Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 4215RESOLUTION NO. 4215 I Is om 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: 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 MEMO. required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation a.1-im 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. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN 1, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 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 i j �� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN-M A 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 9278t (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 921 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. B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑13iological 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. F-1 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. Z 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 W-M 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 o ,27 mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: Date: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP, Assistant Director Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Offiffin MR, ❑ ❑ ri". NO ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial ❑ New More Change From ❑ Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Offiffin MR, ❑ ❑ ri". NO ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p 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, eta) 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 c� 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? awl yVI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: M OS, Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis D ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ D ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ D ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ No Substantial ❑ New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial � erosion or siltation on- or off site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 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? INS j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? °SIX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Inipacts 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 groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? 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 ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ Z F1 ❑ r-1 ❑ r-1 r-1 Z r-1 r-1 Z r-1 F-1 ❑ ❑ I'M 11 11M 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 - FIN a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results substantial safety risks? 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? ❑ ❑ Z No Substantial r-1 New More Change From Z Significant Severe Previous M, c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the Impact Impacts Analysis construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ F-1 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 - FIN a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results substantial safety risks? 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? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ r-1 Z r-] ❑ Z ❑ F-1 Z 1:1 F-1 Z ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ Z r-1 1:1 Z ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Z 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 Sign cant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2012-002, MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On 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. i 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 I MEMO Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not BROWN I 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. MitigationlMonitoring Required- No new impacts or substantially more severe MN 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 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 01 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 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 OREM 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 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? 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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 §16064.5? 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 MCAS 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 tc 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. 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: 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. MifigationlMonitofing 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? 9 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 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 WAS 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. 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 3-88 through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29 and Addendum Pages 5-46 through 5-49) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 66962.5 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? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 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 RONNIE, increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific INS 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. MifigationlMonitoting 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 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, IVICAS 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? 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? NINE@ 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 text 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. 