Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2012-002 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLANAGENDA REPORT Agenda Item Reviewed City Manager Finance Director 1 MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 19 2013 TO JEFFREY C PARKER, CITY MANAGER FROM ELIZABETH A BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2012 -002 (ORDINANCE NO 1426), MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN SUMMARY. The proposed amendment of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan 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 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council introduce and have a first reading of Ordinance No 1426, approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2012 -002, implementing text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Attachment 3) and set a second reading at the next City Council meeting APPROVAL AUTHORITY Pursuant to Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan shall be amended in the same manner as a general plan except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body (City Council) Prior to amending a specific plan, the City Council shall conduct a public hearing On January 22, 2012, the Tustin Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and adopted Resolution No 4215 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 2012 -002 by a 3- 0-1 vote with Planning Commission Moore recusing himself from the vote and Planning Commissioner Eckman absent Planning Commission Resolution No 4215 and minutes of the January 22, 2012, Planning Commission meeting are provided as Attachment 2 FISCAL IMPACT. Amendment of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Ordinance No 1426) is a City- initiated project There are no direct fiscal impacts anticipated as a result of adopting this ordinance City Council Report February 19 2013 SPA 2012 -002 (Ordinance No 1426) Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 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 An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (see Attachment 1) The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On February 3 2003, the Tustin City Council adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to establish development regulations and procedures for reuse of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan has been amended eight times since its original adoption The City of Tustin is proposing an additional amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The proposed amendment will not "substantially alter" the 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 A discussion of the specific modifications that are proposed is provided below • Figures 3 -1 (Land Use Statistical Analysis Organized by Land Use Designation), and 3 -2 (Land Use Plan Statistical Analysis Organized by Neighborhood) are proposed to be simplified and consolidated The structure of each table has not been significantly revised since the original 2003 adoption of the Specific Plan Currently, each table identifies "existing Marine Corps' buildings floor area and residential units (assumed in 2003 for possible reuse) along "Potential" new floor area and residential units In the years since the Specific Plan s 2003 adoption. most of the original Marine Corps structures have been demolished However the maximum development potential at Tustin Legacy is currently identified within the "Total" square footage and dwelling units' columns The table's reference to "existing" square footage is confusing since nearly all of the original Marine Corps' structures have been demolished In addition each table City Council Report February 19 2013 SPA 2012 -002 (Ordinance No 1426) Page 3 included 20 footnotes which added to the complexity of the information intended to be summarized in each table. The footnotes are repetitious of information that is provided elsewhere in the Specific Plan make understanding and interpreting the Tables complicated, and /or are no longer applicable to development at the site Consequently, SPA 2012 -002 proposes only three footnotes for each Table • Table 3 -3 (Planning Area Trip Budget) is proposed to be deleted entirely Table 3 -3 currently summarizes the square footage of non - residential uses allocated to each neighborhood by Planning Area, and the associated Average Daily Trips (ADT) assigned to those uses Residential uses are shown for information only, but are not part of the Trip Budget This information is derived from the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, and Addendum and Supplemental EIR adopted for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The purpose of the tracking system is to ensure that development can be accommodated within the planned roadway capacity of the on -site and off-site roadway systems Tustin Legacy Planning Areas Consistent with the authorized uses identified within each Neighborhood, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan currently permits exchanges of residential units or commercial square footages between approved land uses in the non - residential Trip Budget subject to review and approval of the total trip generation for a Neighborhood Also, park acreage may be transferred between Planning Areas and /or Neighborhoods provided that such transfer does not increase the total units or square footages allowable in the overall Specific Plan except for any density bonus granted As a result, Table 3 -3 does not accurately identify the non - residential trip budget since it reflects only planned ADTs, and does not reflect past- approved development or remaining development potential for the site Stantec Consulting, the City's traffic consultant, was asked to analyze and consolidate the trip budget table presented in City Council Report February 19, 2013 SPA 2012 -002 (Ordinance No 1426) Page 4 Table 3 -3 of the Specific Plan (see Appendix A of the Environmental Analysis Checklist attached to Exhibit A of Resolution No 4215) for use by staff in tracking ADTs at Tustin Legacy Stantec and Public Works traffic engineering has determined that the proposed revisions do not translate into new impacts The Community Development Department and Public Works Department will maintain the revised Trip Budget Tracking form, keep it up to date as development occurs at Tustin Legacy, and include an accurate status each year as part of the City's Mitigation Monitoring Status Report for Tustin Legacy • Other minor text amendments of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan are proposed for the purpose of clarification and consistency SPA 2012 -002 (Ordinance No 1426) is consistent with the City Council approved Disposition Strategy, and would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan PUBLIC NOTICE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REVIEW: A public notice was published in the Tustin News on February 7, 2013, informing the public of proposed SPA 2012 -002 A copy of the staff report to the Planning Commission and proposed SPA 2012 -002 was forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce prior to the City Council's hearing on the matter Dana L Ogdon, AICP \., Elizabeth A Binsack Assistant Director Director of Community Development Attachment 1 Environmental checklist prepared for SPA 2012 -002 Attachment 2 Planning Commission Resolution No 4215 and minutes of the January 22, 2012 Planning Commission meeting Attachment 3 Ordinance No 1426 (SPA 2012 -002) Attachment 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified /Approved Environmental Documents 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 City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 General Plan Designation MCAS Tustin Zoning Designation MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Distnct 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 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 Califorma 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 ELand Use and Planning ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials nPopulation and Housing [Noise ❑ Geology and Soils [Public Services ['Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Utilities and Service Systems ['Air Quality nAesthetics ['Transportation & Circulation ❑Cultural Resources ['Biological Resources ❑Recreation ['Mineral Resources ['Mandatory Findings of ❑Agricultural Resources Significance C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a sigmficant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as descnbed on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Sigmficant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed ® I find that although the proposed project could have a sigmficant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect m this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately m an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project n I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project Preparer () c�� Date /7 4 /'i' Dana L Ogdon, AICP A sistant Director rz //d l / Z;ir Date j' // Elizabeth A Binsack, Community Development Director 1) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached 4 Anaheim • W Taft Ave E Katella Ave E Collins Ave 55, . 0 Orange O CD J r W Edinger Ave Fountain Valley Coast Or Santa Ana E 4th St , S Grand Ave • 7ER it ••- OVilla Park Bond Ave C 4 is a o 't O 3 0 2 °Tustin Foothills C 261 I Tuetln PROJE ri / LOCATION CITY OF �S TUSTIN P E Warner Ave / 40, o/a j i(wy Baker St to ,;` a` 48 , , , M ..z 4 son Or c Costa c Mesa lip_ ,ire/ to t01 0 _ $ (04c CI r Or ids or k u u i A', 0 5 1 2 Mlles Irvine eh o. -4 '4 Root' S/'? 4 Cenyoe°t s � , pSan Joaquln'14111s 0 Lake Forest Laguna Woods 0 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 agncultural 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 critena 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 affectmg a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a histoncal resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ co ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 ❑ ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking9 ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ El 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 mcapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑ VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous matenals, 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 matenals 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 m a safety hazard for people residing or workmg 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 mvolvmg wildland fires, includmg 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 existmg nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existmg land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, mcludmg through the alteration of the course of a stream or nver 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 withm 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, mjury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Impact Impacts Analysis 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? ❑ ❑ El 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? ❑ ❑ El b) Result in the Toss 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? ❑ ❑ El b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ El 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? ❑ ❑ XiI.POPULATiON AND HOUSING — Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ El b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ El c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services No Substantial New More Change From Stgnfcant Severe Previous Impact impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ Fire protection? ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ El Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION — a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical detenoration 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, mcludmg either an increase in traffic levels or a change m location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses. (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts bicycle racks)? 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 m 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 existmg entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist I AESTHETICS — Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Specifically, the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement The Project proposes to permit the same uses as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR If adopted, the Proposed Project would support clearer interpretation and administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan These modifications would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and there would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS /EIR There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area, therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 3 effect on a scenic vista The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS /EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project, therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -5 through 3 -68, 4 -81 through 4 -93) and Addendum (Page 5 -3 through 5 -8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 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? 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 contract9 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS /EIR There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required In certifying the FEIS /EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No 00 -90) No mitigation is required Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 5 Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -83 through 3 -88, 4 -109 through 115) and Addendum (Page 5 -8 through 5 -10) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program III AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations Would the project. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 6 The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short -term (construction), Tong -term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts Consistent with the findings in the FEIS /EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS /EIR for which this finding was made Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS /EIR There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS /EIR There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long -term and /or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS /EIR Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site However, the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -143 through153, 4 -207 through 4 -230, pages 7 -41 through 7 -42 and Addendum Pages 5 -10 through 5 -28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 7 IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. - Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 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, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 8 waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS /EIR Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required No mitigation is required Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -75 through 3 -82, 4 -103 through 4 -108, 7 -26 through 7 -27 and Addendum pages 5 -28 through 5 -40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064 5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064 5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the 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 9 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS /EIR It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS /EIR Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -68 through 3 -74, 4 -93 through 4 -102, 7 -24 through 7 -26, and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5 -45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 10 • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR as prepared Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils The FEIS /EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non - seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high - intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure) The FEIS /EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 11 established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS /EIR Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources. Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of 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 65962 5 and, as a Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 12 result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving midland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners Portions of the Project Site are presently undergoing remediation, and therefore remain under Navy ownership These areas may be available for limited used by future owners under a LIFOC (lease) agreement They will not be conveyed until the Navy determines that its remediation of hazards and hazardous materials in these areas have sufficiently progressed to the point that the property can safely be developed and used The FEIS /EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then - current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin The FEIS /EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater As identified in the FEIS /EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100- Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 13 foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan The Project Site is not located in a midland 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 FEISIEIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required No mitigation is required Sources Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3 -106 through 3 -117, 4 -130 through 4 -138, 7 -30 through 7 -31, and Addendum Pages 5-49 through 5 -55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4 -8, 10- 2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30 -33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan 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, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 14 aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g , the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map's 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 Toss, 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? I) 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 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 15 increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to hydrology and water quality There would be no change to development intensity building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology /water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to hydrology /water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology /water quality As concluded in the FEIS /EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS /EIR No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR The drainage pattern and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS /EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed Therefore no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project Based on the foregoing none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 16 alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -98 through 3 -105, 4 -124 through 4 -129, 7 -29 through 7 -30 and Addendum Pages 5 -56 through 5 -92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project. a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to land use and planning There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning The SPA does not substantively change the Specific Plan and does not increase development intensities or introduce incompatible uses Implementation of the Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 17 Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required' Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -3 to 3- 17, 4 -3 to 4 -13, 7 -16 to 7 -18 and Addendum Pages 5 -92 to 5 -95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan X MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the Toss 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 Mitigation /Monitoring Required No mitigation is required Sources Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -91) and Addendum (Page 5 -95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI NOISE Would the project a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 19 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, a rail line located north of Edinger Avenue, and construction and remediation activities on surrounding parcels Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise The Project would not modify the noise - related land use distribution within the Tustin Legacy site All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan Consequently, long -term traffic - related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS /EIR, implementation of any future project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction - related noise impacts. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 20 revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -154 through 3 -162 and 4 -231 through 4 -243) and Addendum (Page 5 -96 through 5 -101) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XII POPULATION & HOUSING Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 21 previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required No mitigation is required Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -18 to 3- 34, 4 -14 to 4 -29, and 7 -18 to 7 -19) and Addendum Pages (5- 101through 5 -112) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 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 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, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 22 Fire Protection Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR Implementation of any future project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site Pursuant to the FEIS /EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified Police Protection Police protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS /EIR Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development Therefore, the Project does not generate K -12 students and there is no impact to K -12 schools Future developers would be required to pay school fees for public uses on the Tustin Legacy site consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998 Parks There is no change to the proposed park locations or uses as a result of the Project Other Public Facilities The FEIS /EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded The Project is administrative only and would not modify conditions or proposed development which was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS /EIR, therefore, no substantial change is expected Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 23 The FEIS /EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4- 67 through 4 -70) to be complied with as appropriate Proposed SPA 2012 -002 will result in no changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -47 to 3- 57, 4 -56 to 4 -80 and 7 -21 to 7 -22) and Addendum (Pages 5 -112 through 5 -122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIV RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 24 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement was prepared As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation Specifically there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3 -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)? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 25 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e g , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g , farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g , bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards Stantec Consulting prepared a traffic evaluation technical memorandum in December 2012 that evaluated the potential impacts of the Proposed Project The memorandum is attached as Appendix 1 Stantec has simplified the approved land use and trip generation data for the Project Site in support of the proposed administrative revisions to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan There are no net changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip generation There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that was not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 26 Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement However, the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 Applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Future projects will be evaluated to ensure consistency with this EIS /EIR and subsequent studies to ensure there are no new impacts Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3 -118 through 3 -142, 4 -139 through 4 -206 and 7 -32 through 7 -42) and Addendum (pages 5 -127 through 5 -147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3 -62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81, pages 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 27 d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? g) h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e g increased vectors and odors)? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify consolidate, simplify and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities /services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems The FEIS /EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future individual development projects identified as 'Mitigation" or 'Implementation Measures" (pages 4 -43 through 4 -46) to be complied with as appropriate Proposed SPA 2012 -002 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems Specifically, Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 28 there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3 -35 through 3 -46, 4 -32 through 4 -55 and 7 -20 through 7 -21) and Addendum (pages 5 -147 through 5 -165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3 -62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81, pages 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects ) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 29 Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR, there are no new mitigation measures required, and there are no new significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project - specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR will be incorporated into subsequent development project approvals Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and would be included in future development projects as applicable Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5 -4 through 5 -11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3 -62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81, pages 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) and Addendum Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, that no new effects would occur, that no Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 30 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS /EIR on January 16 2001, and shall apply to future development projects, as applicable COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way Tustin CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents. Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s) Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2012 -002, (Ordinance No 1426 MCAS: Tustin Specific Plan) Lead Agency City of Tustin Lead Agency Contact Person Dana Ogdon Phone (714) 573 -3109 Project Location MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the north, Harvard Avenue to the east, Red Hill Avenue to the west, and Barranca Parkway to the south Project Sponsor's Name and Address City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 General Plan Designation MCAS Tustin Zoning Designation. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Distnct 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 Appendix 1 Memo Stantec To Ken Nishikawa From Terence Austin, PE City of Tustin Stantec Irvine File 2073007400 Date. January 30, 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 or Krys Saldivar with any questions regarding the contents of this memorandum STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Terence Austin, PE Principal, Transportation Planning & Traffic Engineering Tel (949) 923 -6056 terry austin@stantiec.com c. Attachment One Team Infinite Solutions ka v:120731ecEve12 0 730 0 7400keporl mem.docx TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP BUDGET BY NEIGHBORHOOD 2073007400WsIyn.Vrp_gerNaskt bpi xlex (/172013 Residential/Park Unit Planned (Table 3J) Residential/Perk Amount Average Dally Tripe Residential/Park Trip Budget Non - Residential Neighborhood A School 581 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 7147 LOR (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 0 Residential DU 891 5,907 MHDR (16-25 DU /Acre) Commercial 25,819 Office 41,558 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 171132 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 (9-15 DU /Acre) MHDR (16 -25 DU /Acre) Commercial 12,861 Office 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) Sludenl 650 663 Neighborhood H Total ADT 0 Total Tustin Legacy ADT 173,254 2073007400WsIyn.Vrp_gerNaskt bpi xlex (/172013 Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO 4215 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO 1426 APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2012 -002, IMPLEMENTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 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. That a public hearing was duly called noticed and held on said application on January 22, 2013 by the Planning Commission. C On January 16 2001 the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. And on December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No 04 -76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS /EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road The FEIS /EIR along with its Addendum and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. D An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A) The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified Resolution No 4215 Page 2 significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted E SPA 2012 -002 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long -term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area 1 Achieve balanced development 2 Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs 3 Improve city -wide urban design 4 Promote economic expansion and diversification 5 Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed -use, master - planned development II The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No 1426 approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2012 -002 attached hereto as Exhibit B PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of January 22, 2013 Ej7(ffe1/4.11 ELIZABETHSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) Chairperson I, Elizabeth A Binsack, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California, that Resolution No 4215 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of January, 2013 ELIZABETH A BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary a Exhibit A i [i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 927 (71 4) 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: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin CA 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin 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 n 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 /E[R 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!) below ❑Land Use and Planning Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Population and Housing ❑Noise flGeology and Soils ['Public Services ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation & Circulation Cultural Resources (Biological Resources ❑Recreation ['Mineral Resources ❑Mandatory Findings of ❑Agricultural Resources Significance C. