,279 25 N/A 891 Subtotal CoqjqjqnjbLCoLe 314.8 266 4,757.279 891 SUBTOTALI 584.71 511.5 PL/Aj 8,223,0851 N/A 1 891 INSTITUTIONALIRECREATIONAL Education Village Planning Area 1 Planning Area 1 -A Elementary School Planning Area I -B Educational Law Enforcement Trainin 128.3 124.7_ 0.3 1,412,651 0 0 City of "Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific PianlRouse Pian Page 3 -10 C1- a ip) teT 3 o L a,:if 4] ) &-�n d n�ouQIr�o [D m a)nt/iRRauiz � wzLiLi Iatic TABLE 3 -1 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY LAND USE DESIGNATION ACREAGE NON - RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Total Floor DU's Total Rgli:gnationlPlanning Area Gross Net F.A.R. Area S . Ft. 1,2 Per Acre DUY" Planning Area I -C Children's Care Shelter Planning Area i -D Child Care Center Planning Area 1 -E Educational Planning Area 1 -F Educational Planning Area I -G Other Planning Area 1 -H Educational Planning Area 1 -I Educational Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center Commun& Park Planning Area 2 (Community ParkZ I Z4.11 24.11 Q. l 1 405311 Q Urban Regional Park Planning Area 6 (Urban Regional Park] 84.51 84.5 1 .161 574-9921 0 0 Ri ht -of -Wa Arterial RoAdways 173.4 173.4 0 0 0 Drainage (Flood Control, Storm 28.5 28.5 0 0 0 Drains SUBTOTAL 438.8 435.2 N/A 2,028,174 0 0 TOTALS: 16Q6.1 1464.9 N/A 10,384,553 0 4.601 I. Residential dwelling units and non - residential ADTs may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus g anted. 2. Consistent with authorized uses within each neighborhood, exchanges of square footages between approved land uses in the Non- Residential Land Use/Trip Budget may be approved subject to review and approval of the total trip generation for aneighborhood 3. Park acreage may be transferred between Planning Areas and/or Neighborhoods provided that such transfer does not increase the total units or square footages allowable in the overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus rg anted. MCAS Tustin Specific, PlanlHause Plan -- — City of Tustin Page 3 -11 Iqc J� 0 a ME 0 U) D V m —� O ( 0. m c � M m 0 C C eD C4 M MA i a c � M m 0 C C eD C4 M MA i J7 I s,c �0 �T E CL O C U w c� �a t I o cfl 3 v— MB J � Jill I i w c� �a t I o cfl 3 v— MB J � oc F,,3 r(T) s Q c V (0) 22 -W J� U �i 73 :3 Mo �i a L O °� s i lg �qc) l� IMO o 7c 6 M C c� d9 M V C J a. �9 c� M v c� C:. V 30c) 5 � ;a Chapter 3 o La, 7r, d Uz 5 �,q-rd Dz-)- vzDc)p:n witJReLiz Regula °lion o TABLE 3 -2 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD ACREAGE NON RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Gross Net EA:R. Total Floor DU's Total Desi nati'oitIPlanniM Area Area S , Ft. z Per Acre DU s NEIGHBORHOOD A Planning Area _1 0.3 1,412,651 Planning Area 1 -A 10.0 10.0 Elementary School Planning Area 1 -B 10.0 10.0 Law Enforcement Training Educational Animal Care Center Plannina Area I -C 4.0 4.0 Children's Care 'Shelter Planning Area 1 -D 2_4 2.4 Child Care Center Planning Area I -E 1.9 1.9 Educational Planning Area 1 -F 15.0 15.0 Educational Planning Area I -G 18.5 14.9 Other Plannini Area 1 -H 56.5 56.5 Educational Planning Area 1 -I 10.0 10.0 Educational Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center SUBTOTAL FOR PLANNING AREA 1 128.3 124.7 N /:':, 1,412,651 0 Planning Area 2 (Community Parkl 24,1 5_1 24.1 5.1 01 0.6 40,531 133,294 _ Planning Area 3 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD A 157.5 153.9 N/A 1 586 476 01 0 NEIGHBORHOOD B Planning Area 4 Low Density (1-7 du /ac) 54.2 43.4 N/A 7 304 Planning Area 5 Medium Density* (8 -15 du /ac) 51,7 - 41.4 N/A - 15 -- 621 Planning Area 7 See Allowed Uses 203 19.01 See Standard's 248,292 N/A SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD B 126.61 1018 N/A 1 2482921 925 NEIGHBORHOOD C Planning Area 6 M.51 a4.51 0. 