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 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. MitigationlMonitoring 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. NO, 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 y. Tustin General Plan 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. MitigationlMonitoting Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) and ME 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? ME Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012-002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 19 MOM 11, 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]I 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 MEMO 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. MitigationlMonitoting 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 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES R NO 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 11 11 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 MEN increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those 111--lon 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 RISC proceeded. The Project is administrative only and would not modify conditions or Kill ME 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 ri 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. MifigationlMonitoring 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? P P O y 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 W 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. 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)? NIZZ SIR R 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]l Result in inadequate parking capacity? 9) 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? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? 9) 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 UP- III 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. MitigationlMonitoting 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 E through 3-137) IN I 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? r R 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 MINIM 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, WAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 30 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, s that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation y- 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. h e 0 0M,11's Memo Memo To: Ken Nishikawa From: Krys Saldivar City of Tustin Stantec, Irvine File: 2073007400 Date: January 17, 2013 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 for 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. 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, the city could deem that further analysis is necessary if the developer proposes a significant shift in land use intensity within a neighborhood or to another neighborhood. 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 memorandum. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. JV Krys Saldivar Principal, Transportation Planning Tel: (949) 923-6062 krys.saldivar@stantee.com c. Attachment One Team, Infinite Solutions, ks v:\2073\active\2073007400Xreport\mem.doex r��" IME TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP BUDGET BY NEIGHBORHOOD 2073007400 \analysisktrip_genitaskI \adt xlsx 1/17/2013 Residential /Park Unit Planned Table 3.3) Residential /Park Amount Avera a Dail Trips Residential /Park Trip Budget Non - Residential Nei hborhood A School 561 Learning Center 8,169 Commercial 2,784 Tustin Facility 6,220 Other (Sports Park Acre 24.1 1,297 Other Transitional Housing) Room 192 941 Neighborhood A Total ADT 17,734 Neighborhood B Residential DU 1,077 7,147 LDR 1 -7 DU /Acre) MDR 8 -15 DU /Acre) MHDR 16 -25 DU /Acre) Senior Housing Attached Commercial 7,052 Office 1,922 Neighborhood B Total ADT 8,974 Neighborhood C Commercial 3,920 Other (Regional Park Acre 84.5 423 -Neighborhood C Total ADT 3,920 Neighborhood D Residential DU 891 5,907 MHDR (16 -25 DUfAcre) Commercial 25,819 Office 41,555 Industrial 3,803 Other (High School 3,312 Other Park & Sports Park Acre 69.2 2,592 -Neighborhood D Total ADT 74,489 Neighborhood E Commercial 2,028 Office 10,960 Industrial 4,844 Other (Park) Acre 28.2 143 Neighborhood E Total ADT 17,832 Neighborhood F Commercial (District) 34,908 Office (Military) 542 Neighborhood F Total ADT 35,450 Neighborhood G Residential DU 2,244 18,309 LDR 1 -7 DU /Acre MDR (8 -15 DU /Acre MHDR (16-25 DU /Acre) Commercial 12,861 Office I 1 1 1,994 Other (School) Student 1,200 1,224 Other Parks Acre 63.1 1,007 Neighborhood G Total ADT 14,855 Neighborhood H Residential DU 409 3,533 LDR 1 -7 DU /Acre MDR 8.15 DU /Acre) Other (School) Student 650 663 Neighborhood H Total ADT 0 Total Tustin Legacy ADT 7777777T 173,254 2073007400 \analysisktrip_genitaskI \adt xlsx 1/17/2013 • i INS 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 I JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of I Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City NOR 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 ri meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of _, 2013 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: City Clerk Published: Exhibit 1 ��M � + = � » � £ � � / � + � � � � J t � � } � Co I 3 � I » / � � I Al CO 3 |� ¥ �) � � � � 0 � � NOR 0 CV) cu- 6 I I I a] CD 2 % C/)- m EM Em I Chapter 3 a Land Use and Development/Reuse RegulationI I "k — ann4w, Area 5 i 131 ---- 4 —1711— U 1 F5 --4 1' ipnjnLg re 22 73.4 61,0 88.3 15 02 F.Jernewary School K-8 1,267,324 0 jIg ksand C l L 29 29 . ........ Subtotal, 1'Iannip , Are.L{ -j I'lannin Area'-12 128,3 12,1.7 U 0) 0 L'j,,qEaLn,g_Area ]-A See Allowed Uses 88.3 C11001 714 See Standards 1,267,324 0 jIg ksand C l L 29 29 . ........ Subtotal, 1'Iannip , Are.L{ -j 117.3 102A �Iannin� �Argg 1(�) 31,0 279 OA 486 130 0 --Llannim! �Lea t7 16,31 16j� • L8_40 LI, 0 City of Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan Page 3-10 128,3 12,1.7 U 0) 0 L'j,,qEaLn,g_Area ]-A C11001 j't,pqin& z)Lrqq I-B Educational City of Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan Page 3-10 Chapter 3 @ Land Use and DevelopmenVReuse Regulations Arterial jLqjLNyaNs 173A 173A 0 0 ("'Ontrol. Storm 2&5 28,5 0, 0 0 P—rams) SUBTOTAL 438.8 435.2 N/A 2,023,174 0 0 TOTALS: 1606.1 1404.9 MIX 10�38�4.553 0 4MI sidenfial (IN)e lingt lrd'v and non -resin enlial A )'Fs may be transrcmed betweenjIlamin Are, is p r LwI'mat al 1%�Lqh 8 h irm de sit b_cqiQ5I,_gfgL!tgd� ,g fl� J)i� ptj�' I _4 c>trsi _'s jI y )tang a A� aipses in the Non ales; Land Use 'ri BuOpizt v_ k, - - ­_ - tfl P - rn-4, -11) P_ 3 I'm t_) cre i i be transferred jjqV\yegjjIj rd/o _411fli gA as ill r� jXicjyi led that such transfer does not increase 011 tond units or %'Iare f $qta! allow"Ible ill Ihe overall WAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3-11 1- lmmff��l limf ti it lmmff��l limf ti I Jr X m d.- I 41 Fl,,� 3 7- I I Aim lam E-M � .y � / v � � + / / � \ w � � a�a e� 7� §� � I S � ) % \ 2�\ b� »A 3/ E Chapter 3 a Land Use and Development/Reuse,.Regulations WAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan � City of Tustin Page 3 -99 Use E f.p,:. . 4 p' :ter e e �iia g .. Residential ... -- See Allowed Uses s tty { I ,7,dulai� j - 2 ^citca� 4I_l aJSit_,t t t ?_3tttst Pl annWi =area 15 School j,"hanning Area 15 I' qr14 3 „ L 21 I'i a,h;ainr�rua Wit} Ressidential `gee {�Iox e d Uses 1tC(HU M De;)Sitv._(l3__ -5 du �Ic lgnentar ; chof31K-. i3A 11.4 €. - 71.E {} f )j See Standards City of Tustin WAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan Page 3 -20 Chapter Land and d e " a^.3 l . R. i e Regulations ONE- City 3 -22 of Tustin P MCAS Tustin Specit% PlanlReuse Plan Page WAS Tustin speck PlanlReuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -23 U ti Chapter 3 9 Land Use and DevelopmenVReuse Regulations Mk 4-6 44, -13M1 �6-91-2 4 448 -1,274 P114- 47 104i PA4841rit-Budget-T-otol 542 V, QP A 'V I q, . /, I I 4.A6 , - 1 -- . 1 m -U04A.3 974) RE 65,10 m m City of Tustin —Spec–fflc —PlanlReuse 151—an Page 3-24 489 �6-91-2 4 9 2- -1,274 4 k 14 H e f + t L/Ll i d 4 1 +--,S 0 1 o o V, 249 1 m -U04A.3 974) RE 65,10 m m City of Tustin —Spec–fflc —PlanlReuse 151—an Page 3-24 I I IT: Ii 11, 17 17"Im 4-RE-4-T-PH2 11JUDGIF-T Amd-&We - Golegfny 'AaWe-3 Pla Squafe4a-_': All Planning Areas are shown to account for the total ADT associated with developing the Specific Plan, but the trip budget applies only to non-residential uses. N Calculation of ADTs on Parcels: The calculation of ADTs assigned to a parc will occur upon approval of a site plan, or design approval for nel, development, or submittal of an application for building permits, whiche occurs first. Refinements to calculations can be made at the building pe stage where square footage changes are proposed to a development. I Calculation of ADTs for Multiple Use Developments: In a developme containing more than one use, ADTs shall be calculated by multiplying the to square footage for each use by the respective trip generation rates and addi the ADTs for each land use • a parcel to derive the total ADTs for a project. I Deviations from the Trip Budget Land Use Mix: 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 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 MCAS Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3-25 Chapter 3 e Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations generation for a neighborhood by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. Proposed projects will be analyzed in terms is 1) consistency with the basT- case mix of uses q-e�lw specified for the Planning Area(s); 2) thi proportion of the neighborhood trip budget projected to be consumed by the M , lect; and 3�, the abilit-, to ensure availabiliLp • AV-,j—wwV* m: jgi-ftr mlwiqunap. projects within a neighborhood. Adjustments to the amount, intensity, or mix of uses may occur if consistel with the Specific Plan and if desired by the City, as long as sufficient tri remain to accommodate remaining development potential in a neighborhood parcels where development proposals have not been submitted. 71 All transfers of available A Ts shall be documented in the Trip Budget Tracking System. All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Trip Budget Tracking System. City of Tustin MCA S Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan Page 3-26 LlIT U-177TT114111 711 Part- P III � 1111111111 1111111111111111111 1111111111111111 Ilk 11, pl�l 11111111 11 -�11 k �IWZ • Animal care center (in PA 1 -B or in PA 1 -1 as shown in • 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 Riture ownership of PA * Children's intermediate care shelter (only in PA I -C as P shown in Figure 3 - 1) * Churches or other religious institutions C * Government Facilities P Law enforcement training facility (in PA I -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 Nursery school • child care center P Public school, community college, educational campus or P other educationally oriented uses Private school C ® Jail Facilities Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a r use on the same site and would include- • Guard houses, gates and other security facility struct • Industrial/commercial business incubators (start-ups) • Laboratories and office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing and consulting • Maintenance facilities, structures, outdoor storage City of Tustin MCA S Tustin Specific PlanlReuse Plan Page 3-29 "hapter 3 9 Land Use and DevelopmenVReuse Regulat" ions ------ Service commercial uses, including incidental retail sales: • Banks and financial institutions P • Emergency care facility MUM% ._.,Retail commercial uses: C • Photography studio, laboratory • Building material yards, secured C P • Building supply P • Restaurant, family, specialty, and fast food without drive • Delicatessen/cafeteria P • Department store P • Other service commercial uses either conditionally • Home improvement store P • Nursery P • Office supplies and equipment P • Wholesale 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 answering services P • Other service commercial uses either conditionally C/P City of —Tustin 05-'A—S--Tustin —Sp6c—ec — PlanlReuse Ptah Page 3-96