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARA PION will be prepared ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated " An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 1( Preparer Date: Dana L. Ogdon, AICP, Assistant Director Date Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached i EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: Impact Impacts Analysis a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ IZI 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 Tight 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? 11I. AIR OUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? FJ 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 histoncal resource as defined in § 15064 5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064 5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous impact impacts Analysis i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 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? t) 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a 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 wildlands9 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY. — Would the project a) Violate any water qualtty 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? 0 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? ) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow9 ''- IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project a) Physically divide an established community? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or Impact Impacts Analysis 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? ❑ ❑ XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION - a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic Toad and capacity of the street system (i e result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results - in substantial safety risks? ,d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Substantial New More Change From Signfcant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ell ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ J 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. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Specifically the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit the same uses as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. If adopted, the Proposed Project would support clearer interpretation and administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. These modifications would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and there would be no change to development intensity building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS /EIR. There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 3 effect on a scenic vista The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway The Protect 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 seventy of previously identified effects (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete Mitigation /Monitoring Required No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project, therefore no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -5 through 3-68, 4 -81 through 4 -93) and Addendum (Page 5 -3 through 5 -8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan 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? 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 Monitonng Program III AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations Would the project a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any cnteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 6 The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR on January 16 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long -term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS /EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the 'project" analyzed in the FEIS /EIR for which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS /EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS /EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long -term and /or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS /EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. However the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16 2001 Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -143 through153, 4 -207 through 4 -230, pages 7-41 through 7-42 and Addendum Pages 5 -10 through 5 -28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 7 IV BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? 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 Protect 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, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 8 waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any would be those identified in the FEIS /EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been. (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -75 through 3 -82, 4 -103 through 4 -108, 7 -26 through 7 -27 and Addendum pages 5 -28 through 5 -40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the 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. Of: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 9 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR Addendum, and Supplement The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS /EIR It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitonng for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS /EIR Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources Specifically there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation/Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3 -74, 4 -93 through 4 -102, 7 -24 through 7 -26 and Addendum Pages 5-40 through 5-45) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VI GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of Toss, injury, or death involving Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 10 • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the Toss 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 -1.8 of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR as prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS /EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non - seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high - intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS /EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with 7 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 11 established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS /EIR Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigation/Monitoring Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of 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 65962.5 and, as a Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 12 result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 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? 9) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify consolidate, simplify and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. Portions of the Project Site are presently undergoing remediation, and therefore remain under Navy ownership. These areas may be available for limited used by future owners under a LIFOC (lease) agreement. They will not be conveyed until the Navy determines that its remediation of hazards and hazardous materials in these areas have sufficiently progressed to the point that the property can safely be developed and used. The FEIS /EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then - current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS /EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater As identified in the FEIS /EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100- 0 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 midland 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 Mitigat;on/Monitonng 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, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 14 aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post - construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor 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 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, budding height restrictions setbacks, signage, and other development standards There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology/water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to hydrology /water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology/water quality As concluded in the FEIS /EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS /EIR No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR The drainage pattern and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS /EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 16 alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -98 through 3 -105, 4 -124 through 4 -129, 7 -29 through 7 -30 and Addendum Pages 5 -56 through 5 -92) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to and 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 altematives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources: FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -3 to 3- 17 4 -3 to 4 -13, 7 -16 to 7 -18 and Addendum Pages 5 -92 to 5 -95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the Toss 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 Toss 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. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -91) and Addendum (Page 5 -95) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 19 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, a rail line located north of Edinger Avenue and construction and remediation activities on surrounding parcels Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards No new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise The Project would not modify the noise- related land use distribution within the Tustin Legacy site All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan Consequently, long -term traffic- related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS /EIR, implementation of any future project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction- related noise impacts Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise Specifically, there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 20 revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -154 through 3 -162 and 4 -231 through 4 -243) and Addendum (Page 5 -96 through 5 -101) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify and update current Specific Plan language, tables, and regulations. The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 21 previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR clue 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/Morntonng 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 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, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 22 Fire Protection Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Implementation of any future project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS /EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police protection for the Project Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS /EIR. Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K -12 students and there is no impact to K -12 schools. Future developers would be required to pay school fees for public uses on the Tustin Legacy site consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998 Parks There is no change to the proposed park locations or uses as a result of the Project. Other Public Facilities The FEIS /EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The Project is administrative only and would not modify conditions or proposed development which was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS /EIR; therefore, no substantial change is expected. r Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 23 The FEIS /EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4- 67 through 4 -70) to be complied with as appropriate Proposed SPA 2012 -002 will result in no changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental BR 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 /Monitonng Required Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site Sources Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3- 57, 4 -56 to 4 -80 and 7 -21 to 7 -22) and Addendum (Pages 5 -112 through 5 -122) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language tables, and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 24 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3- 57, 4 -56 to 4 -80, 7 -21 to 7 -22 and Addendum Pages 5 -122 through 5 -127 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 25 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e g , sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e g , farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e g , bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SPA 2012 -002 would implement minor text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that would clarify, consolidate, simplify, and update current Specific Plan language, tables and regulations The proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards Stantec Consulting prepared a traffic evaluation technical memorandum in December 2012 that evaluated the potential impacts of the Proposed Project The memorandum is attached as Appendix 1 Stantec has simplified the approved land use and trip generation data for the Project Site in support of the proposed administrative revisions to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan There are no net changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip generation There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that was not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 26 Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement. However, the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001 Applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Future projects will be evaluated to ensure consistency with this EIS /EIR and subsequent studies to ensure there are no new impacts. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3 -118 through 3 -142, 4 -139 through 4 -206 and 7 -32 through 7 -42) and Addendum (pages 5 -127 through 5 -147) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3 -62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81 pages 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? i7 'Apeogioadg swa ;sAs aolAJas pue soggy] o; pie6ei y ;im ;sixa sainseaw uoge6giw Jo s ;oedwi;oafwd a;enfene o ;;uawnoop fe ;uawuonnue Jay ;o JO 813 ie;uawafddns Jo ;uanbasgns e aiedaid o; paau ay; Ja669; pfnom ley; 391.91. uogoag saugapine yQ33 w payquapl suoyfpuoo ay; ;o auou '6uio6eio; ay; uo paseg ;uawuaJlnua ay; uo ;oaJ8 ;ueoyw6is e aney Aew uogsanb ui A ;lnloe ay; ley; A;lpgissod ou 91 away' ;uawafddng pue 'wnpuappy'813 /SI3d ay; Aq pa ;enlena )(IsnoinaJd s pedwi fe;uawualnua ay; o; sabueyo legue;sgns ou w;fnsaa IPm Z00-ZI.OZ VdS pesodoid a;e!Jdadde se yin pagdwoo aq o; (9v-t, 46no.iy; £},-y sa6ed) „sajnsean uoye;ueweidwl, Jo „uoye6gllry„ se payquapi s;oafoad ; uawdolanap fenpnlpui aim; Jo; suoyipuoo uiepao Gimbal um Alio ay; ley; sayguepl 813 /SI3d ay' swejsAs aOINaS pue sayffyn o; spedwi o; uogelal ul pannbai ale samseew uogebyiw mau ou ';lnseJ e sy 813 /Sad ay; y ;lm ;ua;sisuoo a.1e uoge ;uewaldwl s ;I pue ;Darold ay; aao;aIegj paieda.zd sem 813 /SI3d ay; awl; ay; le aoua;sixa w jou sem my; swa;sAs animas pue sayggn 01 anima' uol ;euuo;ul mau ou 91 aaayl ;oafoid ay; Jo uoye;uewaldwi pue uoydope ay; ;o ;inset a se payquapl ale my; swa;sAs seowas /saglign o; pie6a) y;lM spedwi anyelnwno .10 owoads- ;oafold esJanpe ;ueoyw6ls peseanuf Jo mau ou aJe maul swa;sAs aoitues pue saypl ;n o; spedwi ;oanp Aue esneo sasn ui ebueyo ao A;lsua ;ul ;uawdolanap ;o aseaJoui ue ;ou pinom pue aln;eu w angegsiuiwpe si ;oafoad pasodoid ayl ueld oyioedg ul ;snl SNOW ay; Aq pamope leyua;od ;uawdolanap piano ay; asea.1ow ;ou mom ;uewauyai pesodoid ayl suogeln6ai pue 'sane; 'a6en6uel Ueld oyioads;uauno a;epdn pue 'A ;gdws 'a;epgosuoo A;uefo pinom ley; ueld °goads ugsnl Sv3V4 ay; o; s;uewpuewe ;xa; JOutw ;uawaldwi pinom ZOO-Z;OZ VdS d(sropo pue 910100A paseaiaw 6 a) sgoajja le;uawuoalnua ;ueo31u61s ul ;lnsei moo 4314m ;o unt;elado ay; '(spuegam ;uaw ;eat; pe ;oni ;suoo 'uiseq ;uaw;eal; A;genb relent 6 a) '(dl;llg) aoi ;aeid ;uawabeueyg ;sag laJ ;uoo ;uaw ;eaa; Ja ;em woo ;s pa l;o.;ai mau a apnloul ;oafoid ay; pinoM to ;sem puns o; pa;elai suogeln6aJ pue sa ;n ;e;s lean; pue 'a ;e;s yeAapa; y ;lm A;dwo° Lspaau lesodsip a ;sem pgos s,;oafoid ay; a ;epoww000e o; A;ioedeo pau weed melamine y ;lm II!1PUel e Aq paAJas as Ls;Uaw;Iwwoo 6ugsixa s,aapinoid ay; o; uol ;ippe w puewap pa;oalo4d s, ;oaloid ay; OMOS o; A;ioedeo a ;enbepe sey ;1 ;ey; ;oafoid 04; anus Aew Jo SOAABS yol1M `JepinoJd ;uaw;ean Ja ;ema ;sem ay; Aq uoi ;ewwJa;ap a of ;insa8 Lpapeeu s;uawagl;ue papuedxe .10 mau ale Jo 'sac/nasal pue s;uawal ;l ;ua 6w ;sixa woJ; ;oafoJd 04; anus o; algepen , sayddns Ja ;em ;ua;ol;;ns aneH (4 (6 (; (0 (p LZ abed ueld ogioedg uysnl SV3IN 300-360Z VdS s;oedwf le;Uawu0nnu3 ;o uogenlen3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 28 there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for development of the site. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3 -35 through 3 -46, 4 -32 through 4 -55 and 7 -20 through 7 -21) and Addendum (pages 5 -147 through 5 -165) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3-62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81 pages 3 -82 through 3 -88, and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 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, budding height restrictions, setbacks, stgnage, and other development standards The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR, there are no new mitigation measures required, and there are no new significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project - specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR will be incorporated into subsequent development project approvals Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts Specifically there have not been (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects, (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete Mitigat'onlMonitonng Requs'red The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and would be included in future development projects as applicable Sources Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5 -11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 3 -35 through 3 -62, pages 3 -70 through 3 -81, pages 3 -82 through 3 -88 and pages 3 -104 through 3 -137) and Addendum Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR and Addendum, that no new effects would occur, that no Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2012 -002, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 30 substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS /EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to future development projects, as applicable. 1 Appendix 1 1 1 Memo Stantec 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. Krys Saldivar Principal, Transportation Planning Tel: (949) 923 -6062 krys.saldivar©stantec.com c. Attachment One Team Infinite Solutions. ka v 12073 \actrve\2073007400Veporevrem docx 1 1 1 1 1 1 TUSTIN LEGACY TRIP BUDGET BY NEIGHBORHOOD 207M07400analyvetn0- ➢eMtli1U41 au 1/170813 Planned Table 3.3 Aven•e Dail Tri•a Residential /Park Unit Resldentla9Park Amount Residential/Park Trip Budget Non - Residential Net. hbatlood A School 561 Leamin• Center 8,169 Commeaal - -- 2,784 Tustin Fad( - Acre -- 241 1,297 6220 Other S,• rte Park Other ransmonal Housin, Room 192 941 17 734 Nel. hbodtood A Total ADT - -- Nei. hbahood B Residential DU 1 077 7,147 LDR 1 -7 DU /Acre - - - - - -- -- 7,052 MDR 8.15 OU /Acre MHDR 16-25 DU /Acre -_ -_- Senior Housln• Attached Commercial OmCe 1.922 Nei •hbomood B Total ADT - -- 8,974 Nel. hborhood C Commercial - -- 3.920 Other R.•tonal Park Abe 845 423 Nei. hbodtood C Total ADT - -- 3 920 Nal. hborhoad 0 Residential DU _ - 891 - 5,907 -- 25,819 MHOR 16- 25OUTAcre Commeraal Office - -- 41,555 IndusMal - - Acre -- 3,803 Other HI •h School -- 3,312 Other Park B Sorts Perk 892 2,592 Nel• hborhood D Total ADT - -- 74489 Nei. hborhood E Commercial - -- 2,028 Office - -- - -- Abe 28,2 143 10,960 4,844 17,932 Industrial Other Park Nel • hbodmod E Total ADT - -- Nab hbomood F Commercial Disblet - -- - -- 34,908 542 Office Matta Nel t hbodlood F Total ADT - -- 36 460 Nel• hborho d0 Reudenlel DU 2,244 18,309 LDR 1 -7 DU /Abe - - - -_ - -- - -- - -- -- 12,861 1,994 MDR 8-15 DU /Acre MHDR 16 -25 DU /Acre Commeroel Orrice Other Schad Student 1 200 1,224 Other Perks Acre 63 1 1,007 Nel • hborhoad 0 Total ADT - -- 14 856 Nei. hborhood H Residential 01.1 409 3 533 LOR 1 -7 DU /Abe - - -- - - -- Student 650 663 - -- - -- 0 173,254 MOR 8-15 DU /Acre Other Stho01 Nab hborhood H Total ADT Total Tustin L • ac ADT 207M07400analyvetn0- ➢eMtli1U41 au 1/170813 0 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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. E. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project. The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement, that no new effects would occur that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives Ordinance No. 1426 SPA 2012 -002 (MCAS Tustin) Page 2 applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. F SPA 2012 -002 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long -term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1 Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city -wide urban design. 4 Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed -use, master - planned development. SECTION 2. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as provided in Attachment 1 (with strike -out indicating text to be deleted and underlined text indicating text to be added. All page numbering to be corrected at publishing). SECTION 3. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this 19th day of February 2013. ELWYN A. MURRAY Mayor JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO 1426 JEFFREY C PARKER, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5, that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1426 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 19th day iJ 3 Ordinance No 1426 SPA 2012 002 (MCAS Tustin) Page 3 of February, 2013 and was given its second reading, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of 2013 by the following vote COUNCILMEMBER AYES COUNCILMEMBER NOES COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT JEFFREY C PARKER City Clerk Published Exhibit 1 ] 1 1 ue!d esnaeifue!d oyJoeds upsnl snow g g abed ugsnl So Aid 0 91-92'399 06&t 99ctL9 t`fi 94. f 9$f d-t-eal ae!uueja 0 —0 9tS-0t 91-80* s£',> ?I-1- L )I 81 R J\-uweeeld te!aurnfl m43 ZZL'OZZ $� 69 E -Li ' .i: *'0 f-9{' f91- P.: 0 — 0U't,tz 069'99 't0 (1 Z 0'I_ L1 l`'..11fuuq 91 uvald OEI'731 0 t 6 E'88 Tteree1RRQ ,as 1 -'Zf,t tit Y€1- £ 6c £'8R 99,191(1 14211199S — 1 086'31-1'1 S£I E 1�,' Ou!UUPIrt 1 aE L9c=t 0 SS3IJfl i /fUydat}}{ee5 ttatcinfititi-ViStraLNii OJ 01L`€ -- Vt;d 6- tiffs' 4te98' - - YIN ■ t'rZ`££i - 39Nd t _ -MT —09 47-84 ` ',LOlBitS L .E. 921 lte P!s€91'leaolgnS �e'±?L+ilI4R,►_�L -.one, *a�a.�� 69 -\-9tc \ , 17. ti WN 'v''i 0-- 01- clo'Hos zGl F riK ttN 1-c Et .. /R C .. Lttlj{ LJRipa{+�1 P. 9I1 t 0131 H' 1-' C �, ^I�r �'i:\ —' * Sic (zeC;rp cI 8).tu.'RCa tumpatti f£; t i �'c „ V-99 £'1 OI 9'Z I f E'e; PF L U �acucp.WO- c 1 ea1V ?uruHPld <. 910-3- te!2natts4,1 tt H 1/4— . SIL.'ci t6Z'EEI 9'0 1=92 1-f £�z.e�'SUtcuP1�} net • . a: aunsryoueetrsee -± 9tf ft- -VrN �' /\ 1-^`2• —s _Z R�'pt'- t .1- Emil • .. ... 7-.06 s1- \'i,\` ■ 0 19 fit. _ -93 et- , pucgxgy�! it S1ctu: oyes 1eo(3 ot ZZ Pub.' 3u[uuP,lc{ 1"L'+) S7- Vitt '—W 'P'%M b''1-* L n C E ?l�,' D1R9+3EI(t M, Eaelt+fl 41- g},H!S+taU- tee!ryalt f 1-t it 'YIN. V;'k — '6I I 1 YZ muet,{ t'fit t 1c9-t9 rft Eft' L'PlS tu!uuPj+t 'Jad 7t7.L,V3QL333f Q S, ,]Q Mgt it . S„it/ 9- f & -7S) Or }.Ft' Jee!,d- r!tm1f1d q. f • i- E''JI` 1017/.4- &f0 SIX7 J P i '' ) un - 3()0/4- 113{9f •ii•t'.I' �� 4. ` E ssoi7- 335,7 /II N3QIS3N 33311 7[7L,V3QL338 ,VQ,V 361 -3-W ` VaJt�ttHtNrrld / Hey nrr.',rs.�Q MJ LLth '•Jflcf.731Q,Vi"7dd- -.. - Q3 Zit , -,. ; • t F379t:L suogeinBeN esneJpueuadoienea pue esn puei • c is ;de110 7-7 L -t u!snj Jo A1.w ueld esneyjueld oyioedg ugsnj Sb'CA( 0 fl H602f•6E HSS'ZZR Ic9`tlt £00 It'3 smvu j-- j-e,,s rNd teuettc^np3 P.'iv 9e19Uet-j j t j IMtjQ jeuel:6: 6•:3- °utuucld :1 st'uattt"ttL'tl aataaJ a1EJ FI111J - --- • fl tea - uvel� IcttI z.teys,uz S /Flab) D I cefP'- t"{euehj ortateagereD jeu*!W autLietj- Rietti i1C(d] nig P,UOg8OUj"3 t (JeIu St JC(1ij:)Q ?IUaI� jU21�•9U[U1mjJ l i'i Zl E'3Z1 datif 7...V IZ! 78J7Xl7L;t'OIZ,]ZIZS�'f tts titRt 8£- tic. ' 'OtL SRO'£ZE•• '( \t S'IIS X113 L'LRS t63 — Li5'LZl'1 Z- ?Z.,: 6L LC 1 —HHZ 8112 168 h F 5E O,:RR;9 =c Trot-mots a.s S(yr0Urt3 hus Spaejtuett a.,S • . ,rt . . • i-t-so+1'`'°estssit ow i9Z fit nor DL I'RM t'Z£I'Z OOL 0 meat it£ t-Et ry • ,:I 096`9t•94t tI i'Z£t- E6tStot FCrE 9. no c'LL 9138 t't6 �uiuUCli} tjdtt4 g-tl. teeuuetJ a10) .tltunwweg 0 ';N Z6Z'81Z 0 .. acts 0Yrt teely- aatuttejt} EC is feel" Itt 0 ',N 1ES'RSI 90t S tC9'994 SrJepeet3 Dos 8'9t- St e ?t\'°et11L2t E'6Z emt3 —t ! ttafl!se3} 9 • ,i1 Mel r. 71 '1 ,f s•,ie 9 •. •/89.19 -1-: dnetg- fn!nr:uoj '1-3)n;l s ems' sl71 ;• sse.9' doe,. , .. 39611 711160t7ws3# S_ 48t .3 7l7Z,V9flf39# 391- ffXJl' nad trier f' .: +entzlftre ?lssltcaB ^c` @tl'il,'c{91S90.73,1 '1'7,(8 O, Q3ZI,44 3WO Sf3;i-'i1 h'L'7L'JIZ,4IZ1;LS.1-'1 7d :IS,7 Q, ' 1 F97ffLZ suogejn6ea esnew}uewdoieneQ pue esn puei • g ie;deyo inms mum 6 ugsnl Jo ego a°eaJnasstiiSfi.iei-N-1 =4e x- biu-c -3-{ %meet' .e.,i:.. 4-teti'i'47- 44ilisinme- fEuppa rxt p wrnio -oq .1p o-F" sfry- rolirst tt- ialiio-et-tield-a91i`ue9-gtuu fF,MF,NP5100 �iasr Nt+irpar adu ra.eleut •111Ph5 1141 a -}tc- `3{=1.1+!71- Gxuatuw agip*tiuetui9t veld asnewue d oypeds ugsnl SVGA( i3PH9H15t1*OSP Joj \t E'E IApAISya�"' -B� q1 wr,� x G'yf "y3so -axe ae- c,{tutt.- ,iq�Ja e_up5a j- }o♦tF. � 4e t .•. - lesod;tNNW, eru Jrj ciltbne6- watt cranat'aSl lh'ie'-tx5e- c.+4aefixi E-, x.4. t J' x zse.�-a�J9 �.+.e.,srd 4 S+i 4ciaH+te,�ie*Hd :eJ_ a s.oJ° I f. , t zJ. III Ocu�JV �uwttefd-+H- -fit `^'e(u w ets+'siC�- tiaitlssueett- vJnt^J�t Qflg>at t amatxt+nefdgrv� -atL ad*tnsn-put:Hge+tuxecHxuado r oreoingi, pacuElnsi- e- f- ea(- 5utuxepasHim-pq ptHaQj -gens (Vol 1ugsr- 61- 361 `tltff-fnufFltauumtu3,N.e -0411 tu uxut4olahOW-aq 4I GI i acre -pmtli f.r" Naep gtyipot"i &act -Ptim a nkc tuiswaeR1 6E :nu `tufief+s esuae+uuetpa dxi-`' �I` eiu- ua.'' R-+ eg- se .aV-:,u+uuehM++iai+lu>ru±sntf!e �,t... c.H % br grt 't''%we(f- oJeuhS°vysrk?-{trtunv -tee g's“ttEwktr•j tta Jetuo4u"ette-eJ9e of t: sapntetn ' -Held ,'yi-eaEV5- 3i�t - Ni�FE_uoitees ui-poliio: 5t,4e4F1-+?ue MIOD tieoeahi gri„47= 404jf'eiit'amv i uuii 43114elts,M rnitr ttlI > SB iuzwdetzna p- afitia 31C J u ,u Je- iaaj�saebs a(geiwite- fetot-so- he+,?++eg ptierreifgt� J.sunityniuttuojj 9&p- ei- opeut-- --t-t j' �`f t . )- °"114tp'HIkuiim nq II'' Heue,etpue- anearee a�i9eidatttiwge —kj +i i e igf-ue4W IBt-ec,+HHf9ur S Vd 'c1 suogeinani esneeipuewdoienea pue esn purl • E Jajdey0 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations _.. LAND USE PLAN S74TISTIC.9L __. T,IBLE_i-l.. - LAND USE DLSIGN .1TION IN, 4LISIS ORGANIZED BP ,ICRLAGI :VON- RLSIDLNTIAL U5LS RFSIDFNTIAI USES Des, nalian /P/an,in °,fret, Gross NO Total Floor DU's Total Area (Se 1.1. 112 Per Acre DU'slz RI SIDENTLIL Low Density 17 du /ac Plannin• Area 1 54.2 43.4 V/n 7 304 Plan ninc. Area 21 127 1 115.0 N/A 14 793 Medium Densit 8 15 du /ac Plannin Area 5 51 7 II I - - N/A 15 15 621 402 Planning Area 22 '3= 61.0 N/A Elementary School ti 8 Nclehbot-hood Park Medium Ili h Density 16 25 du /ac PlannmjArca20 -.- _. - -. 29.4 23.5 NIA 25 376 Transitional /timer• enc Ilousin Planning Area 3 3.1 5_I 0.6 131294 0 0 Residential Core Planning Arca 15 173 7 159_8 -- -- 10 59 228.8 _ - NIA 7 113 25 N/A N/A 1 211 N/A N/A Residential Lori Density 7 dwncl - - 10 59 241.7 N/A _(1 Medium Dens% i S 15 du/ac) N/A Mcd High Densit s (I6 25 du/ac) N/A I.lcmentary School N/A Parks and 0 wn Spncc' N/A Suhtolil Residential Cor., PA I5 SUBT0"LU, 582.6 518.2 N/A 133_.294 N/A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS Com mcrc,al /13usmess Planning Area 9 12 88.3 29 117 3 13E 79 1(12_4 Sec Standards 1267,324 0 See Allowed Uses Parks and Oven Snacc3 Subtotal, Plannuu> Area 9 12 Plan= m Area 16 31.0 279 0.4 186.130 0 Planning Area 17 16.3 16.3 0_4 284.011 0 Commercial Plannin 2 Area 18 167 145 0.35 40,846 0 Plannin . Area 19 38,6 33.6 0.4 672 566 0 Residential Core Plannin • Area 15 29.3 26.3 Sec Standards 466.637 N/A V Villa • c Services 1 lannin Area 7 20,7 19.0 248.292 N/A 0 Com rnun it Core Planning Area 8. 