161 574,993 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD C 84.E 84.5 N/A 574,992 N/A NEIGHBORHOOD D Planning Area 8, 13, 14 See Allowed Uses 202.8 154.0 See Standards 4,757,279 1 -25 Park' 72.0 72.0 High School 40.0 40.0 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD D 314.8 266.0 N/A 4,757,279 1 -25 _ NEIGHBORHOOD E Planning Areas 9 -12 See Allowed Uses 88.3 73.429 See Standards 1,267.324 Park' 29.0 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD E 117.3 102.4 See Standards 1,267,324 0 0 MCAS Tustin Specific PianhRouase Pura City of Tustin Page 3 -19 Chapter 3 • Lzn-,Q] land Fl\o- juh dons TABLE 3 -2 LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY NEIGHBORHOOD Des[ natlonlPlannin Area ACREAGE NON - RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Gross Net F.A.R. Total Floor Area (Srt. Ft.) t'' DU's Per Aere Total DU's1'2 NEIGHBORHOOD F Planning Area 16, 17, 19 Planning Area 18 85.9 16.7 82.8 14.5 0_4 0.35 1,442,707 40,846 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD F 102.6 7.3 27.3[- N/A - 1,483,553 N /,, - 0 - NEIGHBORHOOD G Planning Area 15 Residential - See Allowed Uses 172.7 10.0 29.3 59.0 - 29.4 127.1 159.8 10.0 26.8 59.0 23.5 115.0 See Standart' 466,637 - 1,214 376 793 Low Density (1 -7 du /ae) Medium Density (8 -15 du /ac) Medium High Density (16 -25 du /ac) Planning Area 15 School Planning Area 15 See Allowed Uses Planning Area 15 Park' Planning Area 20 Residential - See Allowed Uses Low Density ,(1 -7 du /ac) Planning- Area 21 - Tustin Residential - See Allowed Uses Low Density (1 -7 du /ac) SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD G 427,5 394,1 N/A 466,637 N/A 2,383 NEIGrHBORHOOD H Planning Area 22 Medium Density (8-15 du/ac) 73.4 61.(' - 15 402 Elementary School K -8 Neighborhood Park SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD H 73.4 61.0 N /,', N/A N/A 402 RIGHT -OF -WAY Roadways Drainage Flood Control Storm Qrainsl 173.4 28.5 173.4 28.5 SUBTOTAL FOR RIGHT -OF -WAY 201.9 201.9 N/A N/A 0 0 TOTALS: 1606.1 1464,9 N/A 10,384,553 N/A 4,601 t. Kesidentiat dwelling units and non - residential AD'Ps may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan, except for an density bonus granted. 2. Consistent with authorized uses within each neighborhood, exchanges of square footages between approved land uses in the Non - Residential Land Use/Trip Budget maybe approved subiect to review and approval of the total trip generation for a neighborhood. 3. Park acreage may be transferred between Planning Areas and/or Neighborhoods provided that such transfer does not increase the total units or square footages allowable in the overall Specific Plan except for any density bonus prmted. City of Tsastin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/ReusL � Page 3 -20 average daily gips (ADT) for each neighborhoods Using assumed traffic generation rates, the number of trips that would be generated at buildout of the Plan was estimated. This -nix has been further allocated to Planning Areas only for ease of administration. However, the trip budget by neighborhood shall control the amount and intensity of non - residential uses by neighborhood. In order to manage the availability of roadway capacity, a Trip Budget Tracking System is established as part of this Specific flan to monitor and report on the traffic implications of each development project which involves non - residential uses. The system entails establishment of a maximum limit on the number of ADT9s generated from non - residential uses within the Specific ]Plan and for each neighborhood. That limit is ified in Tabl°,thc ,Trip Budget, which summarizes the square footage of non - residential uses allocated to each neighborhood by Planning Area and the associated ADT. residential uses are shown for information only, but are not part of the Trip Budget. This information is derived from the Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. City of Tustin — -- Page 3.22 MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Rouse Playa New ki jam ' City of Tustin — -- Page 3.22 MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Rouse Playa Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations WAS Tustin Speck Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -23 - RIM M _e•r i LATAM sym �� - -_ 0� ®�� U I Nbl r • ± -- — - -� - -® - • 0 - -® ' 0 - - ®® fm MR In m r . _ sa!st Mt: % M. 0 -- 0 - -_ -� WAS Tustin Speck Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -23 Chi "'oaT 3 o L9� 4I LU aQ E. I r� c � F2 - - � �,c)p r n °I /G1\ �� � - u] Fn Cott' of Tustin WAS Tusk' SIO -cofic Pl ll,louse Ple Page 3 -24 ZMA EMMUR MORE. _ • Mallual al NOR • _ - M= . • _■ • . ■ . Cott' of Tustin WAS Tusk' SIO -cofic Pl ll,louse Ple Page 3 -24 .. All Planning Areas are shown to account for the total ADT associated with developing the Specific Plan, but the trip budget applies only to nonresidential uses. The), e highlighted -in Table 3 3: The Community Development Department and Public Works Department shall maintain a current Trip Budget Tracking form depicting the maximum square footage of nonresidentiai development in each neighborhood. The form shall specify the assumed square footage of commercial, office, institutional and other nonresidential uses which have been assigned to each neighborhood. In addition, the form shall specify the amount of square footage approved for development with the equivalent ADTs assigned to a development, and amount of ADT`s available for remaining development or available for transfer to another neighborhood. The information shall be further allocated to each Planning Area based on Teble-3--3the Trip Budget maintained by the City for administration purposes only. The essential requirement is to document ADT status as it is impacted by each development project so that sufficient roadway capacity remains to accommodate later projects. The e following information will provide additional clarification for purposes of implementing the Trip Budget Tracking System. ❑ Cnk�ulzVo n of AmJ s on Pnin��ls. The calculation of ADTs assigned to a parcel will occur upon approval of a site plan, or design approval for new development, or submittal of an application for building permits, whichever occurs first. Refinements to calculations can be made at the building permit stage where square footage changes are proposed to a development. ❑ CCnleulntlDn of AMo i7b.r Muitnpluv Us(2 IDavzlopm(mnb. In a development containing more than one use, ADTs shall be calculated by multiplying the total square footage for each use by the respective trip generation rates and adding the ADTs for each land use on a parcel to derive the total ADTs for a project. ® IDvAntiuns .l'rum uhM 7_-cnp Budget Land U3� ML7— A proposed development may deviate from the land use mix shown in the trip budget as long as it can be demonstrated that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the project and? the remainder of the neighborhood. Consistent with authorized uses vvithin each neighborhood, exchanges of square footages between approved land uses in the Non-Residential ]Land Ilse /Trip Budget may be approved subject to review and approval of the total trip MCAS 7riston, Specific Plan/GRouso Plan, -- -- — - - - - -� -- City of Tustin Page 3-25 generation for a neighborhood by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. Proposed projects will be analyzed in terms of: 1) consistency with the base case mix of uses Jable -3) specified for the Planning Area(s)9 2) the proportion of the neighborhood trip budget projected to be consumed by the project; and 3) the ability to ensure availability of ADT capacity for subsequent projects ,within a neighborhood. Adjustments to the amount, intensity, or mix of uses may occur if consistent ,with the Specific Plan and if desired by the City, as long as sufficient trips remain to accommodate remaining development potential in a neighborhood on parcels where development proposals have not been submitted. 71 'Trlp Builgzl 3-nns prs bets -iBBn iPJBsgh[barihoo�1so Where available ADT's from the trip budget remain for an undeveloped parcel(s) within a neighborhood, the transfer of the ADTs to another neighborhood shall not occur without the authorization of the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels within the contributing neighborhood agreeing to the transfer. This approval shall be in the 'form of an agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney prior to approval of the transfer. All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Trip Budget Tracking System. ❑ IEstnlblish,mmmt ©f''Trip CGanzrn�bn :Rnt(�so Trip generation rates for estimating the number of vehicle trips that will be generated for land wises in the Specific Plan are included in the MCAS EIS /EIR Traffic Study. Since traffic generation rates may vary over tune, those