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