13, 14 207 8 154.0 Sce Standards 1,777,279 25 N/A 891 Sec Allowed Uses Park and Oven Space 72.0 40.0 72.0 ail h School 10.0 Subtotal Communit • Cnn. 314.8 266 1.757 279 SUBTOT \L 584 7 511 5 N/A 8 223 085 N/A 891 IN.STITUTIONAtJRLCRI . t FIONAL Education Vdla•e Planning Area 1 128.3 124 77 0.3 1.412 651 O 0 Planning Area 1 A 4 ,lementary5chool Planning Area 1 13 Educational Law Enlorcement filing, City of Tustin Page 3 -10 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL TABLE 3 -1 LAND USE DESIGNATION ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY Designation/Amain /fret, ACREAGE NON- RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Gross Net Total Floor DU'.s Total Area(St.Ft,la Per Acre DUSta I'Iannine Area 1 -C Children's Care Shelter Planning Area 1 -D Child Carc Center Planning Area 1 -E Educational Planning Area 1 -E Educational Plana in Area 14; Other Planning Area 1 41 Educational Planning Area 1 -1 Educational La v Enforcement Training Animal Care Center Conrmunit Park Plannin_ Arta 2 'Community Park - 24.1 24.1 0.1 40.531 0 0 Urban Re ional Park Planning Area 6 (Urban Regional Park) 84.5 84.5 0 16 574.992 0 9 Ri 'ht -of -Wa Arterial Roadways 173.4 173A - 0 0 0 17rainage (Flood Control. Storm 28.5 28.5 0 0 1) Drains) SUBTOTAL 438.8 435.2 `/A SWIM 0 0 PO Gt L8: 1606.1 N/A 10 384.553 0 I. Residential dwelling m111S and non- residanial At/Es m y be trans leved between Planning Areas provided that such transfer doe not mcrae 1k total units allowable in overall Specific Ilan, except for any density bonusgrantcd 2 Consistent with authorized uses within each neielhborhood exchanges ofNuarc footageihstmeen approved land uses in the Non Residential Land liseffripff3udgct may he approved suhicct to review and approval of the total trip generation for a neighborhood. 3. Park acreage mjLbe transferred between Planningilrru and /or Neighborhoods provided that such transfer does not increase the total units or square Inotages allowable in the overall Specific Plan. except for any dcnst, tv bonus awned. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -11 0 3 1 96 -£ abed ugsnl 3o I{ij ueid esna &Neld nyiiadS ug•nl SvQW suogein6ej essnnejjguewdoianea pue esn puel • c JeidegQ 0 Mt sZ6 arc zfrar t-z z6z'st-" Vf 9921 g66}t @ghIai7 \21�.11�.LO.Lfl'1S tt t e ct :ePv`n4deE is z z t- z , : 0 GL L G: `—e— a,43 -eal\, 9uN.Rilt7 t Fee tfif A V V-1v 1\ t-`~f V' . V-N ttt Lis k3efefi-C-1:13'hi+su "Q tur1p»y et-`aart' f 9uleuem t- to :: F c t ezl� f1900ktaOflN9t -EM 0 V/ iv.. 1-4 1•131-9 9tt'98st 5-Lsi ZOfSt6 \-tti 6 £S-t '`uOOIIa6 H=8 . ! 0 f-e i-ft t-§ O it tGtEEt E xlV• zutvuejd L,S D( 1— Ot t-iz Z 9:lu+wit "I tf 9 HSSSi:28 -Vi!c 560.065 459•1.1 t't t tct EBEt i %7211' D\IN1.� 7d t1O.I �']A.L9ftS t`8 'tnz3 e ?JE3 Ie•ur+{V &milrl1 m:1ur_.wie8-419- 0 0! tettertc ^rP3 F i 1E•\ e"!d Letette npd 5u1•lueld ii i C V\' +al}tC `&fltIUEld 6 ! ! 0--L-T" 6-' t-Z 0t ti 0 3t D ! eol�. r11UH2eff9 'u1:wehi �ctvt 1 jeU ,_ °UIUIJP 7 L e °'V J71U'3 a1e3 PP93 `mutt:id C- I-POJV ettgS} U Wilt °wUtreid I e I`. K„u,?3 .IE3 -ieu w ,. !?UGHE. RN ?RRiIEI,t, 111MU?93OIU,1 11Y'i 8 1 ezl�UIUlteld Cletu (CO( :^q -w:11 st IV ae+uuetd 60'OGS 9c7; ii9'Ztl L Le; 's -GetttRt68fi91N z arty 16 '1733 ¢s'3� �� 1, lest. _line - e-ri -'J �-t�:t -ssruJ "ait- „+x+11111 iHe+xxrois� na(7- - ' *3 +Rt3 tnnwand Lit_ n {. rc+eY3 s+ettsr x s, N1st 3753 -7I' iNgtel S3S.7 71 TZ:43(IflJtWMf 343-1. , JY' fi• e , e , - , , , e .. .'3ISt7t iV'l 7t JIZSIZ t,LS 4't'7J3S,7 al' {'7 C 37x11 suogein6ej essnnejjguewdoianea pue esn puel • c JeidegQ uetd esnewuetd ogoadS ui ;snl Sb'ow sc-t, abed u.snl fo Attu o .■9±f 88t`8Wt S9 B^ S9L`tt€ net tIN €SS' tat 8- eeolt3t0ax�taxao�n\'yoians t0 9=8f 98f O£ 99l i.9 Y GI P.aly tllL'Heft er aiz:.=v cr 0 HI tlt t 1 t f "91 b'LZ L"9t €'9t 09f c.iL'OZc G8Z'L9 68t E9 ON 9Se 110 1 IIO'18z thIIi+eeiI L }e^�y3eicueid 06VYLZ O£I'98t 91 eziy °atuvefd 3 QOOI (il0IIH013' 0 - il£'SS tieier35'a8 *72 086'SL[`I t 1. £'Ltl 3-000H1108H013 \219;11F',LO.L8i s 088th1 cyi?Pue1 -ang a"s (t6Zy}- S'88 ftf'RR ti,',:'L9i t 6Zt-i 8 OOO111IOIIHOI3�'1 tt8 SZ Z €L'6Z£ O Z Stt€ LtS'tt * 6LZ'tSt`-t -WM. 1 atXtfihto8HO13h $OA 1\'.LO.Laf}S sPmRu ei :+g cMepuewjo?5 =rg^imPNS -P.S O� 1'S 19 OOt 0 0L8 819 etE t£-t ` !t0a'+e}}ias �J 1 1 eet\' uIUUr;d y-49}t t-£t . 11'Z £1='c Ltt'Z£t'Z £'6= SL, G•",'1 P ?�icll\' ?�8 £I rqa-1-V iucteld pt, itt 0'Ot s'R9 919 ',n'[1 096=9t9H- � 0 6' a6 trt t't6 ?gin Pa• as ?L' &e U%R ld O OOOHRIO IIHOIB\ 0 tZ6'8L 890'951 S•tS S'tS \YK Z66'tLS \' / ::: •:. - • .• - e ; Stb fit i7.0 SL 890 6t i66 bte 91'0 9 eary..wuuefd 3 <lOOl12l08IIOI3�t • (; bSI ` a W-V t-wee, Dee'.. ulrami- 9 ('rJ ar{�oa/ Mytaitf vft/ + tae M Q tls?a% emraynernrsa0 l • � d r -E t t a\ "04` .. . 7t7.L, \'3Q /53S 333f37t'ILh'3�7/53U.\ :\'t • 7i JI.LSL.0 t I S ,VI 7J 3S,7 t«OOH#OWIJ!2Jh' A Z! .4 t'9,Y0 SJS'i 1 r; £37vi suo! ;ein6eJ esneupuewdolenea pue esn puei . e dajdeyo L1-E abed ugsnl 30 fro ue'd asnes'ueId ayioedS ugsnj S7ov *.cwa W- -uuft.,,,ecn- ;ii- x+t.,-pxw .-xe .eey- pa.ty�p.eHe,- e�m>ee uii-k fu+ra}ea- y`y'3'oyi- 'a1fiwaHAAe I: c£01P-p thN ttettc tl'ry++ f_ptP`{rt- c"?rrti:urutretct- finds! cfp.: 4a%,a?ee-r.ukrue}d-ttiSitp-lej c O 1R iG?!1- iq-ftm s -1/2'- t"4411 EPA' 'uuuretr} io}4tiaesn'+. -e:ua-6 worm} t}, otfHat -sgepuetc-tuawcicln.vap-a'ije osr-wtay3ttisnlen -cp4tr rielos9m -vup ioAnsoilmci- itg- aaevant ue}d -e try ;• 7. �0,.- Fad I ?^". a ∎" ''T M .'r ' a4t' t ' ^ • £ Jd� Arta �t tt„ :,b an$O put a n '1 �?,.at�B� �tyttS�,N 6d Fart S` y PUe tsxt`kY 'e'+t eab � n4 wdo� ■ a as�a��Ua suo��e� n� a Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations LAND USE PLAIN/STATISTIC-IL TABLE 3 2 NEIGHBORHOOD USES ANALYSIS' ORGANIZED BY NON-RESIDENTIAL Desi natlnn /Plrr)mnr LArea ACREAGE RL.SIDF_rVTIAL USES !'r ns's Net h';1 R local Floor DU's Total Area , S'r _Ft� l'z Per Acre DU's " NEIGHBORIHOODA Planning Area 1 100 10.0 10.0 0.3 1.412.651 Planning Area 1 A Elementary School 10.0 Panning Area 1 D Law 1.nlorcement frond n e 10 2.4 11 9 15 .0 18.5 1 0 2.4 19 15.0 I1.9 56.5 I0.0 hducauonal Anatol Can, Center Planning Area 1 C. Children's Care Shelter Planning Area 1 D Child Can. Center Planning Area 1 E I du 1..1 00al Planning Area 1 1 I :dueat ona1 Planning Area 1 (i Other 56.5 1040 Planning Arca 1 H I.(111cat mead Planning Area 1 ] Educational 1 nw Enforcement frmn ire, Animal Care Center SUBTOTAI FOR PLANNING AREA 1 ® 12.4._7 Ni SMIIIIMIMI t 2Planning I i3 19d 0 Planning Area 2.(Convnunrty ParkZ 24 1 24 1 5 1 _6 0. 0 Planning Area 3 5 1 SURTO7 lL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD I. 157.5 153.9 NIA l 586.476 - 0 0 NEIGHBORHOOD B Planning Area 4 54.2 43.t See Standards N/A 7 15 N/A 304 671 Low Density (I 7 du /as) Planninr_ Arca 5 51 7 41.4 19.0 N/A 248.292 Medium Density (8 15 du /as Planning Area 7 20 7 Sec Allowed Uses SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD B 126.6 - 103.8 - - N/A 925 NE1011BORI000D C 54.5 84.5 0.16 514.992 SUBTOTAI FOR NEIGHBORHOOD C 84.5 84,5 N/A 574 992 N/A 0 NEIGHI30RHOOD O Planning Area 8. 13, 14 202.8 15_4.0 72.0 See Standards 4.757279 1 25 Sce Allowed Uses Park' 72.0 High School 10.0 109 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD D 314.8 266.0 N/A 4,757,279 125 891 Nh,IGHBORH000 E Planning Areas 9 12 88.3 73 449 Ser. Standards 1267 324 Sce Allowed Uses Park3 29.0 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD E 117 3 102 4 Sce Standards 1.267,324 0 0 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 19 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations TIBLE3 2 LAND USE PLAN .ST I TISTICAL 4 NVAL YS IS ORGANIZED B1' NEIGHBORHOOD Desi'uation /Planrurr Area ACRI_ IGL ;VOA RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Gross Vet Total Hoar DUts Tots! F;t.R I'" Area S'i Ft. Per Acre DU'sla Nh161IBOREJOOD F Planting Area 16. 17, 19 859 16 7 102.6 127 42 .88 14.5 97 3 1528 10.0 0.4 0.35 I4J2.707 40.846__ N/A 0 Planning Area 18 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD b N/A 1,483,553 NL1611I3ORHUOD G Planning Area 1'5 Sec Standards 166.637 1.214 376 793 Residential — Sec Allowed Uses Low Density 117 du/act 10.0 29.3 Median Densts (8 I du /act Medium High Density (16 25 du /act Planning Area 15 School Planning Area 15 Sec Allowed Uses 26.8 Plano ink Area 15 Park' 59.0 79.1 59.0 23.5 115.0 Planning Arca 20 Residential— Sec Allowed 1 ises I ow Density (1 7 du /act 127.1 Planning Area 21 Instill Residential — See Allowed Uses Low Density (1 7 du /ac} SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ( 127 5 394.1 N/A 466.637 NM 22 383 NE161113ORHOQD li Planning Area 22 73.1 73.4 610 61 0 - 15 102 - N/A N/A Medium Densilem ts (8 15 du /ac) Elementary School itB Nci2hhorhnod Park SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD II NIA 102 RI(din OP WAY Roadways 173.4 128.5 D Drama c I•Iard Control Storm Drains] 28.5 5 28.5 SUBTOTAL FOR RIGHT OF WAY 201 9 201.9 N/A N/% 0 0 TOTALS. 1 606.1 1 464 9 N/A 30.384.553 N/A 4.601 • - c . r . n ay c runs crre renveen arming. Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in averall Spccd+c Plan execrator ant density bonus Lr;cnted. Lonsistent with authorized uses wit un each neighborhood esch:mgcs of suuarc. fomages between n proved land uses in the Non Residential Lind 11senrut Budget may be Approved subject to review and approval c f the Iota! Mawcneration Ior a ncighhorbood. 3, _ Pprk nersage may he transferred between Planning Areas And /or Neighborhoods provided that such Iransler does not increase the total units or square footages allowable in the overall Sp ci fie flan escenlbr any density honustranted City of Tustin Page 3 -20 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan veld esned/ueld oy/oeds ullsnl SV3IN ZZ c abed upsnl /o utZSns, SVDYAI jo asnag pun itsodsia agl ao3 uodag laudwt Igluatuuonnug/luawalg4S laedtut Igluaunronnug aql wog panuap sr uoiwwiojut sna la2png dus alp jo ued lou am inq 'Apo uogzuuojut so3 untogs DIP sasn muuaptsag iciv paimaosse alp pug '(Z £ pug 1 E. salgr ITEaad 2utuumld ,fq poogiogg2iau gaga of paWaottg sasn tEquaptsat -uou 3o a2uloo3 aaenbs agl sazugwums gargm `la2png du j, 14411 ut inniivalii u.s8oirs si uuut 2843. pooipogg2iau gaea IT piu ImId autaads agl uppun sasn Izguaplsai -uou map pawaaua2 saav jo Jaqumu aql uo uuut wnuuxgw e jo luawgsggelsa strelua wals,fs atu sasn Igquaplsat -uou SOAJOAur 40114M foafoad luawdojanap gaga jo suoq ag-dwr ag3Ea1 atp uo uodaa pug Joltuow o1 ustd agroadg sup 3o Ind sE pagsgqulsa sr walsAS 2untogaj la2png duy u `AUaudga AEMpuot jo Auttqupgng am a2uUEw of Japao ut poogaogq2tau Aq sasn tEquaprsai -uou jo Ausualut pug llmowe aql to1luoo hugs poogxogq2lau Aq laZpnq dul agl `JanamoH uofRJlsnnwpg jo asea ao3 Atuo suazy 8mmu Id o1 pamoottg Jaqun3 uaaq sett xrw snty pawunisa sea uEtd ayl jo lnoptmq lE pawaaua2 aq ptnonm lggl sdul jo mqumu aql 'Sam uorwaaua2 oSpx paumssg 2u1sfl poogaogg2rau toga Jo3 (ZQv) sduf Apgp a2gaang suogeineeN esnednuewdoIenea pus esn pue-j • c Ja ;deyo € it mi. tutai a:.tyott.J.suit f -4 itwq .: ak tLG'S E'SI' - -- 11111111.11.1C t ff6't i S't t I -fgt i"ft)t -- 9tifit -- :ISi 06S Sti slit feiDtaeuwe)-kt!"nur"K'3 pegeetIv 7ufseaq -i ttrag f f06-, Rft r'lff to'I V /FlC1 cc. mi-ilfttftk 9S1)=1 Zt-t fiff to-LW/111 SI S) 21Cfik tiff ft lift paitae fSefift OS' t• t19C ftct f10 tot?V /RCISI SYd @t1 wee! Stt rift (4*J VtfiC1 L f) 21Cfi II CIOOfitifltltfDfit t tttttf -_ -- :,.k mei:..pail uJ \'poegaoq S-9-ft1't1 -- Tt5.1 `,. i"T7. f ^t i t n : • : rte I61 tNOE311 f - stt &M-tt .).-ueit t6f'1 t=t--f 41215V HS Ind Sri S' MEC 1!I4 " te1 /Stt;f `t-t 1 fett - -_ -- SW: l6 t Off') c .(Mt tSL-E rE$t`L -- :1g1, tilwatatito zyi c+tt+HgOti Wet th961 -- 1S-j- fa- -datum 'zuttw!aj t-f �-Ogty Uri 9£=1-1- -- :t5t tan:") pryto-ii<'ttttyrutuiea't ff-t fit 8509 -- 1St (*'1te11S--414 u] PlitIS l3- ut[HK"t `?1 ft6 9f-tit 1gt ftattt, -em.-i ivattuVftr,',tuaaiefug mu Hattie - Huiea9 t-t :ILt s a'ItOt -- 1ST (J ttNi+atu,'f- titeki 9f-f "] tHE - -- fiiS ftfutl'S etppft\HFieluatue( 1 V-i V-CtOOt itIOt t91'tN sly /Aiifl7 //f/ St{ff-' }/N101111/ Fm/f1 Mot aNt3 -aafro A=1 q3/44- fh1ft' imiria)?M'ay -N(11: £ .indip;flf ?pmw guntifP/d -tt3iflHdun J-38-F-,3Ntlh fld 1= £-Ii9NI21 utZSns, SVDYAI jo asnag pun itsodsia agl ao3 uodag laudwt Igluatuuonnug/luawalg4S laedtut Igluaunronnug aql wog panuap sr uoiwwiojut sna la2png dus alp jo ued lou am inq 'Apo uogzuuojut so3 untogs DIP sasn muuaptsag iciv paimaosse alp pug '(Z £ pug 1 E. salgr ITEaad 2utuumld ,fq poogiogg2iau gaga of paWaottg sasn tEquaptsat -uou 3o a2uloo3 aaenbs agl sazugwums gargm `la2png du j, 14411 ut inniivalii u.s8oirs si uuut 2843. pooipogg2iau gaea IT piu ImId autaads agl uppun sasn Izguaplsai -uou map pawaaua2 saav jo Jaqumu aql uo uuut wnuuxgw e jo luawgsggelsa strelua wals,fs atu sasn Igquaplsat -uou SOAJOAur 40114M foafoad luawdojanap gaga jo suoq ag-dwr ag3Ea1 atp uo uodaa pug Joltuow o1 ustd agroadg sup 3o Ind sE pagsgqulsa sr walsAS 2untogaj la2png duy u `AUaudga AEMpuot jo Auttqupgng am a2uUEw of Japao ut poogaogq2tau Aq sasn tEquaprsai -uou jo Ausualut pug llmowe aql to1luoo hugs poogxogq2lau Aq laZpnq dul agl `JanamoH uofRJlsnnwpg jo asea ao3 Atuo suazy 8mmu Id o1 pamoottg Jaqun3 uaaq sett xrw snty pawunisa sea uEtd ayl jo lnoptmq lE pawaaua2 aq ptnonm lggl sdul jo mqumu aql 'Sam uorwaaua2 oSpx paumssg 2u1sfl poogaogg2rau toga Jo3 (ZQv) sduf Apgp a2gaang suogeineeN esnednuewdoIenea pus esn pue-j • c Ja ;deyo Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations F 48L6.i st PLAAVIN6, I RE 1 TRIP- 86'D6CT , Planning Residentinl/Ptrflrs Mm- Re,NrievNirrf ,freft-Nor Lund Use-Category LJ;I# -NIWNHN rIDTs - Ifrwxnl AD-I% Neighborhoodl -Wfr4p R et T-otn4 8,971 NEIGI-I43OR44QO1) C Gommmtity- Ginionereial TSI1 574 3:928 6 Regicmal -Bark ACRES 844 423 I2:1-fr+ rip- BudgeFFel. 4 :3,920 Neighbethood-C-Square-Footuge Total 113E 5-7,5 NeigblwFhood- G—Tr.p Budget -Tots} 3;920 NRICI-1130441400D 1) 1.41e4.1--School 5+41 1.850 3-313 Neighborhood Commcreiu 4iS411 65419 7.315 General -Office =TSF 207 2.717 ,+ O€fee Bark '44;11- h-3 &3:8 4144.80 industrial -Tuk :FSF 319.51 34(}3 Park :WIG:- 184 52 Sports -Pork AGRE 46 2.173 PA 8 Trip - Budget 2Tota1 14176 2& 187 MI40R (I6 25 DUl.lere3 IN4 894 5 -907 14ote44380L48I14 ROOM 500 1.115 Neighhe+heed- Qenirnereial :FS!' 9:7-6 1.091 - Gerunuurity- Cemmereial TSF 1474 7)98 4 43 General-Office :1 SF -1442 24;065 Park AQR1e 42-9 (r5 I3eakh Club :118F 30 938 Iligh Turnover Rcslauranl 484z 4-2 1.526 - Pr1-13 Trip - Budget -Total 2,(16046 35r769 C. omnumity- t:emmercia4 4;S11. - 14,14 73-7 General - Office TSIZ 436:9 -848 14 Office Park T,SF 547 5;645 Theetr (25 TSF) S44111: +7000 +350 }4{gh- ernever R...aaurant =},S8 6 763 P.1 11 Trip- Bu'.lget "Total 72641- }n„ Neighborhood-D Square- Footage-Total '-f-S-12 446287 iNeigItbor -{toad- 134-rip- 8udgeEFotat 7 089 NEIGHBORHOOD-E, Industrial Park 48F 4444 14/2 9 park 4Q1-W 1,4 6 PA 9 Trip- Budget=Totel 44:64 1.012 General- 011iee :186 456 -83 24344 +8 kulustrial Park :f$4 1.2444 4-469 Park AGIW 14 7 P-A- 10'4rip -1 tal et=Tofa1 28443 3484 Neighborheo4- Cummereia4 '418111 1&43 2;028 General-Office TSF 371.89 1.935 14 041iee -Park ;SP 278.78 2,661 Industrial Park TSF 138,52 24103 Rule ACRE 2-54 430 PA 11 Trip- Budget Total 807.32 41628 Office Park TSF 43 117 4484 PA 12 Trip- Budget -Total 13117 1,281 Neighborhood E Square-Footage=TotnI 'TSF 1267.33 Neighborhood414Trip- Budget -T1 tal 47,833 I _ MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -23 o: 5 111 _ oc 7 t-.FF a< V�nY .L _r4M -.� �h s •-� to IiIuirI i J' }w -0 ;jj4jj z � .-4 -4 � 9 /F •xi q 0 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations City of Tustin Page 3 24 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan TAN F1d JabttNNING TRIP /2(D6F7- -AIWA Riaatrt+ra rtreffah. i tse C-ateg Limes Resieientiaiii2ortes Non- Restttcnttat Ante rtt -(--TS Amount rfi;Fs -aiert rry N6IG4443041419013-2r Silo- ping Cam 9 884< -- 148 13472 l 46 Tri Rae • et4ot64 - -- 448 13 -722 1-7 Sho 'nf- €..utter 65;4 -- 47 11.111.14-5 1d P.t 17 Tri 3 4udget - Total _— 4.3 1- 444 ,Mi4i(nr}' (Otlicc4 C£,F 10:8 -5 542 P-A -18 Tri Butt • et -Total - -- •11448 5-42 (-9 C.etneF PSI:- (35.6 13,394 435,6 13,394 bhoy. in-- Multi lc I4 eak -(- 0 -[1744 4-41 -- 3,.500 17,300 11A- -9-Frt . ud • et -4401 4281 305.6 19 691 Neiahborhee - titre- 400tnee -Total 481• -- -E444.45 Netgltbor3toe44-14 --Fri 4Atdget -Fot+d - - -- 45040 NE144443RU44OD 44- 18 1441444 7 DU/ !ere) 4414 533 5402 MDR (8 I5 Dl3,44ere) Dot 487 3413 ‘14-41412-446:--25-171 1C-re) 00 492 1-2-73 hlenentary /tvhddle- Seheel STU 62(48 4.