used in the Traffic ][deport may be updated periodically subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The methodology -for calculating site trips in the MCAS EIS /EIR Traffic Study shall be used for update purposes. _UZO Transfer between Residential and Non- Residential ][residential dwelling units and Non- residential VDTs may be transfcrred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus granted pursuant to the City Tr incentives for the De veiop ent of lkffordable Housing (Density Bonus) Ordinance, and that the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels ,within the contributing neighborhood consent in writing to the transfer. This approval shall be in the form of an agreement to runwith the land and subject to review and approval of the City attorney prior to approval of the transfer. All transfers of available AD 1's shall be documented in the Trip Budget Trading System. City of Tustin JMCAS Tustin, Spedfic Plan / cruse Plan Flage 3-26 En_� 7,Qm zl mpm ant/Reus r1r`rtiurtic o2 9�nrn R2 ;�T(E) c-I5 I B-, `1 -C, `-ED, I -IE, 1-F, 1- Q, I r � The purpose and intent of the Education Village designation is as described in Section 2.2.1, Land Use Designations. A� Ti irmlllze nnrl CBndltl (Dnnllay Bs�s The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol 'IP"" occurs, or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C " occurs. a Animal care center (in PA 1-,B or in PA 1 -1 as shown in F Figure 3-1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1) Children's intermediate care shelter (only in Pfd 1 -C as P shown in Figure 3-1) • Churches or other religious institutions C • Government Facilities P • Law enforcement training facility (inn ]PA 1 -B or in PA 1-1 P as shown in Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD For County's future ownership of PA 1 -l) • Nursery school or child care center P • Public school, community college, educational campus or P other educationally oriented uses • Private school C Bo 1Pirohlbi�v� Uses Jail ]Facilities Sexually - oriented businesses Z A� sson ay Bs ?S 2,—Dj nit pis Accessory uses and structures are neTmitte d when cuustou "arhy associated with and subordinate to a permitted use on the same site and would include: • Guard houses, gates and other security facility structures • Industrial/commercial business incubators (start-ups) • Laboratories and oiffice facilities 71sed ;for basic and applied research, testing and consulting • Maintenance jFacilities, structures, outdoor storage City of Tustin _- -- – - - - - - -- Y - - -- Page 3 -2 iVICAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan chapl ,r 3 o f BB BFd D(E yBbC)PIn B.r�r�7 5 1 B S L�iIB o in 2 Simulation development uses >P i � rti�o�tic o Software design uses p y -L O Technology exchange /transfer service P Utility r2 O buildings and Facilities C — o Warehouse and sales outlet P 2. Offices: 0 General Offices for: advertising agency, economic ]P consultant, insurance companies, escrovv companies, interior decorator, real estate, piublic Uthitnes, personnel agency, management consultant, collection agency O Medical clinics p Medical offices /healthcare centers P Professional offices for: architect, accountant, attorney, p chiropractor, contractor, dentist, doctor, engineer, optometrist, land planner, and other similar professions 3. Public /Institutional uses: • Government facilities 3:4. - Retail commercial uses: • Building material yards, secured C • Building supply P Delicatessen/cafeteria p • Department store p • Home improvement store p • Nursery p • Office supplies and equipment p • W oiesale stores and storage within a building P • Other retail commercial uses identified as permitted in p Section 3.8.3 Service commercial uses, including incidental retail sales: • Banks and financial institutions P • Emergency care facility P • Outdoor storage, secured C • ]Photography studio, laboratory p Print /reprographics shop P • Recreational vehicle and boat storage C • Restaurant, family, specialty, and fast food without drive P thru • Telephone ans-wering services p • Other service commercial uses either conditionally C/p City of hist6� — - - - -- -- MCA Tustin Specific Pl�i�a /d euso �°9ar� Page 3 -96