-22 -4 {:ql. -- 2-6,68 -_'-983 E-antalthnit' C-- etaFnere04 1241 -- 14468 8:908 PSI -- 4 3 {)T244. 1 091 (- ,enlraI Office P. I. AGRI, 49 249 S• it>r- Conecegate 1k}: -- (-44 788 158.99 _ 46643 1924) — 16cl - -S5 T x>us -PaT4T AE,RI. IeA- t5-41n 11101 t. Total - -- 20 M(- DR4-1 -2- - 4314,11cre) DU 376 2-193 2-4 171414-(-1- 7-- 1)Nklcrz) 40 489 17809 — MDR (8 15- 4141 :1cri) 013. 4(r5 3.720 Neiahborheod -C -S unre -14)964.e-Fotel FSl -- —_— 16663 4-t,845`- _ Nei_hborhoed- 6- Fri,R0414-fet -feta4 N140141301Z t 10017 -14 22 1,1414. 1! 7 DU /Mere) 1)0 166 1 -589 MDR-(8 I5 DUh1ere4 1444 244 -6944 It-letnentar' /1Iiddle- Seheel STU 680 6(4 Net• thovhoot14l -S 0.ure400t •e -Total 434• -- 0 P4- eeahborbet0414 -Tr4 - Rutlaet- T-4001 - - -ere net -1nn Spec41 -- 010-nun- 0 tell- 4H'.dge8 the e ' - 14esedennal- and- parl-uses- are- Shew.Hf Inlfrttlntt13nn4purpiccs 2 Q-Spec `e—Plan- Amendment, the tln(y-end of rquafe-feetage-and-o4lewable the 2010- 01 resith. l:d ADT s withir re.u!t b9CCCO of -t4tc 261 amount -s4tc went up 3c Win•'-. a4e-:a SOCCCD site as a result -of :o ^ear ^.^:,..e:c C_tcgory hav beer- tran,fcrrcd fror^ the Ncrghbefheed to Section 3 Z 1 fhe Public Wo Ps Department able-3-3a Specific ADT' s- lerate4- with4e- the- P4ei"'•'`s..w, al SOCCCD ADT's) Pursuant and.C-eImmunity category to the site (250 -2evelelime0W4epart . - - it . . .. • _ • e4opment- er- kg- feeteflgina4ly -shewst- fer?4eighbor- hoed- femmerfie4+sses frem- Gammefeiat-land cmfen Tktis s04111-4a-per-t4041-ef-theallowab4e by the NI amount - of -ADT'r aseae:eage .and use category not indudc 6,220 P DT's. Hov every Plan and-a 4 ransfcr will re being reduced io fhe SOCCCD Z7 120 -sQwrc transferred +5shewn ' Ehe-N eighbetHeed- -se-€ tcgory it is - • hesastln ticighbofheed of 1,3x9,535 site. o .eparate-tand- -F. Comm crcial w18eMdee: to -in that a - - • #or • - • : to the deve epmeat3aflperted- The AD. u et wi,,-be-suftretent - va•i- : footages -and AOT's as geed 3.3.2A. for use restric *.ion; total fhe cow:puare e Sce5ection 6 ^lots the mdividaa.4tes-nete4 above a r7axinetifwsgeare-feo4age - - eeemmedate y up City of Tustin Page 3 24 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations 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. They are highlighted -in 'fable 3 3 The Community Development Department and Public Works Department shall maintain a current Trip Budget Tracking form depicting the maximum square footage of non - residential development in each neighborhood. The form shall specify the assumed square footage of commercial, office, institutional and other non - residential uses which have been assigned to each neighborhood. In addition, the form shall specify the amount of square footage approved for development with the equivalent ADTs assigned to a development, and amount of ADT's available for remaining development or available for transfer to another neighborhood. The information shall be further allocated to each Planning Area based on =Fable- 3-3the Trip Budget maintained by the City for administration purposes only The essential requirement is to document ADT status as it is impacted by each development project so that sufficient roadway capacity remains to accommodate later projects. The following information will provide additional clarification for purposes of implementing the Trip Budget Tracking System. in Calculation of ADTs on Parcels: The calculation of ADTs assigned to a parcel will occur upon approval of a site plan, or design approval for new development, or submittal of an application for building permits, whichever occurs first. Refinements to calculations can be made at the building permit stage where square footage changes are proposed to a development. • Calculation of ADTs for Multiple Use Developments: In a development containing more than one use, ADTs shall be calculated by multiplying the total square footage for each use by the respective trip generation rates and adding the ADTs for each land use on a parcel to derive the total ADTs for a project. • 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 Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -25 4BL.fi 3 / TRIP/TUDGLT -4+VAIRC,I -RE1 Nanning Mtea him L`se- C'rnegany Ctnih R • ltlenliaYPafks ,Von- Residential Atnenni rlDTs 4+110+mt rtD-Th jVo. 4abk 3 2 In the SpeEire-Pita • - -tat of 1,912,651 Hrthin PI r. ,.g Area 1, provided sech T c 3 3 as ada*in ttrativcly adju•tcd as it relates to the Tustin Faci _ -... footage is also s in the .,quarc 44aaaing- _ Afee-la5- eted above. Depending upon any use.. pr posed on able3 3 may need to-be adju_ted with-a ,a*-Antendeent -and a modification. 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. They are highlighted -in 'fable 3 3 The Community Development Department and Public Works Department shall maintain a current Trip Budget Tracking form depicting the maximum square footage of non - residential development in each neighborhood. The form shall specify the assumed square footage of commercial, office, institutional and other non - residential uses which have been assigned to each neighborhood. In addition, the form shall specify the amount of square footage approved for development with the equivalent ADTs assigned to a development, and amount of ADT's available for remaining development or available for transfer to another neighborhood. The information shall be further allocated to each Planning Area based on =Fable- 3-3the Trip Budget maintained by the City for administration purposes only The essential requirement is to document ADT status as it is impacted by each development project so that sufficient roadway capacity remains to accommodate later projects. The following information will provide additional clarification for purposes of implementing the Trip Budget Tracking System. in Calculation of ADTs on Parcels: The calculation of ADTs assigned to a parcel will occur upon approval of a site plan, or design approval for new development, or submittal of an application for building permits, whichever occurs first. Refinements to calculations can be made at the building permit stage where square footage changes are proposed to a development. • Calculation of ADTs for Multiple Use Developments: In a development containing more than one use, ADTs shall be calculated by multiplying the total square footage for each use by the respective trip generation rates and adding the ADTs for each land use on a parcel to derive the total ADTs for a project. • 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 Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -25 Chapter 3 • 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 of 1) consistency with the base case mix of uses (Table 3 specified for the Planning Area(s), 2) the proportion of the neighborhood trip budget projected to be consumed by the project, and 3) the ability to ensure availability of ADT capacity for subsequent projects within a neighborhood Adjustments to the amount, intensity, or mix of uses may occur if consistent with the Specific Plan and if desired by the City, as long as sufficient traps remain to accommodate remaining development potential in a neighborhood on parcels where development proposals have not been submitted • Trip Budget Transfers between Neighborhoods. Where available ADT's from the trap budget remain for an undeveloped parcel(s) within a neighborhood, the transfer of the ADTs to another neighborhood shall not occur without the authorization of the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels within the contributing neighborhood agreeing to the transfer This approval shall be in the form of an agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney prior to approval of the transfer All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Tnp Budget Tracking System II Establishment of Trip Generation Rates: Tnp generation rates for estimating the number of vehicle traps that will be generated for land uses in the Specific Plan are included m the MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study Since traffic generation rates may vary over time, those used in the Traffic Report may be updated periodically subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The methodology for calculating site trips in the MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study shall be used for update purposes 3 2.5 Transfer between Residential and Non - Residential Residential dwellmg units and Non - residential ADTs may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus granted pursuant to the City Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing (Density Bonus) Ordinance, and that the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels within the contnbutmg neighborhood consent in wasting to the transfer This approval shall be in the form of an agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney pnor to approval of the transfer All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Tnp Budget Tracking System City of Tustin Page 3 -26 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations PLANNING 1 AREA 3.3.2 Planning Areas 1 -A, 1 -B, 1 -C, 1 -D, 1 -E, 1 -F, 1 -G, 1- H, and 1-1 (Education Village) The purpose and intent of the Education Village designation is as described in Section 2.2.1, Land Use Designations. A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs, or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs. • Animal care center (in PA 1 -B or in PA 1 -I as shown in P Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -I) • Children's intermediate care shelter (only in PA 1 -C as P shown in Figure 3 -1) • Churches or other religious institutions C Government Facilities P • Law enforcement training facility (in PA 1 -B or in PA 1 -1 P as shown in Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -I) • Nursery school or child care center P • Public school, community college, educational campus or P other educationally oriented uses • Private school C 11. Prohibited Uses • Jail Facilities • Sexually- oriented businesses C. Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted use on the same site and would include: • Guard houses, gates and other security facility structures • Industrial/commercial business incubators (start -ups) • Laboratories and office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing and consulting • Maintenance facilities, structures, outdoor storage CO of Tustin Page 3 -29 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations PLANNING 16 AREA PLANNING 17 AREA • Simulation development uses P • Software design uses P • Technology exchange /transfer service P • Utility buildings and facilities C • Warehouse and sales outlet P 2 Offices • General offices for advertising agency, economic consultant, insurance companies, escrow companies, intenor decorator, real estate, public utilities, personnel agency, management consultant, collection agency . Medical clinics • Medical offices/healthcare centers • Professional offices for architect, accountant, attorney, chiropractor, contractor, dentist, doctor, engineer, optometnst, land planner, and other similar professions 3. Public /institutional uses • Govcrnmc,nt lac.illhcs Retail commercial uses • Building matenal yards, secured • Building supply • Delicatessen/cafetena • Department store • Home improvement store • Nursery • Office supplies and equipment • Wholesale stores and storage within a building • Other retail commercial uses identified as permitted in Section 3 8 3 4 ., _ _Service commercial uses, including incidental retail sales . Banks and financial institutions • Emergency care facility • Outdoor storage, secured • Photography studio, laboratory • Pnnt/reprographics shop • Recreational vehicle and boat storage • Restaurant, family, specialty, and fast food without drive thru • Telephone answenng services • Other service commercial uses either conditionally P P P P C P P P P P P P P P P C P P C P P C/P City of Tustin Page 3 96 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan 7.00 p.m. Given None Approved MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2013 CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION /PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Commissioner Moore ROLL CALL. Present: Chair �'�� „ Chai4 o er�'Thompson C and Moore Absent: mmissioner Eck 11 PUBLIC C2NCCCERNS CONSENT 6,ti DpAR: PPROVv, L OF /,4,NUTG > DECEMBER 11, 2012, / PLANNIN 0OM S j I,ON ROMMEN ' TION: �; /�,�i ei iEyninp.�Commission `mber i42f12, meeting as 2. 012 CERTIFIED w0� PO RIP A / Certified Local Government Annual Report summarizes �l�e City's historic preservation efforts and describes how the City met all of the minimum requirements of the Certified Local Government program during the 2011/2012 reporting period. The Annual Report will be transmitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation by January 31, 2013. LOCAL approve the minutes of the provided. GOVERNMENT ANNUAL RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission direct staff to forward the Annual Report to the State Office of Historic Preservation. Minutes — Planning Commission January 22, 2013 — Page 1 of 4 Motion. The Consent Calendar was moved in two motions, as Commissioner Moore was required to abstain on the vote to approve the minutes due to his absence at the December 11 2012, meeting. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Altowaiji, to approve the Minutes. Motion carried 3 -0 -1 with Commissioner Moore abstaining, and Commissioner Eckman absent. It was moved by Thompson, seconded by Altowaiji, to approve the CLG Report. Motion carried 4 -0. Chair Kozak called for a recesj restore the audio connection within the Council Chamber The Commission recesse %% The Commission reco. ed at 7. PUBLIC HEARING // Noo42 5Resolution 3. NO'S 't �MCAS tt$,S ECIFIC tP? (ORDINANCE pThe os W endmGr will not "substantially alter' the current a ptei� Tug *Specific Plan and is intended 1) city g (a e, l(mplify and update current ific P�� ngua tables, and regulations; 2) ement th • ity Council- approved disposition strategy, %��ect ret ply approved entitlements, and 3) make er m3 texy.or exhibit/graphic improvements to the 4 A. Tus ,Specific Plan. The proposed Amendment is ��' cor J ent with the current overall development potential, 9 UQ *intent'ttand /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS �-� 'y' stin S�'j�Lcific Plan. 4 0% VIRONMENTAL. e. /en environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Attached to Resolution No. 4215). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed refinement would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS /EIR, Addendum and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. Minutes — Planning Commission January 22, 2013 — Page 2 of 4 RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4215 recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No 1426 approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2012- 002, implementing text amendments to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Commissioner Moore recused himself from the public hearing due to owning property within the proposed MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. Ogdon Gave a presentation of the jt Commission questionsnerally indi'd: changes to the residential and non- residentia)a ps�table base new development in the area; and clarity ofiggie attachments to tlioprdinance which will be recommended for Cif Souncil approval. Kozak Motion: The publi <G 9 opene !closed at 7:28 p.rF1. Stated the Sjesoificit,,Amenditie9t updates given this evening are ve and sisterlt� th t eneral Plan, with the City ccr�ri e/ Dispos�tio S��apnd (t there is not an increase in �e total is or ais le square45otage in the Specific Plan. Itaa ved by f�3rnpson, seconded by Altowaiji, to adopt / Rea "yris1644$5. vpn carried 3 -0 -1 with Commissioner Moore d„ bstainit and Co Ywr�issioner Eckman absent. REGPLAR BtSINESS. Received and 4 ,IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT YEAR IN VIEW2012. The Community Development Department 2012 Year in Review summarizes the Community Development Department's activity throughout 2012 including discretionary permits processed and approved (i.e. Conditional Use Permits, Design Reviews, Subdivision Maps, etc.), major accomplishments for various functional areas within the Department, Code Enforcement activities, and Building Division activities. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission receive and file the report. Minutes — Planning Commission January 22, 2013 — Page 3 of 4 DiLeva- Johnson Gave the Year in Review presentation. Kozak Motion: Commission questions generally included when construction will commence on 170 and 195 El Camino Real and 125 West First; and statistics for building valuations from prior years. The Director described the information contained within the Building Division Activity Summary attachment to the report. Thanked staff for the informative presentation. It was moved by Altowaiji, second by Thompson, to receive and file the item. Motion carried 4 -0 None STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONQSNS: Altowaiji • Wished everycyte Happy New Ye%d stated it's good to be back. Moore S j Stat" 4t7'e >'s looking yard to working with the Commission • in the e tt ��, Thompson ',Murray OC 4,001 ' en s4dvisory Meeting where Mayor ///M�urray 9S, w n �oard. Stated there was positive ne is at the Veing in ffat 78,000 hours of service were resro d for thei routes; ncl the 1 Joaquin Hills and Foothill Eastern aw anspo of <rilt Corndor meeting where Mayor Pro Tem CK°�j�,,� Puckett as sworn in; ��/ • ttet the Rose Parade and stated it offers steep mpe if pn to the parades in Tustin; res • Ajended an Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting Nra, ,tere they said farewell to Supervisor Campbell. Kozak • /Thanked staff for all their hard work on this evening's items and throughout the year Looks forward to working with staff in the new year • Commented on the news article in the Tustin News on Huell Howser's passing and his prior visit to Tustin; • Stated there is a new Police Foundation in Tustin. 7:57 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way Minutes — Planning Commission January 22, 2013 — Page 4 of 4 Attachment 3 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 No 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 Exhibit A (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 Ordinance No 1426 SPA 2012 -002 (MCAS Tustin) Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY OF TUSTIN ORDINANCE NO 1426 JEFFREY C PARKER City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5, that the above and foregoing Ordinance No 1426 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 19th day of February, 2013 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2013 by the following vote COUNCILMEMBER AYES COUNCILMEMBER NOES COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT JEFFREY C PARKER City Clerk Published. Exhibit A Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations • ' ,_.. ,ISTI AL,4N,1 TABLE 1 1 .. a . ION -_ . . !'. • .. ! • • • ' • AC-REA-GE • .. '. ! _. — . . 1 RESIDEA'TIAL USES Gress -} Net 2 -1 3 Area (Sq. Ft) 4 Lxisling-HseF i rea . -5 Area-(Sq.-F0-6 Dbas Per Acre $ 4"etsl D U's a RES18EA'TIA -6- 1 o . Derr....). (1 •7 drain ) Planning Area 4 51.2 434 N/A N/A N/A 7 304 Planning Area 21 Tustin 127 1 115,0 N/A N/A 4-1 793 N A Planning Area 5'" 5-1-7 4-IA. N/A NIA 44 624 1•1!.‘ oian.,,n, rea 22 si Elementary School L 8 T.' 1#14,n.1.nod Da. 49 73.4 61.(1 NIA N/A N/A -1-5 402 n1. nnine prep 20 29.4 23.5 N/A N/A 25 3-76 NIA Planning Area 3 54 54 01i 133.294 8541 -5 48,079 0 0 Rcs den..el r„_.. Planning Area 15 4 Low Density (1 7 du /ac) 442:6 101.3 N A N/A 4s#A 3 534 Medium Density (8 15 du'ac) 54-8 47.8 N/A N/A 44 4&9 i Medium High Density (16 25 du/ac) 8,3 7-7 N/A N/A N/A 25 4-92 4 4-0 4-0 N/A N/A NIA N Parks and Open Space 44 59 5-9 NIA N/A N/A N=A N=-4 Subtotal, Residential Core. PA 15 241 7 228.8 844B-TOTAL 882,6 518.3 N/A 133,293 83,43 48 -,0-79 ? 374-0 Planning Aria 9 12 88:3 29 117.3 734 2.9 102.4 See Stands 88,344 1 178.980 0 1,267,324 ' •• . _ lannt =b re 16 31 0 27-9 04 486,130 206.640 2- 79.490 0 Planning Area 17 16.3 16.3 04 284414 63.289 0 220 722 Commercial Planning 48 -1-6:7 4-0-5 045 407846 40:846 0 0 Planning Area 19 35-6 38:6 04 672.566 3;990 6684-76 0 City of Tustin Page 3 -6 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations L. l ;VD LSE PL, t- TATISTIC IL ANALYSIS !ABLE 3 1 L i VD LSE DESIG S I-TION YSIS ORG:1.NIZED BY ' ' 1 rrc RE AGE ,NON RESIDENTIAL USES Gros: -' Ne� F.A.R. 3 Total-F/oor Area (Sq. FL) 4 EZicistNig -Favor tires -Sfiq ,J ,,,lrczQ -T g. ) 6 DIA Per---Aefe ...v.= =__ 29.3 26.8 See Standards 466,637 8446 458.531 NIA 0 1 20.7 19.0 See Standards 218,292 0 248,292 N/A 0 CetttityGore Planoing-Afea-.8 Planning Area 13 Parli Planning Area 14 l-hgh School 44 914 58-6 7-74 -1--3,4 34.2 683 58:6 59.3 -1-34 26.2 10.0 See standards See Staffs See Standards 1,975,99E 3293832 0 700 1446,960 2 132 117 23 26 2-5 N/A 894 2.132 417 648.870 618.170 N/A 40:0 - 314.8 246 4,757 279 329 732 4 427.517 891 St- BTOTA3 584.7 5-1-43 NIA 8,223,085 74{047 7,482,138 ?-1-4 894 LASTI TUT /ON..9 L JRECRE/1 TION l L Educ#ten- Village Planning Arca 1 44 128.3 121.7 04 1 112,651 822456 590,095 0 0 Planning Arca 1 A Elementary School PI.,,.,.;.,,. A Bea 1 13 a =.ucn=r � -srv�� Eiltioational Planning Area 1 C Planning Area 1 D Planning A -e., 1 E. Educational Educational Planning A fea 1 G Qf Planning Area 1 11 Educational Planning A re.. 1 1 Educational MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -7 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations L I ND USE PLAN STATISTICAL A. TABLE 3 1 9 ESIGN.1 TIO X • . 9 ' . - ! 1 . . . ACREAGE '9 ' ' '. 1 ' • _ . Gress -4 Nei-2 F.A.R. -Total-Floor Area FL) 4 Existing-ROOF Area -` • FL)-5 Foretia! -Floor Area-(Sq—Ftd-6 DU's Per Acre $ Total D- 1147 -8 (Sq. Eeity-Park Plan _if_ —' ?44 24 1 0A-14 10,531 0 0 0 •10,531 1 i.6..., Regional Part. �. o «« .ccsimra�- a --«r.� " rea 6 844 81.5 046 571 992 496;868 78,921 0 0 Right -of Way Afterial-Read ways 173.1 173 4 0 0 0 0 0 • - .. • .5 . • Drains) 28.5 28.5 0 0 0 0 0 SUB-TOT-At 4384 135.2 NIA 2,028,174 1,359,155 6690 4-9 0 0 TOTALS: 16061 4464,9 Nirk 10,381,553 2,185,317 46 8,199,236 0 611E Notes: ling un ifl PA City of Tustin Page 3 -8 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations 13. PA 8 includes a 10 a flexa.a"., ta MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -9 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations LAND USE PLAN ST.ATISTIC/1 TABLE 3 -1 LAND USE DESIGNATION L ANAL PSIS ORGANIZED BY Des, nation/Plannin ' Area ACRCAGE NON- RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES_ Gross Net F.A.R. Total Floor DU's Total Area S Ft. 1,2 Per Acre DU's i,2 RESIDENTIAL Low Density (1 7 du /ac) Planning Area 4 54.2 43.4 N/A 7 304 Planning Area 21 127.1 115.0 N/A 14 793 Medium Density (8-15 du /acl Planning Area 5 5L7 41.4 N/A 15 621 Planning Area 22 714 61.0 N/A 15 402 Elementary School K 8 Neighborhood Park Medium -High Density (16 -25 du /ac) Planning Area 20 29.4 23.5 N/A 25 376_ Transitlonal/Emereency Housings Planning Area 3 5.1 5_1 0_6 133.2941 01 0 Residential Core Planning Area 15 172.7 159.8 N/A 1 21 4 Residential Low Density (1 7 du /ac) N/A 7 Medium Density (8 15 du /ac) N/A 15 Med -High Density (36 25 du /ac) N/A 25 Elementary School 10 10 N/A N/A N/A Parks and Open Space3 59 59 N/A N/A N/A Subtotal, Residential Core,_PA 15 241.7 228.8 SUBTOTAL 582.6 518.2 N/A 133,294 N/A 3,710 CONIMERCIAI. /BUSINESS Commercial /Business Plannmg Area 9 12 88.3 73.4 See Standards 1,267,324 0 See Allowed Uses Parks and Open Snace3 29 117.3 29 102.4 Subtotal, Planning Area 9 12 Planning Area 16 31.0 27.9 0_4 486,130 0 Planning Area 17 16.3 16.3 0_4 284,011 0 Commercial Planning Area 18 16.7 14.5 0.35 40,846 0 Planning Area 19 38.6 38.6 0_1 672566 0 Residential Core Planning Area 15 1 29.31 26.8 See Standards' 466.6371 N/A 0 Village Services Planning Area 7 20.7 19.0 See Standards 248.292 N/A 1 0 Community Core Planning Area 8, 13, 14 202.8 154.0 See Standards 4,757,279 25 N/A 891 See Allowed Uses Park and Open Space3 72.0 72.0 High School 40.0 40.0 Subtotal, Community Core 314.8 266 4,757,279 891 SUBTOTAL 584.7 511.5 N/A 8,223,085 N/A 891 INSTITUT!ONA L/RLCREA TIONA L Education Village Planning Area 1 128.3 124.7 0_3 1,412,651 0 0 Planning Area 1 A Elementary School Planning Area 1 B Educational Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center City of Tustin Page 3 -10 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations _ LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL TABLE 3 -1 Y LAND USE DESIGNVA TION_ ANALYSIS ORGANIZED B Desi nalion/Plannin' Area GE ACREAGE N D lVO- RESIENTIAL USES Gross Net EAR Total Floor _RESIDENTIAL DU's Total Area S . Ft. 1.2 Per Acre DU's1'2 Planning Area I C Children's Care Shelter Planning Area 1 -D Child Care Center Planning Area 1 E Educational Planning Area 1 F Educational Planning Area 1 G Other Planning Area I -H Educational Planning Area 1 1 Educational Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center Community Park Planning Area 2 (Community Park)' I 24.1 24.1 0. I 40.531 0 0 Urban Regional Park Planning Area 6 (Urban Regional Parki 1 84.51 84.51 0.16 j 574.9921 0 ,Right -of -Way Arterial Roadways 173.4 173.4 0 0 0 Drainage (Flood Control, Storm 28.5 28.5 0 0 0 Drains) SUBTOTAL 438.8 435.2 N/A 2,028,174 0 0 TOTALS: 1606.1 1464.9 N/A 10,384,553 0 4,601 I. Residential dwelling units and non residential AM's may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan. except for any density bonus granted, 2. Consistent with authorized uses within each neighborhood. exchanges of square footages between approved land uses in the Non - Residential Land Use/Trip Budget may be approved subject to review and approval of the total trip generation for a neighborhood. 3. Park acreage may be transferred between Planning Areas and/or Neighborhoods provided that such transfer does not increase the total units or square footages allowable in the overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus granted, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -11 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -16 TABLE 3 2 - • . : • ' , .A - • . , , : • ACREA-GE RESIDENTIAL USES ' ,NON &fesS-} 2 F.A.R.3 metal -Fleet � Existing Potential �� ,... Ire , Db1s Total Area i (SF �erF Per Acre $ 8b1'�x (SFloo Planning Area 1 " -40,0 04 1 112.651 822.556 590,095 Planning A 1 A 4449 rca Eleinentafy-Sehoolje Planning A _0 1 ❑ 4$0 Law-Enforeement--Trathing 40,0 Educational 4-0 Planning Area 1 C 2-4 444 Plannin Are., 1 14 4-9 Child Care Center 2,4 Planning Area 1 E 4-5,0 Edasatienal 4,9 . la.n.ing-Afea-4-F -1-84 Educational 56.5 44,0 Planning-Area-1-6 Other 4-0:0 449 Planning A_oa l H Educational 56.5 Planning Area 1 1 Educational 10.0 Animal Ca_..C_nter - e . , • • e • • 128.3 121.7 4 1,412,684 822,556 590,095 0 0 - • _ - . Planning Area 2 24.1 244 0414 40.534 0 10,531 Pla tin 3 54 54 0.6 83,2+3 48,079 g-Area 133.294 D. 43-7,5 433-9 NIA 4586;476 948303 6384-74 NA 0 NEIGHBORHOOD 13 A_ A . .w...iig-vi-sT' 54,2 43.4 N/A 7 304 Planning A _e., 5 4-9 AIWA Medium Den...... (8 15 a i ) Plannin, Area 7 '�mm�T 5-1- 41-4 N/A N/A WA 4-5 624 See A llowea 1 es 20.7 4-9:0 See-StanAar4, 248,292 0 248,292 S 4-2676 4-0-1.-8 AJ4 348,292 0 248493 NA 925 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -16 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3-17 TABLE 2 . •' ! • I9 1 . • ! . - . _ • .1J IfJ AI C E • / • .! _ • • - - - • 6ress-4 Net 2 F.A.R. 3 -� A Feasting Potential I Per. lcre 44115-8 P4anning-Accia-6 8473 84.3 046 574,992 496,068 78,924 843 843 41,4 574,992 496,068 78,924 N A Planning A-..., 8 r- .�mxrr�racir° See A n,,..,_ „1 1 Is _s Park 141044143 Planning Area 12 91-4 58,6 40:0 77 5 4-3-4 34 684 38:6 40:0 59.3 4-3-1 26.2 See-Standar-Els See Standards 1 975.992 329 032 41-616 -960 2 132.417 2,132,417 0 700 Park Plan.. g Area 11 a ammiirs- rata -rt 644.878 618.170 3148 266:41 X44 4,757,279 329,732 4,127,517 25 8o, PI.....,:.... Areas. smicnr.Sraysrrr= Park 88.3 29,0 73.129 See-StaThiar4S 1,267,321 88,344 447.87980 R14013-D-E 117.3 SAS 1,267,324 88,344 4,478,980 it 102.1 Planning- Area -1-6 P'"'°`”" Area 17 Pam,., -Area 18 PI.,.,., i... A -e,. 1 9 340 16.3 16.7 2--9 16.3 04 04 0.35 4867140 281.011 206,640 63,289 40,846 37990 279-496 220,722 407846 672,566 0 6687576 38:6 38,6 0,4 -162v6 97.3 NA4 3-1-4T765 4-,468,-788 Nitt 0 1,483,553 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3-17 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations . . TABLE 3 2 ... . . .. __ - _. If ACREAGE NON-RESIDENTIAL—USES RESIDENTL4L-USES Gress -; A'et F A. R. a _4 �� Existing Floor Area (Sq. Ft) 5 Poterrtla! Flea (Sq. Ft.) s , Per Acre -Total i3 x -a Die....'.... Area 1 5 45, bek.13tertsity41-7-duine) ::... _ :.... -14276 51.8 8:3 40 29.3 101.3 S° ,lards 6-37 8-1-96 NIA N/A 4 25 25 -1-4 533 4$9 492 0 9 0 376 793 47-8 7 -1-079 2678 59,0 23.5 Planning Area 15 School - - Planning Area 15 Park 5970 29.4 N/A 458.531 Planning Area 20 4 _ _ _..:. Planning Area 21 Tustin 1271 -145,9 3949- NA 4664)37 8;486 458,534 NIA - 127.5 Planning Area 22 " Medium Density (8 15 du ae) Elementary 4y 52.6 2070 8:8 33.0 20.1 8.9 N /.1 WA 45 402 73.4 64,0 NIA , A 1144:4 NiA 492 RIGHT-OF-WAY Roadways - ..••. 173.1 173.1 28.5 - • -- 28.5 2449 24469 N,44 NIA NIA- NIA A 0 TOTALS+ 1,606.1 .1-�9 40,84 , 1' 4��t" 8,199,2 -36 1� A 4,404 Netes+ City of Tustin Page 3 -18 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations -. :... . :... . MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -19 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL TABLE 3 -2 NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY Des :_ nation/Plunnin 7 Area ACREAGE NON - RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Gross ;Vet F.A.R. Total Floor DUS Total Area St, Ft. l'2 Per Acre DU's1" NEIGHBORHOOD A Planning Area 1 10.0 10.0 I_0.0 1 0.0 4_0 2_4 1 9 15.0 0.3 1,412,651 Planning Area 1 A Elementary School Planning Area 1 B Law Enforcement Training 4_0 2_4 1_9 15.0 Educational Animal Care Center Planning Arca I -C Children's Care Shelter Planning Area l -D Child Care Center Planning Area I -E Educational Planning Area 1 F Educational 18.5 14.9 Planning Area 1 G Other 56.5 56.5 Planning Area 1 -1 -1 Educational 10.0 10.0 Planning Area 1 I Educational Law Enforcement Training Animal Care Center SUBTOTAL FOR PLANNING AREA 1 128.3 124.7 N/A 1 412 651 0 Planning Area 2 (Community Park) 24.1 24.1 0.1 0_6 40,531 Planning Area 3 5.1 5.1 133,294 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD A 157 5 1 53.9 N/A 1,586,476 0 0 NEIGHBORHOOD B Planning Area 4 54.2 43.4 See Standards N/A 7 15 N/A 304 621 Low Density (1 7 du/ac) Planning Area 5 51.7 41.4 N/A Medium Density (8 -15 du /ac) Planning Area 7 20.7 19.0 248,292 See Allowed Uses SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD B 126.6 103.8_ N/A 248.292 925 NEIGHBORHOOD C Planning Area 6 84.5 84.5 0.16 574,992 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGIIBORIIOOD C 84.5 84.5 N/A 574,992 N/A 0 NEIGHBORHOOD D Planning Area 8, 13, 14 202.8 154.0 See Standards 4,757,279 125 See Allowed Uses Park 72.0 72M High School 40 0 40.0 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORIOOD D 314.8 266.0 N/A 1,757,279 1 -25 891 NEIGHBORHOOD E - Planning Areas 9 12 88.3 73.429 See Standards 1,267,324 See Allowed Uses Park' 29.0 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD E 117.3 102.4 See Standards 1.267.324 0 0 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -20 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations 1,1.ND USE PLAN STATISTICAL TABLE 3 -2 NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS ORGANIZED BY Desi_ nation/Plannin_ Area ACREAGE NON - RESIDENTIAL USES RESIDENTIAL USES Gross Net l:A.R. Total Floor DU's Total Area S'. FL 1'2 Per Acre DU',s'''- NEIGHBORHOOD F Planning Area 16, 17, 19 85.9 82.8 14.5 0.4 0.35 1,442,707 Planning Area 18 16.7 40,846 SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD F 102.6 97.3 N/A 1,483,553 N/A 0 NEIGHBORHOOD G Planning Area 15 1 72.7 159.8 See Standards 466,637 1.214 376 793 Residential — See Allowed Uses Low Density (I 7 du /ac) 10.0 10.0 Medium Density (8 15 du /ac) Medium High Density (16 25 du/ac) Planning Area 15 School Planning Area 15 See Allowed Uses 29.3 26.8 Planning Area 15 Parks 59.0 59.0 Planning Area 20 29.4 23.5 Residential — See Allowed Uses Low Density (1 7 du /ac) 127.1 115.0 Planning Area 21 Tustin Residential — See Allowed Uses Low Density (1 -7 du /ac) SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD G 427 5 394 1 N/A 466,637 N/A 2,383 NEIGHBORHOOD I I Planning Area 22 73.4 61.0 15 402 Medium Density (8 -15 du/ac) Elementary School K 8 Neighborhood Park SUBTOTAL FOR NEIGHBORHOOD H 73.4 61 0 N/A N/A N/A 402 RIGHT -OF WAY Roadways 173.4 173.4 Drainage (Flood Control, Storm Drains) 28.5 28.5 SUBTOTAL FOR RIGHT OF WAY 201 9 201 9 N/A N/A 0 0 TOTALS. 1,606.1 1,464.9 N/A 10,384,553 N/A 4,601 1. Residential dwelling units and non - residential AD'I's may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable in overall Specific Plan. except for any density bonus granted. 2. Consistent with authorized uses within each neighborhood, exchanges of square footages between approved land uses m the Non Residential Land Use/Trip Budget may be approved subject to review and approval of the total trip generation for a neighborhood. 3. Park acreage may be transferred between Planning Areas and/or Neighborhoods provided that such transfer does not increase the total units or square footages allowable in the overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus granted. MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -21 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations average daily trips (ADT) for each neighborhood Using assumed traffic generation rates, the number of trips that would be generated at buildout of the Plan was estimated. This mix has been further allocated to Planning Areas only for ease of administration However, the trip budget by neighborhood shall control the amount and intensity of non - residential uses by neighborhood In order to manage the availability of roadway capacity, a Trip Budget Tracking System is established as part of this Specific Plan to monitor and report on the traffic implications of each development project which involves non - residential uses The system entails establishment of a maximum limit on the number of ADT's generated from non - residential uses within the Specific Plan and for each neighborhood That limit is shown identified m Table 3 3,the Trip Budget, which summarizes the square footage of non- residential uses allocated to each neighborhood by Planning Area (Tables 3 -1 and 3 -2), and the associated ADT Residential uses are shown for information only, but are not part of the Tnp Budget This information is denved from the Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -23 TABLE-3-34 Planning Area-No: fy Links Altwunt AD—Ts Amooltf AD-Ts 4-A STU 564 1 A. 1 E t o ,. rent..(nTru) T-SF 893852 5,4713 T-SF 13346 933 Care Center) -FSF 60:98 3-73 44B .. - . .. _ TSF 31.36 4.92 4-F Le ni g Ce e_�.� - ; TSF 1.96.02 4,200 TSF 24.853 2,784 4.4 =fu tin - Facility SG TBDA5 6428 oA 1 T_ip Budget Total 1,412.654' 17,734 2 Sports -Park 244 1,297 3 Tsitional nm Heusi., R ROOM r OHM -1-92 041. TSIZ ' ,' 4412:65 ip - Budget - Total 4 34 4 �p LDR 7-DU/Asr) 1 -44n3 4388 (1 DU 420 960 Senior cousin, Attach., 813 72 250 8U 4-32 14456 M1-IDR (16 25 DU /Acre) 1413 43.8 2,903 1 4-70 590 Community Comme_cial TSF 442,46 7,052 General ee TSF 14484 1,922 FA 7 Trip Budget Total 2483 8,974 Total TSF 2484 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -23 Chapter 3 • Land Use and DevelopmentlReuse Regulations City of Tustin Page 3 -24 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan "T.1BLE3 34 PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET Planning Area-Ator rr Viiiis Non-Residential 491-0 1641 .1DTs - Amount AD-Ts gametal 8,174 6 Eemolon4Pf Gen-i-wtercial 5-75 33,920 Regional -Park AGR6 8-15 123 PA 6 Trip Budget Total 3 920) ' TSF 57,5 _ .. . Neighborhood C Trig Budget'retul 3;920 NlbR URAR144X)1) I) 8 Iligh School 84H 1,850 3,312 ... , . TSF 6549 7 315 General•O•€€ice TSF 207 2,717 Office -Park TSF 1383.8 34,280 lndu trial -Park TSF 319.51 3,803 hark AGR• ; 10.3 52 Sports-Park ACRE 46 2 475 DA 8 _..., T Budget Total n'L -h9,36 28,487 4-3 MHD (16 25 DU/Acre) DU 894 5,907 14etel -(380 -TSF) ROOM 500 4,115 TSF 936 1,091 TSF 3474 7 98 t General-- Of€rcei TSF 1,512 20,065 Park ACRE 42,9 65 14eakb -Glob TSF 30 988 TSF -1-a 1526 060 86 35,769 Gemalurrity-C-anacciefoial TSF 4401 General - Office TSF 4-36.9 4,8-8 Mks) Park 547 5,645 Theatre /'15 TSF) `PAT 4-400 1,250 ll. 6 763 1?A 1d Trip Budget Total 726.04 40,233 Neighbor-iteed-D-Sfluafe-F-eetage-Teral TSF 4,762.87 74,489 1+1) €HBARHOOD- 9 1aacit+4tr+a1 -Park TSF 44:6 4 4,042 Park ACRD 1.1 6 D 9 Tr:.. Budget Total 44 4 2 General- O€€rse TSF 82 2,312 Industrial-Park TSF 324:44 4,569 Park ACRE 1-.4 7 284-.23 3,584 TSF 4843 2,828 General Office =FSF 3741.89 4,935 Office Park TSF 278.78 2,663 latiostrta1 Park T.SF 4 -38.52 21002 Park AGM, 2.5.7 134) DA 11 Trip Budget Total 807.32 44428 Office Park TSF 431.17 6 4,284 pA 12 Trip Budget Total 134.17 4,284 1 "1'S1, 1,267.33 64th) 47,832 City of Tustin Page 3 -24 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -25 TABLE 3 3} 1 - PLAN t • • 1 _ _ _ , ela li Area-No. Land , r1 e r -,.teg .y Links Non -Residential Amount 4 DTs Ott 4D-1 Shopping- Center I SE 448 1- 3,772 oA 16 Trip Budget Total 448 13,772 Shopping Center TSF 4.7 1,445 47 1,445 Milli ry (Office) TSF 40:55 PA 14 Trip Budget Tote1 40:85 542 4-9 '-- - TSF 435.6 13,391 435:6 13,391 Multiplex- T4leater (70 TSF) SEAT 33500 6400 DA 19 Trip Budget Tetal TSF 505,6 19,691 ege`Te*a4 TSF F 1-:041,45 TetnI 35450 NEIGHBORHOOD G 46 LDR (1 7 DU/Acre) DU 533 5,102 MDR 15 DU /Acre) D14 489 3 912 (8 MHDR (16 25 DU /Acre) DU 192 1.273 .. S flJ 1,200 1.224 Neighborhood Commercial TSP. 26.6E 2,983 • -• . - .l TSF 130.68 8,908 General Office TSF 150.28 1 99.1 Raflk ACRE 49 249 • • - • . - TSF 158.99 9-70 Sperts -Rarlt ACRE 14-1- 758 RA 15 Trip Budget Total 466:63 14,855 20 lull IDR (16 25 DU /Acre) D14 376 2.193 24 LDR (1 7 DU /Acre) P14 4-89 4809 MDR (8 15 DU /Acre) DU 465 3-720 • • • TSF 466.63 _ .. _ .. : 14855 NEIGHBORHOOD 14 22 LDR (I 7 DU /Acre) P44 466 1,589 MDR (8 15 DU /Acre) B14 243 1 941 :: .. . , . 8T14 654E 663 .. . TSF 0 _... .. :1 • • Neigh-bc 0 SOCCCD site went up. a See Section 3.3.2/1 for . • use restrictions 6 .. _ ... __ _ _ _ ... . r _ .. ! MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -25 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations TABLE3 34 PLANNING AREA TRIP BUDGET Planning LiuuI4J e-Calegarp Louts Resieleidial/Parks Amount 14D-Ts Arnow?, ADTs 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 They are highlighted in Table 3 3 The Community Development Department and Public Works Department shall maintain a current Trip Budget Tracking form depicting the maximum square footage of non - residential development in each neighborhood The form shall specify the assumed square footage of commercial, office, institutional and other non - residential uses which have been assigned to each neighborhood In addition, the form shall specify the amount of square footage approved for development with the equivalent ADTs assigned to a development, and amount of ADT's available for remaining development or available for transfer to another neighborhood The information shall be further allocated to each Planning Area based on Table 3 3the Trip Budget maintained by the City for administration purposes only The essential requirement is to document ADT status as it is impacted by each development project so that sufficient roadway capacity remains to accommodate later projects The following information will provide additional clarification for purposes of implementing the Trip Budget Tracking System • Calculation of ADTs on Parcels: The calculation of ADTs assigned to a parcel will occur upon approval of a site plan, or design approval for new development, or submittal of an application for building permits, whichever occurs first Refinements to calculations can be made at the building permit stage where square footage changes are proposed to a development • Calculation of ADTs for Multiple Use Developments. In a development containing more than one use, ADTs shall be calculated by multiplying the total square footage for each use by the respective trip generation rates and adding the ADTs for each land use on a parcel to derive the total ADTs for a project • 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 tnp City of Tustin Page 3 -26 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations generation for a neighborhood by the Public Works and Commumty Development Departments Proposed projects will be analyzed in terms of 1) consistency with the base case mix of uses (Table 3 3) specified for the Planning Area(s); 2) the proportion of the neighborhood trip budget projected to be consumed by the project, and 3) the ability to ensure availability of ADT capacity for subsequent projects within a neighborhood Adjustments to the amount, intensity, or mix of uses may occur if consistent with the Specific Plan and if desired by the City, as long as sufficient taps remain to accommodate remaining development potential in a neighborhood on parcels where development proposals have not been submitted • Trip Budget Transfers between Neighborhoods: Where available ADT's from the tnp budget remain for an undeveloped parcel(s) within a neighborhood, the transfer of the ADTs to another neighborhood shall not occur without the authorization of the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels within the contributing neighborhood agreeing to the transfer This approval shall be in the form of an agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney pnor to approval of the transfer All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Trip Budget Tracking System • Establishment of Trip Generation Rates. Trip generation rates for estimating the number of vehicle taps that will be generated for land uses in the Specific Plan are included in the MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study Since traffic generation rates may vary over time, those used in the Traffic Report may be updated penodically subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission The methodology for calculating site trips in the MCAS EIS/EIR Traffic Study shall be used for update purposes 3.2.5 Transfer between Residential and Non - Residential Residential dwelling units and Non - residential ADTs may be transferred between Planning Areas provided that such transfer does not increase the total units allowable m overall Specific Plan, except for any density bonus granted pursuant to the City Incentives for the Development of Affordable Housing (Density Bonus) Ordinance, and that the landowner(s) of the developed or undeveloped parcels within the contributing neighborhood consent in wnting to the transfer This approval shall be in the form of an agreement to run with the land and subject to review and approval of the City Attorney pnor to approval of the transfer All transfers of available ADTs shall be documented in the Tnp Budget Tracking System MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan City of Tustin Page 3 -27 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations PLANNING 1 AREA 3 3 2 Planning Areas 1 -A, 1 -B, 1 -C, 1 -D, 1 -E, 1 -F, 1 -G, 1- H, and 1 -1 (Education Village) The purpose and intent of the Education Village designation is as described in Section 2 2 1, Land Use Designations. A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs, or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs • Animal care center (in PA 1 -B or in PA 1 -I as shown m P Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -I) • Children's intermediate care shelter (only in PA 1 -C as P shown in Figure 3 -1) • Churches or other religious institutions C • Government Facilities P • Law enforcement trauung facility (in PA 1 -B or in PA 1 -I P as shown in Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -I) • Nursery school or child care center P • Public school, community college, educational campus or P other educationally oriented uses • Private school C B. Prohibited Uses • Jail Facilities • Sexually- oriented businesses C Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted use on the same site and would include. • Guard houses, gates and other security facility structures • Industrial /commercial business incubators (start-ups) • Laboratories and office facilities used for basic and applied research, testing and consulting • Maintenance facilities, structures, outdoor storage City of Tustin Page 3 -29 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations PLANNING 16 AREA PLANNING 17 AREA • Simulation development uses P • Software design uses P • Technology exchange /transfer service P • Utility buildings and facilities C • Warehouse and sales outlet P 2 Offices • General offices for advertising agency, economic P consultant, insurance companies, escrow companies, intenor decorator, real estate, public utilities, personnel agency, management consultant, collection agency • Medical climes P • Medical offices/healthcare centers P' • Professional offices for architect, accountant, attorney, P chiropractor, contractor, dentist, doctor, engineer, optometrist, land planner, and other similar professions 3. Public /Institutional uses • Government facilities P 3-4 Retail commercial uses. • Buildmg matenal yards, secured C • Buildmg supply P • Delicatessen/cafeteria P • Department store P • 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 4.5 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 Page 3 -96 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan