Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 GEN'L PLAN AMEND. 12-18-00AGENDA RE. ORT NO. 1 12-18-00 MEETING DATE: DECEMBER 18, 2000 TO: FROM: · SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF r GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT'00-001 SUMMARY: General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00-001 is a proposal-to amend all current Elements of the Tustin General Plan related to the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site and a privately owned four acre parcel in the vicinity of Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue owned by the Irvine Company. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Tustin City Council take the following actions: . -Adopt Resolution No. 00-90 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) prepared for the project as complete and adequate; and Adopt ReSolution No. 00-91' approVing General Plan Amendment 00-001 FISCAL IMPACT No direct impact on the General Fund at this time. The Tustin General Plan is a comprehensive, long-range planning tool to guide the physical development of the City and its Sphere of Influence. .~ BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSlON : ....... The Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS).Tustin is a former military installation, that has been closed, in the manner required pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (BRAC), as amended. 'Federal law provides the opportunity for a responsible local authority to develop a reuse Plan that Will guide the'disposal actibns of the United States Navy (DON) at the site. The City of'Tu~tin ("C'rty") Was approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopm'~nt"Authofity,(LRA) for-MCAS Tustin. The City of Irvine'assigned lead agency responsibility to Tustin for the applicable environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other documents related to ~,'pi&nningfO~thecivilian' r~use of MCAS Tustin. The City of.Tustin; acting as the LRA for '~ MCAS Tustin;:has prepared'a ReUse Plan for'MCAS Tustin dated October 1996 for the · ~' 4:. ~" City Council Report GPA 00-001 December 18, 2000 Page 2 redevelopment and reuse of MCAS Tustin (the "Reuse Plan") which was subsequently amended by an "Errata" in September 1.998. .. MCAS Tustin is comprised of 1602 acres and is located within the boundaries of two local jurisdictions (Attachment 1). The majority of the site, or approximately 1,507 acres is located within the City of Tustin. Approximately 95 acres is situated within the City of irvine. To maximize efficiency of the reuse planning process, the City incorporated two other parcels into the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan as follows: a 17-acre site that will be transferred from the DON to the Department of Army, Army Reserve; and a privately owned, approximate four-acre parcel located in the vicinity of Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue. Full realization of the Reuse Plan will require the approval of several implementing actions including the adoption of a zoning map amendment, Specific Plan, etc. However, the currently proposed action is only for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00- 001. GPA 00-001 is within the City of Tustin's portion of the closed MCAS Tustin site. The proposed action does not affect the portion of MCAS Tustin that lies within the City of Irvine. On November 28, 2000 the Tustin Planning Commission conducted the required public headng on General Plan Amendment 00-001. During the Public Headng, 13 speakers made comments regarding the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin" (the "FEIS/FEIR). At the conclusiOn'of the Public Headng, City staff provided verbal responses to comments 'received at the public hearing. In addition, 'several letters were submitted to the Planning Commission. One additional letter was received after the conclusion 'of the' Planning Commission° At the conclusion of the Public Headng, the planning Commission adopted Resolution 3739 reCOmmending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan' Amendment 00-00'1 (Attachment 2). · _ · · If approved by the Tusti'n City Council, GPA 00-001 would, amend all Elements of the Tustin General Plan as summarized below: · ,' Amendment`. of the Land Use Element providing a narrative description of the · ~ MCAS ~ Tustin Specific Plan designation for ....the subject property and ~. '~' placement/designation on the Land Use. Policy.Map, in place of the present Military · ," and Public/Institutional land use designations; ~ ·' '-, Amendment of the Housing Element incorporating a discussion'of the base closure "~ "' process-and potential disposition of existing military housing at the former base, opportunities for new housing provided by the MCAS Tustin project. On March 16, City Council Report GPA 00-001 December 18, 2000 Page 3 2000, the Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the Housing Element revisions proposed in GPA 00-001, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b); ._ 'Amendment'of ihe CircUla~tion Element, incorporating revisions to the City's Arterial Highway Plan, Master Bikeway Plan that support implementation of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin; Amendment of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element incorporating major landscaped roadways proposed at the former MCAS Tustin as landscape corridors, and identifies at the former base proposed parks as part of the City's planned park and recreation facilities;' Amendment of the Public Safety Element describing the Navy's Base Cleanup Plan (to eliminate military contamination at MCAS Tustin) and potential amendment of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) to accommodate interim blimp flights and heliports; Amendment 'of the Noise Element reflecting projected associated with implementation of the Reuse Plan; : roadway traffic noise · Amendment of the Growth 'Management Element describing new planned transportation improvements, including the extension of Tustin Ranch Road and Wamer Avenue through the site, and the addition of a new loop roadway system within the site. .~ · · · ; . In additiOn minor narrative and statistical corrections are propoSed within each General Plan Element to ensure consistency between the Elements and to update General ~lan information., ^ more detailed description of the changes proposed for each Element is provided in the' NoW~ber' 28,~ 2000 staff 'report~ to the ~lanning' Commission (Attachment.3). ~ The following, additional~, information is proVided for the. City.Counci!'s ration: conside - ,.. , · 'Atta(~hment 4 'Minutes from the NoVem~r 28, 2000 Planning commi~Siofi meeting; Attachment~5 ~:"A!i' lett~'rs Submitted to the Planning C0mr~i~sion (bef°re"and after the meeting) and the C~ of Tustin's written responses to written comments; City Council Report GPA 00-001 December 18, 2000 Page 4 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION . A FEIS/FEIR has been prepared for the proposed action, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts: 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Califomia Public Resources Code, Section 21,000 et. seq. and the State Guidelines, Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq. The City of Tustin and Department of Navy has completed the following ,~ctions in' preparing the FEIS/FEIR: .1. . . On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. On July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments on the NOP for the EIS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR released for 60-day public review and comment (SCH No. 94071005). The Document assessed the significant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS TUstin, located in Tustin and Irvine, Califomia and the subsequent reuse of those properties and other adjacent properties. 4. On February 5, 1998, a' Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. Se 6. 8. On July 8, 1999, a revised Draft EIS/EIR released for public 45-d~y review and comment: A copy was also filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Cleadngh0use. The comment period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on AUgUst 23, 1999. . ..... On'AUgUst 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. On December 23,' 1999, the FEIS/FEIR was released for"30-day publi.c reView and comment. The comment period on the FEIS/FEIR was closed on January 24, 2000. .The Final. EIS/Ei~ provides the required written responses to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR"pursuant to Califomia Public Resources Code Section' 21092.5 and NEPA Council.on Environmental Quality Regulations Section 1503.4. On Uovem:l~' 1'?i '2000;""the Final RespOnse t° Comments document-'On the FEIS/FEIR was released. A Response to Final Comments on the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS Tustin has been prepared and distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the FEIS/FEIR. City Council Report GPA 00-001 December 18, 2000 Page 5 It is the Policy of the State of California and the City of Tustin, in accordance with CEQA and the St'ate Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA that the City shall not approve a project unless all impacts associated with the project have been avoided to the extent feasible or substantially lessened and any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are acceptable based upon CEQA Section 15093. The FEIS/FEIR for MCAS Tustin concludes that all impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the FEIS/FEIR have been reviewed and analyzed, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed project that eliminate-or substantially lessen the significant effects as identified in the EIS/EIR and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the project and against the Project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding on each significant impact identified in the FEIS/FEIR. Prior to approving GPA 00-001, the Tustin City Council must certify that the FEIS/FEIR is complete and adequate through the adoption of Resolution No. 00-90 (Attachment 6). Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared and are provided in Resolution No. 00-90, Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively. ANALYSIS Pursuant to Section 65356 of the Califomia Govemment Code, Planning and ZOning Law, the City Council "shall adopt or amend a general plan by resolUtion." Findings supporting City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan, are identified below: 1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin General Plan be amended prior to the adoption'of implementing "actions that will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes, · , 2,~ That the. City of Tustin,~? has · prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with Section 65302 of the California Government Code to address ' "changes asSociated With" planning for the reuse of MCAS Tustin. ''3..That approval of-the-revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in a General Plan that Will.serve as an effective guide for the ordedy growth .~ and'de~,elopment,~': presergation ~, and conservation of open-space land natural resources, and the efficient ~xpenditure-of~ public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the Geriei~al Plan. City Council Report GPA 00-001 December 18, 2000 Page 6 4. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will ., result in the General Plan, its elements and pads thereof being integrated, internally · COnsistent and compatible. .~ .; 5. That the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Resolution No. 00-91 adopting GPA 00-001 is provided as Attachment 7. GPA 00-001 is provided as Exhibit 1 of Attachment 7. 'Dana Ogdon v Senior Project Manager Attachments: Attachment 1' Attachment 2: , , Attachment 3' Attachment 4: 'Attachment 5: -. Attachment 6: Attachment 7: "' Resolution'No.-00-91 approving~ General · Amendment00-001.· : ~" ,., .-~ Exhibit A: GPA 00-001. .,: ::.- MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries Planning Commission Resolution No. 3739 Recommending that the Tustin City Council Approve GPA 00-001. November 28, 2000 Staff Report to the Planning Commission on GPA 00-001. Minutes from the November 28, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. ,.. · Letters submitted to the Planning Commission and the City of Tustin's Written Responses. Resolution 'No. 00-90 :certifying Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin as adequate and complete and prepared in. compliance, with the requirements of CEQA. "- " ~. · Exhibit A: Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Final EIS/EIR Exhibit B: Draft. Mitigation Monitoring Report for Final EIS/EIR : :: . Plan S:\RDA\CCREPOR'IAgpa001.doc ~i~TDSTIN SANTA ANA 5 10 12 14 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 RESOLUTION NO. 3739 A RESoLuTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE GENERAL PLAN A.MlgNDM~NT 00-001, AMZNDING THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF TIlE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 0VICAS) TUSTIN. · ~ 'The ?lanning commisfii°n of the City of Tustin'("City") does fi~reby resolve as follows: I. The Tustin planning Commission.finds and determines as follows: A. Marine Corps Ak Station (MCAS) TUStin has been determined surplus to the needs of the federal eovemment and has been approved for disposal by the United States Deoartment offthe Navy (DON) in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Re~l/mament Act ODBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Reali_mmaent Commission approved by the president and accepted by Con~ess in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and, B. The City of Tustin has been approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for preparing a Reuse Plan describing the reuse of.the installation and providing recommendations to the DON for disposal of the former base to various public " a~encies and' the homeless. The goal of base disposal and reuse is economic · ' ~' - :..r~develoPm~nt and job creation to help replace the economic stimulus previously ...... provided by'the military installation. The LRA submitted the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense in October 1996, and an Errata mending the Reuse Plan in September 1998; and, '" C. 'The city of ~-~stin intends to implement the Reuse Plan throug2a the approval or " .....adOpfion~-'of a:~:General Plan Amendment' ZOning Ordinance Amendment,' '~' adoption'Of a SPecific P1an and other discretionary actions: and, . D. California StatS~:ih.W requ~;s each City to" adopt a comprehensive, long-term · General Plan for its own physical development mad for any land outside its , .-.~. c- boUn~WhiCh bem~a relationship to its plannin~ activities. The General Plan must be periodically updated to ensure that' the Plan accurately reflects City · ~policies, cgnforms to State law., reflects current Court decisions, and provides an ~ ": :'::' inte~l"h~i~ihtemally eomisteat set of goals'and policies designed to reflect any · - ..... changed charactenslacs or growth of the community: The closure'of MCAS'Tustin · : '"aiii'imPi~tation~Of the Reuse Plan would necessitate amendment of the. Tustin ;: : :;!.;:' ! '.' .. 10 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 24 27 28 29 Rc:~o]ution No. 3719 Pa~: 2 E. The Tustin Plmnning Commission has received a request to consider and m~e a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on the proposed General Plan Am~dment 00-001 that is intended to amend the following General Plan Elements in support of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin: . 'The Land Use Element which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty~ education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other cate~6ries of public and private uses of land; and , The Housing Element which consists of'an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled pro,ams for the preservation, '.nuprovement, and development of housing; and , The Circulation Element which consists of the general location and extent of existing and propos.ed major thorougkfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan; and The Consen~ation/Open Space/Recreation Element which describes goals and policies for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, .fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources; and, describing goals .and policies to secure open space for preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation and for the public health and safety; and The Public Safety Element which describes goals and policies for the protection of the ,community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rapture, groUnd shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and. dam fa/lure; slope ins~ty leading to mudslides and landslides; .subsidence, liquefacti6n and other seismic hazards, and other geologic hazards; flooflin~ and wi.lc[land and urban fires; and. The Noise Element WhiCh identifies and. appraises noise problems in the communi.'.ty; and . .:, ;: .... . . . The GroW~ Management Element which describes goals .and policies to ensure that gro .w~ and develOpment is based upon the City's ability to provide an adequate.~tmffic, circulation system; it guides Tustin's participation in interjUfiSdictional planning efforts and establisheS, a goal that the provision of jobs and housing be balanced. 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18' 19 2O 22- 23 24 26 27 28 29 Reso]ufion No. 3729 Page 3 F. On March 16, 2000 the Cali/omia Deparu~ent of Housing and Community Development certified that they had reviewed and approved the Housing Element revisions proposed in this action, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585Co); and G. Pursuant to the NatiOnal Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFK parts 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)(Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. 'et. ieq'. 21000) and the State Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Depm'~ent of Navy have completed the following actions in praparEg the EIS/EIR: 1~. On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. . On July 20, 1994,'a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation' and comments on the NOP for the EIS?EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. 3. On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR was released'for 60-day public review and comment (SCH No. 94071005). The Document assessed the sio_nificant environmental impact, mitgafion 'measures, and alternatives associated with the Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and Irvine, California and the subsequent reuse of those properties and other · adjacent properties. 4. On. February 5, 1998, a Public Heariu~ Was' held on the initial Draft EIS/EIR. · '5. On July 8, 1999, a revised Draft EIS,rEIR was released for 45-day public review and comment, The comment period on' the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. · 6. On August 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the ~'evised Draft EIS/EIR. . _ . on DeCember 23, i999, a Final EIS/EIR' was released for 30-day .public review md'comment The comment period on the Final EIS/EIR was closed on January 24, 2000. The~Final EIS/EIK provides the required written . responses't9 each. cOmment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to California Public ResoUrCes Code Section:' 21092.5. and NEPA Council on Environmental Qiiaiity Re=m~lafions Section 1503.4. , 8, Ofi'Noveml~er 17~~ 20~°,Final Response to Comments on the Final EIS/EIR 9. PHor to a~provin§ the proposed action, the City Council m~St cem~.~at the Final EIS/EIR is complete and adeqaa~e. 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 :28. 29 Resolution ~o. 5729 Page 4 He The EIS/EIR was prepared to analyze a proposed project addressing the potential environmental effects of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and a wide range of project alternatives. In general, the EIS/EI~ evaluates the proposed project (Alternative 1-LRA Reuse Plan), two other build-out alternatives (Alternative 2- Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High Residential and Alternative 3-Arterial Loop Pattern/Reserve Area/Low Residential) and two no'project/no development alternatives (No Action Alternative and Disposal of Navy Property Alternative). For background purposes,' AlternativeS' 1, 2 and 3 are briefly summarized as follows: ".. Alternative 1 - LRA Reuse Plan - Alternative 1 is the alternative submitted by the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to the DON and HUD and the one that the City of Tustin believes would best meet the community objectiv, es of the reuse planning process: This alternative would result in 4,601 dwelling units (4,049 dwelling units in the City of Tustin) and 11,406,975 square feet of commercial/industrial/recreational square footage; Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Golf Village with hotel and ancillary retail uses; an Urban Re~onal Park developed around the northern blimp hangar; a large Community Core developed with mixed uses including reuse of the southerly blimp hangar if financially feasible; and specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village campus. Alternative 2 - Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High Residential- Ti-tis alternative proposes a '¢ariety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing housing and cultural oppommities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine and nearby communities. This alternative would result in 6,205 dwelling units and 9,2.14,583 square feet of commercial and business uses, Village Mixed- Uses, and Public Institutional/Commercial functions. A large Cultural Center would be developed under this alternative, and tl:/e northern blimp hangar would be incorporated, if financially feasible. The Southern blimp hangar would be demolished under this altemative. Alternative 3 - Arterial Loop Pattern/Reserve 'AreafLow Residential- This~altemative Proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on e .nhancing employment and cultural oppo~mities' for residents of Tustin, I.wine and nearbY'Communities. This alternative would result in 4,340 dwelling units and 10,916,575 square feet of commercial, commercial business, Village Mixed-Use and other business-related uses. A. large Cultural.' Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and would incorporate the northern blimp hangar, if financially feasible. The southern blimp.hangar would be demolished. A 179-acre Reserve Area would include residential, commercial~usiness, and institutional Uses in large-sCale development . 10 12 13 14 15 16 19 2O 21 23 24 26 2It R~o]u6on No. 3729 Pag: 5 In accordance with Section 15132 of the State Guidelines, and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the Final EIS/EIM. consists of' Jo 1. The initial Draft EIS/EI~' revised Draft EIS/EI~ and Final EIS/EIR including Comments and Responses on the revised Draf~ EIS/EIR and all appendices and technical reports, thereto; 2. Comments and Responses on the Final EIS/E[R; 3. Redevelopment Agency staff report to the Planing Commission dated NoVember 28, 2000; · 4. Minutes of the City of Tustin Planning Commission, dated November 28, 2000; On November 28, 2000, the Tustin Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public heating to provide a further opporturdty for the general public to comment on and respond to the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001; and K.'The Tustin Planning Commission has received, reviewed and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001, the testimony, evidence and comments made at the public heating, and the Final EIS/EIR and has made the following Findings: . That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for. MCAS Tustin necessitates that the'current Tustin General. Plan be amended prior to the adoption of implement.ing actions that will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes. 2. That the City' of Tustin has prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with Section 65302 of the California Government Code to address changes associated with planning for the reuse (~fMCAS Tustin. . That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 wilt result in a General Plan that will serve as an effective ~mfide for the orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open- space land natural resources, and the efficient' expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in the General Plan. its elements and parts thereof being integrated, internally consistent and cgmpatible. That the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. 7 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 24' 25' 26 27 28 29 P,',::,olution ,No..~ ~.~9 II. The Tustin Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin G~al Plan as identified in "Exhibit A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tusfin Planning Commission, held on the 284 day of November 2000. ~ -ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Plann/ng Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORN~ ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTLXl ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify, that I am the Plann/ng Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3739 was duly. passed and adopted at a re=mzlar meeting of. the Tustin Planning Commission,. held on the 28~ day of November, 2000. "ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Plann/ng Commission Secretary C~-'~os'3739.do¢ em e Staff~ Reportto the ,;~ i..~ i:ii~.~ ~!. :~ii!!iiill~' pl~~ ing cOm~ ission' 'on.. O PA 00-001 Report to the Planning Commission DATE SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 28, 2000 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00'001 APPLICANT: CITY OF. TUSTIN ,, PROPERTY OWNER: MCAS TUSTIN ·. GOVERNMENT : PERTY BASE PRO - UNITED STATES LOCATION: NON-BASE PROPERTY- (15015 HARVARD AVENUE) 4.1 ACRE IRVINE COMPANY THE' FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR (TUSTIN INCORPORATED LIMITS ONLY) STATION, TUSTIN, PRESENT GENERAL'-- . PLAN &.ZONING: MILITARY, 'AND PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL; PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL ' , STATUS: ,~ REcoMMENDATION ..., -. '~'; A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT sTATEMENT/ENVIRON- MENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) HAS BEEN PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) AND THE CALIFORNIA' ENVIRONMENTAL -QUALITY ACT (CEQA). · ; " - 2; ~ .... Adopt Resolution No; 3739 recommending that the~Tustin city council.approve,General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending~the Tustin General. Plan. · , -, BACKGROUND '-.:'- , ~ ,. ~': ::L.. '"' ?'~:: '" '(DBcRA) of 1'990 In.accordance-with the, DefenSe B~'se clOSure and Realignment Act' (10 USC 2687)and.the-,pertinent: base-cio~ure': andl-re~iignment deCisions of the Defense Base CloSure.and Realignment'C°mmissi°n' appr°ved by the President and accepted by Congress in,.1991 ,' 1993i',and 1,995, 'the M..ari~'e Corps'Air.. Station (MCAS)' Tustinwas closedon'July. 2; 1999.~,c.~ ::~ ,~,: ~: -~ - .. . . ~--, , ~. '" ct '.':{2 ~:. , .:~, ,~. ,?Ltl" .~,' -', :.,;? .. ' .,': : .",.!~ ' ' Federal,law provides the°pportunity,for, th.e resp°nsible local authority'to develop a reuse plan that will guide the disposal actions of the United States 'Navy (DON)'at the site. The City of Tustin ("City") was approved by the Department of Defense as the Planni.",g Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 2 Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin. In October 1996, the City, acting as the LRA for MCAS Tustin, submitted a Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the DON. Minor revisions to the Reuse' Plan were identified in an "Errata" to the Reuse Plan that was forWarded t°'the DON in September 1998. MCAS Tustin is comprised of 1602 acres and is located within the boundaries of two local jurisdictions (Attachment 1). The majority of the site, or approximately 1,507 acres is located within the City of Tustin. Approximately 95 acres is situated within the City of Irvine. TO maximize efficiency of the reuse planning process, the City incorporated two other parcels into the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan as follows: a 17-acre site that will be transferred from the DON to the Department of Army, Army Reserve; and a privately owned, approximate four-acre parcel located in the vicinity of Harvard Avenue and Edinger Avenue. Between November 1992 and October 1996, the City of Tustin held numerous public meetings, workshops, weekend workshops and public hearings soliciting public input 'and comment on a variety of base redevelopment issues, opportunities and constraints. These efforts eventually led to the development, consideration and rejection of a number of Reuse Plan alternatives prior to the selection of the approved Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan is intended to serve as both a policy-oriented and regulatory document. The Reuse Plan has been submitted to the Department of Defense'aS' a policy guide Outlining the intended reuse for. the' site. Contingent upon future Zoning, adoption of the General Plan Amendment within the City could result in a maximum of 4,049 dwelling units; Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a'n Urban Regional Park designation around the northern blimp hangar;, a large Community Core area allowing mixed uses; specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village; and a Golf Village area with hotel and ancillary retail uses.' Approximately 11.4 million square feet of non-residential uses such as commercial business, light industrial~ public and ' recreation'useS'(approximately 2.2'milliOn feet is existing floor area on the base and 9.2 million square feet is pot~'ntial new fl~)or area) Could be developed. Both of the National Register of Historic Places listed blimp hangars could be reused, if financially feasible. · . Full realization of the community's Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin will require the approvai Of seCeral' implementing 'actions, These implementing actions will. offset the '". negative S0bioec~n0rnic effects caused bY BaSe Realignment and Closure (BP, AC) and facilitate a'n ?econOmicallY viable and balanced reUSe plan that will provide housing and emploYment Opportunities;sOlve exisung Comrnun'rty circulation and recreation parkland deficiencies and generate sufficient revenue (property tax, sales tax or. other revenue such as land sales proceeds, developer infrastructure payments or special assessment district financing) to support the inVestment in infrastructure required to convert the site t° productive civilian purposes, r ' ~ Planning Commission Report G PA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 3 The currently proposed action is only for General Plan Amendment (GPA) 00-001. GPA 00-001 is within the City of Tustin's portion of the closed MCAS Tustin site. The '~,, proposed action dOes~not affect a portion of MCAS'Tustin that lies within the City of · Irvine. · · · · " DISCUSSION Site and Surrounding Properties Surrounding properties are described as follows: Uses to the north (from the westedy "Red Hill Avenue" edge to the eastedy "Harvard Avenue" edge)include a light industrial business park, and indoor and outdoor storage facility, commercial uses, Edinger Avenue, the Southem California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), two large single-family residential tracts (Tustin Meadows and Peppertree), the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, a large industrial park to the east of the proposed extension of Tustin Ranch Road and a light industrial/commercial/service business are located near Jamboree Road and Edinger Avenue. Uses to the west (from the northerly "Edinger Avenue" edge to the southerly "Barranca Parkway" edge)include light industrial, commercial business, business park, and ~'; research and. development uses.~ Properties located south of Warner Avenue are within "' the City of Santa Aha. ,Properties north of Wamer Avenue are within the City of Tustin. Uses to the south (from the westedy ,"Red. Hill Avenue" edge to the eastedy "Harvard · . Avenue" edge)include a combination of business park, light industrial, industrial and commercial uses in the City of lrvine. Adjacent to Harvard Avenue and south of Tustin's jurisdictional boundaries are existing residential units and vacant property within the City of irvine at.the former MCAS Tustin. Uses to the eaSt (fr°m'fl~e s0bth~r~Y:':;;Barran~a Parkway. edge to tl~e northerly SCRRA railroad {racks edge)inClUde residential (Village,38)'.and rec,reationa!_uses within the' City of irvine. " . .......... ' Project DescriPtion'.. · GPA 00-001 would amend the Tustin Gene~ai' Plan as sbmma~ed below: '- . ~endments am pr~posed-t0'the general descnpti 0f the MCAS Tu~tin Specific o~ ~-'~ 'Plan, Es' plan development pr°cess, .and' asSoCiated issues; goals, .and policies. . Amendment 0f ~e'Land' Use Element 0f.,the General Plan provides a' narrative description of ~e MCAS Tustin~ Spec~c Plan designation for the subje~ prope~ and placemenFdesigna~on on the Land Use' Policy Map in place of the present Planning Commission Repod GPA 00--001 November 28, 2000 Page 4 Military and Public/Institutional land use designations, and provides other minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements and to Update General Plan information. GPA 00-001 would also add Goal 13 and amend Policy 7.6. Specifically,:the Land Use Element revisions seek to maximize the appeal of the site as a mixed use, master planned development to create results that are very special and worthy of the site's present and historical importance. The planned land use designation for the' site will accommodate a range of land uses that will provide a healthy balance of market-driven, private sector uses along with a wide range of public serving uses. A variety of housing opportunities, employment, educational and community support uses will complement surrounding uses and strengthen the economic base of the area. The Plan land use designation for the site would permit community facilities and infrastructure necessary to support the planned uses' and provides critical links to local and regional transportation system and trails. The location and mix of uses within the future proposed Specific Plan would be intended t° minimize noise, traffic, air quality and other potential environmental impacts. Aisc, design guidelines and development standards within the future Specific Plan would address the aesthetic integration of uses Within the site and with surrounding uses. · Amendment of the HoUsing Element incorporates a discussion of the base.closure .process 'and potential disposition of existing military housing-at the former base, opportunities for new housing provided by the MCAS' Tustin project, and provides other minor narrative and statistical 'corrections. to ensure· consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information.. GPA 00.-001 ~ proposes no new Goals for the' Housing Element, but does amend Policy 1.15. :. ,. . Approval of the proposed GPA 00-001 would suPpOrt implementation of a future : Specific Plan permitting a variety of iow density, medium density, and medium-high density residential Uses"'~t the former base' to accommodate the diverse., socio- 'economic needs'Within 'the community. " · " J On March 16, 2000, the Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved the Housing Element revisions proposed in GPA 00- 001, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b). · Amendment of the Circular/on Element, incorporates revisions to the City's Arterial Highway Plan, Ma~ter BikeWay''Plan, -and narrative discussion to be consistent with the other' General'Pl~n' El~erit' changeS' and the' future. Specific Plan' for MCAS Tustin. The propoSed Circulation Element amendment identifies extensions of Tustin' Ranch Road from Ed!riger Avenue to Barranca Parkway;' Warner Avenue from Red Hill Avenue to Jamboree Road, and the addition of a'new iccp system Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 5 conSisting of Valencia North Loop Road and South Loop Road, Armstrong Avenue, East Connector and West Connector. ~ In additior~i~Pedestrian and bicycle paths are shown and discussed. They would connect with nearbY, existing and planned local and regional facilities as well as se~ing as a significant mode of transportation internally within the Plan area. GPA 00-001 proposes no new Goals for the Circulation Element b'ut does amend Policies 3.8 and 4.1. Amendment of the Conservation/Open Space/Recreati°n Element incorporates major landscaped roadways proposed at the former MCAS Tustin as landscape corridors, and identifies at the former base proposed parks as part of the City's planned park and recreation facilities, and other minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information. GPA 00-001 proposes no new Goals for the Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element but does amend Policies 12.1, 14.4, 15.1, and 18.5. Approval of the proposed GPA 00-001 will support a mixture of uses that will enable People to live and work at the site. Numerous-public parks, private recreational facilities; and'trails are ~discussed in .the General Plan Amendment, including an opportunity for a planned 18-hole golf course and other private recreation facilities. The former base contains two blimp hangars that are on the National Register of Historic Places, which may be preserved if financially feasible. · · Amendment of the Public Safety Element describes the Base Cleanup Plan and .... '~)0tential amendment of ,the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. (AELUP) to accommodate intedm blimp flights and heliports and proposes other minor narrative' and statistical correctionS to ensure consistency between General Plan elements ' :'" ' and to-'UPdate General Plan information:: GPA 00-001 proposes no new. Goals for "the Public Safety Element but does amend policies 3.8, 4.8, 5.1,.5.6, and 7.6. ' '""' MCAS 'Tustin has'been~a user of hazardous 'rnatedals and .there have been numerous, documented. Spills"and leaks on the site;~ The. military is. currently implementing remedial actions necessary to remediate contamination to levels that 'Would :sUpPort-futureredevelopmerit as defined in the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin. ; -- Amendment ' of~; the '!Noise: Element reflects projected roadway traffic noise ,.,"associated ~with~implementa{ion: of..-the Reuse Plan. and proposes other minor .-' 'narrative~and {statistical corrections to ensure, consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan 'information. GPA 00-001 proposes no new Goals and Policies for the Noise Element. · Planning Commission Repod GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 6 Amendment of the Growth Management. Element describes new planned transportation improvements, including the extension of Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue through the site, and the addition of a new loop roadway system. within the site,' and' proposes other, minor narrative and statistical corrections to ensure Consistency between General Plan elements and to update General Plan information. GPA 00-001 proposes no new Goals and Policies for the Growth Management Element. Approval of the proposed GPA 00-001 would support the generation of more than 20,000 jobs at the site at build-out, which will improve the jobs/housing balance within the City. The mix of uses proposed will enable people to live, work, shop recreate, and attend schools (including college level) within the Reuse Plan area. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION A Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) has been prepared for the proposed action, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Califomia Public Resources Code, Section 21,000 et. seq. and the State Guidelines, Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations,' Section 15000 et. seq. The City of Tustin and Department of Navy has completed the following actions in preparing the EIS/EIR: 1. On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. , 2: On July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and '-' comments onthe NOP for the ElS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. . 3/On January 16,' 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR released for 60-day public review and comment.. (SCH No.!~.94071005). The Document. assessed the ~significant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and altematives associated with the DispoSal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and lrvine, Califomia and the subsequent rebs'e of those properties and other adjacent properties. , 4. on February 5,'1998, a Public Headng was held on'the revised Draft ElS/BR. 5. on july. 8,, 1999, a reVised Draft EIS/EIR' released .for public 45-day review'and comment~.-A copy was'also filed with the u.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State clearinghouse.' The comment period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August~23, 1999.~' ''"' .:: ..... , ":. ~ · ' · · 6. On August 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 7 7, On. December 23, 1999, .a Final EIS/EIR released for 30oday public review and comment. The~C°mment-period on the Final EIS/EIR was closed on January 24, 2000. The Final EIS/EIR provides the required written responses to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and NEPA council on Environmental Quality Regulations Section 1503.4. . On November 17, 2000, Final Response to Comments on the Final EIS/EIR was released. A Response to Final Comments on the EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin has been prepared and distributed to those persons or agencies that commented on the Final EIS/EIR (Attachment 2). For informational purposes, copies of the draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and draft Mitigation Monitoring Report are provided in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4, respectively. The Planning Commission is not holding a public hearing for the Final EIS/EIR nor will. the 'Planning Commission be taking any formal action on Final EIS/EIR prior to making a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on GPA 00-001. Prior to approving GPA 00-001, the Tustin City Council must . certify that the Final EIS/EIR is complete and adequate. ANALySIs The'City Council has the ultimate authoritY to ad~)pt the General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council on the proposed General. Plan Amendment 00-001. Findings supporting the Planning Commission's adoption of Resolution No. 3739 (Attachment 5) recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan are identified below: 1. That closure of MCAs Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates, that the current Tustin General Plan be amended prior to the adoption of implementing actions that will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes. 2. That the City of Tustin has prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with Section 65302 of the California Government Code to. address changes associated with planning for the reuse of MCAS Tustin. 3. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will result in a General Plan that will serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open-space land natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan. Planning Commission Report GPA 00-001 November 28, 2000 Page 8 4. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00-001 will , result in the General Plan, its elements and pads thereof being integrated, internally consistent and compatible. 5. That the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. Christine A. Shingleto¢/ Assistant City Manager Dana Ogdonv Senior Project Manager' Attachment: Attachment 1' Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries Response to Final Comments on the Final EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin Draft Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideratibns for Final EIS/EIR Draft Mitigation Monitoring Report for Final EIS/EIR Resolution-3739 and Exhibit A, General Plan Amendment 00-001 S:~CDDV~CREPORT~mcasgpa-doc rom rn nn,ng omm,ssion'~:""~' '"~?'~'~Meeti'n~g',- MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Chairman Kozak Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, Miller, and Pontious Present: Chairman Kozak, Commissioners Bell, Jennings, Miller, and Pontious Staff: Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney Christine Shingleton, Assistant City ManagedDirector, Redevelopment Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager (Redevelopment) Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager (Transportation) Karen Peterson, Senior Planner Justina Willkom, Associate Planner Boise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: There were no Public Concerns. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1~ Minutes of November 14, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Pontious moved, Commissioner Jennings seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion Carded 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. General Plan Amendment 00-001 a proposal to amend all current Elements of the Tustin 'General Plan to support the federal disposal action and the community actions needed to implement the Plan within the City 5f Tustin portion of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site., . _ APPLICANT: '; ~_ PROPER'r~'. OWNER: LOCATION: CITY OF TUSTIN' -- :: ' MCAS TUSTIN BASE PROPERTY - UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT _ NON-BASE PROPERTY- 4.1 ACRE IRVlNE . COMPANY (15015 HARVARD AVENUE) . : 'THE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, TUSTIN ¢'USTIN _INCORPORATED LIMITS ONLY) .. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan. The Public Hearing opened at 7:04 p.m. Dana Ogdon, Redevelopment Agency Senior Project Manager, presented the report. Chairman Kozak invited members of the public to present testimony, asking that they restrict their comments to General Plan Amendment 00-001. Karina Valenzuela, Student Trustee for Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD"), stated there has been a 45 percent increase in enrollment at Santa Ant College and Santiago Canyon College in the past five years; stated the District projects a 10 percent increase in enrollment by 2010; space is a major concem; asked if Santa Ana's largely Hispanic student population is the reason they are being denied what is rightfully theirs while the largely white student population attending South Orange County Community College District are getting the prize; over 53,000 students enrolled at RSCCD during 1999-2000 school year; and, asked, as the representative for those students, that RSCCD be faidy treated for a portion of the acreage that lies between the district boundaries. Fortino Rivera, representing Santa Ana residents, referred to the overcrowding in Santa Ana Unified School District; asked that justice not be distorted and Space denied to the students of Santa Ana, the parents of Santa Ana only ask for equal dghts for their children; stated this proposal lacks truth and a portion of the land was formedy allocated to SAUSD or RCCCD which has now been taken away; noted that Santa Ana 'impacts Tustin; therefore, improving Santa Ana also improves Tustin; and, discrimination against the students of Santa Ana denies them their civil rights. Cindy .Nelson, representing the city of Santa Ana, commented for the public record: 1) there is a fundamental disagreement with the environmental document in that the traffic study underestimates the impacts of the base development on the City of Santa Ana; the model used in the study assumed that all arterial improvements would be completed by the year 2020 per Santa Ana's Master Plan of Artedal Highways; this assumption is faulty as there are no current funds or anticipated future funds necessary to complete all the improvements by 2020; the EIR should assume Worst Case which is Santa Ana infrastructure as it is today; Santa Ana cannot fully fund all of arterial projects within timeframe provided; the situation is not unique to most cities who are struggling to keep up with deferred maintenance of their major arterials; the EIR assumes that the transportation corridors will operate as free facilities and reduce traffic on surrounding roadways; recent forecasts from the Transportation Corridor Agency dispute this assumption; a General Plan Amendment of this magnitude, requires the Planning Commission and City Council consider an appropriate balance of community needs, economic realities, and impacts on surrounding communities; the EIR does not consider a reasonable range of altematives that would accomplish this; the. reuse plan attempts to maximize commercial and residential development for economic purposes rather than providing more community amenities, lower densities of development, and less impact on Tustin's neighboring cities; the EIR fails to determine the feasibility of implementing the recommended mitigation measures; the EIR assumes that an agreement will be reached with the City of Santa,Ana and other affected jurisdictions and that future environmental review will be undertaken with suSsequent phases of development and that agreements as to appropriate mitigation measures will be negotiated at that time; this approach is contrary to CEQA and eliminates future remedies for the City of Santa Ana if agreement cannot be reached; steps are being taken with the City staff to initiate discussions with Santa Aha to addres~ these concerns; Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 3 given the serious implications of proceeding with these entitlements, the City of Santa Aha would like the item continued until the two cities have had fudher oppodunity to develop a mutually agreed upon mitigation plan; failure to do so will require pursuance by Santa Aha of all appropriate means to assure adequate steps are taken to mitigate the project on the City of Santa Ana. Chairman Kozak verified with Ms. Nelson that her statements were official comments of the City of Santa Ana. Novel James, representing James Golf Development Company, urged that the project move forward with a green area that will help pay for other development of the base. Ed Connor, representing the Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), RSCCD, the Riveras, Garcias, and Ms. Valenzuela, referred to a letter presented to the Commissioners at the meeting, which was prepared by his office and sent to staff eadier and an eadier letter on behalf of the above parties which was sent to the Department of the Navy; these letters address potential/actual 'violations of. Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; two additional letters have been sent to the City and the Navy Department regarding the environmental objections to the EIS/EIR; agreed with the speaker from the City of Santa Ana that this hearing was noticed to discuss the environmental document; stated his concem that a recommendation will be made to the City Council without passing on the adequacy of the environmental document; asked why the City is going forward with the Public Hearing; the City has undercounted the number of students that will be added to the public school system in Santa Ana (77,000 new jobs projecting 82 to 500 students to the SAUSD); no new school sites are planned for Santa Ana or Rancho Santiago; the City has not set forth proper mitigation measures to deal with overcrowding; suggested taking the 100 acres planned for South Orange County Community College District and share it with all five school districts whose boundaries cover that base; there is no reason to exclude two school districts; stated the only reason for not doing so is ethnic odgins; asked why the City is excluding two districts While. admitting adding 500 students to those same districts; requested a mitigation measure that would resolve dilemma for everyone. , Martin N. Burton, Alvarado, Smith & Sanchez, .co-Counsel for SAUSD and RSCCD, stated · that: the City knows the SAUSD and RSCCD have profound objections tO the reuse plan; that it is an aggressive tactic to move forward tO force a wholly unacceptable plan upon the City's neighbors and co-governing agencies; this action is'a clear ~iolation of Govemor Davis' directive to Tustin to work with Santa Aha when he vetoed legislation that would have expedited development at the Marine. Base; the SAUSD and RSCCD share jurisdiction over 160 acres at the Base with the City; the'. City .is excluding SAUSD 'and RSCCD and ignodng the needs of Santa Aha; ~.0 percent of SAUSD 'children attend _. school in portable classrooms, structures that were not meant to house'students permanentJy--24,000 students, Or one and one, half times'the enu.repopulatiSn of Tustin Unified School District; there is no' land left in Santa 'Aha for schools; the United States Department of Education in 1994 approved SAUSD's alJPlicati°n to transfer 75 of the 160 acres to Santa Aha for new classrooms; the reuse plan the City has proposed rejects the Department of Education's own approval and completely shuts out SAUSD and RSCCD; the City provided in the MCAS Tustin Base Reuse Plan ("the Plan") free land to several jurisdictions in wealthier communitieS'which have fewer needs than Santa Ana's; for Irvine Unified, the City has proposed 20 acres for: SChOOls;' for Tustin unified, the City has. proposed 60 acres; for South' Orange CountY. community College District, 100 acres; the wealthy jurisdictions with lower needs receive 180. acres; the needy jurisdictions, SAUSD and RSCCD, get nothing; Santa Aha children deserve the same educational opportunities as wealthier neighbors; classrooms on.this property.would fill that need; moving forward with this action is antithetical to the compromising .posture that the Tustin City. Manager has represented in the newspaperS; urged that the Planning Commission not, take this action, to put it on hold, and, to grant property to SAUSD and RSCCD. Planning Commission Minutes November28,2000 Page 4 Peter Hersh, Assistant to the City Manager, City of Irvine, stated that: in subparagraph k, page 5, of Resolution 3739, it states that the Tustin Planning Commission "has received, reviewed and considered the proposed GPA and final EIS/EIR; stated his assumption that the Commission was considering the EIS/EIR and that comments in that regard are appropriate; the City of Irvine has a nine-year history with the Base closure; they have worked with the City regarding the closure and development of the Plan; they worked with the City on the Restoration Advisory Board; the Irvine City Manager voted in 1996 to support the Plan; they worked with City staff and counsel negotiating a Redevelopment Cooperation Agreement benefiting both cities regarding the development of housing along Harvard Avenue; they have written letters in support of Tustin on legislation to facilitate implementation of the Tustin Legacy; they have worked with the City drafting letters to the Departments of Defense and Navy on expediting the transfer process that has been stalled; they are looking forward to working with Tustin to get the Plan developed and the Irvine housing units on line as soon as pOssible; reiterated comments from the past regarding the EIS/EIR: forwarded three letters to the City, March 2, 1998; August 27, 1999; and January 28, 2000; stated the remaining issues relate to traffic issues. · Chairman Kozak interrupted to verif7 that Mr. Hersh's comments were official comments of · the City'of Irvine. Mr. Hersh responded affirmatively and stated his desire to summarize the contents of the foregoing letters: he addressed the issues of the traffic study methodology, especially pertaining to the areas of project definition, the socioeconomic data that was used, and the interim year impacts of the build-out of the project; on these issues, the EIR has been revised; in the second revised draft, on August 27, 1999, Irvine sent another letter focusing on the mitigation measures lrvine believed would work for both the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin to define a process for cooperative study addressing phasing, funding, and implementation of roadway improvements and circulation issues; Irvine prepared an Irvine Business Complex Plan in 1991; the City of Tustin took an active position addressing concerns; going from 15,000 tdps from the military to 200,000 trips requires a revisit to the traffic and circulation system in this area involving the jurisdictions mentioned; Irvine proposed draft language to incorporate as a mitigation measure which has not been incorporated in the final EIR; a letter on January 28, 2000, reiterated the need for cooperative study and addressed the issue relative to Traffic Mitigation Measure No.'9 relating to roadway improvements on the Base assuring the City of Irvine and other jurisdictions be involved in the traffic study preparation process to insure that the roadways identified in the plan are funded and implemented before develoPment proceeds again; the first comment letter dealt with the traffic phasing., funding, .and implementation on a macro basis; the comment of January' 28, 2000, dealt with micro level traffic studies for the Plan itself; in discussions with the City staff these issues have not been addressed; although he stated that their paramount issues have been addressed, the City of Irvine and the City of Tustin should come to terms on mitigation measures before final action is taken on the EIS/EIR; based on Resolution No. 3739, the Tustin Planning Commission is considering the final EIS/EIR; for these reasons, the comments of the City of. Irvine-seemed appropriate.. .... Craig Fumiss, a resident of the local community and Senior Vice President of Lowe Enterprises Commercial Group. a commercial deVeloper selected as one of the final four for the commercial section of the Tustin Legacy project, spoke in support of adoption of the General Plan Amendment; stated his 'excitement about the possibilities the Base provides for local community and business; this is an important first step in putting the Base back into use; it will be good for the City and good for the community. Robert L. Elliott, an Irvine resid~n{, e)~pressed his concem regarding the negative impact the' development of the Base will bdng,-adding more roads, more traffic, more traffic signals, more buildings, and more people; the construction Will create a mess .affecting the residents of Irvine; Jamboree Road is already gridlocked 'during morning/evening rush Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 5 hours; adding roads does not always solve problems; he urged that planning and development of the Base proceed with caution, giving, consideration to Present and future residents. Laura C. Curran, Tustin resident and educator, stated her unfamiliarity with technical facets of the proposal; asked that the Commission consider joint planning and building with the Santa Ana Unified School District and Tustin Unified School District; she taught overseas for many years where several districts would come together, providing different focal points benefiting the students; Santa Ana has an innovative spirit, such as bringing the Orange County Center for Performing Arts to the center of Santa Ana, making it accessible to students in Santa Ana as well as Tustin; fundamental schools such as MacArthur' Intermediate are popular with students; the recently opened second Spanish language immersion school in Santa Ana shows that the SAUSD has innovative programs which are attractive to their students across the population; she is involved with work at Century High School and can attest that Santa Ana has demonstrated corn .mitment to their students; she encouraged a dialogue between the City of Tustin and RSCCD and SAUSD versus a contradictory approach; and, asked why not build facilities that are attractive for everyone. David Melvold, President of North Irvine Villages Association representing approximately 19,000 residents, expressed concern regarding adequacy/assurance of funding and 'implementation of the proposed mitigation measures of this project; lack of confidence that studies are adequate and fully detailed regarding the impact of the roadway system to North irvine; his residents are stuck between two major projects--Tustin Ranch, Lower Peters Canyon, and the Base on one side with the development proposed on the east side of Jeffrey including the El Toro Marine Base; he is concemed that yards and greenbelts will be tom up to make asphalt for these developments; he urged that Tustin and the City of irvine get together and reciprocate each other regarding El Toro and other development on both sides of North Irvine; the traffic on Irvine Boulevard in the evening is so slow that walking is '-faster;, Jamboree is like New York City in the morning and evening; he expressed concem regarding Irvine Boulevard, Culver Drive, the I-5 offramps, Walnut, Harvard; he would like to see energetic effort by the cities of irvine and Tustin to provide a realistic solution and a development that does not make it impossible for existing residents. Roger McCullough, a resident of the PePpertree tract in Tustin, Stated the tract will be impacted by the traffic noise created by the Base; it will become impossible to open windows during the summer due to noise and fumes; asked the Commission to look at the mitigating circumstances concerning noise and buffer the citizens even more; the Commission should consider; prohibition of trucks using roads; acknowledged that Tustin Legacy is important to the City's future but current residents shOuld be protected. '~' ~': ' Berklee Maughan, a Tustin resident, ~1: from- th~"Staff rep0~t ~l~is General plan has been found to be in the best interests of the public h~alth, 'safety, and welfare of the community,' then asked if it is in the best interest to adopt a plan that exceeds AQMD daily standards for hazardous pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides by as much as 3,100 Percent; to adopt a plan that calls for an increase in local traffic by 215,000 additional vehicle tdps per day;, to adopt a plan" that'~ calls for roadway improvements that require massive funds, the source of which is uniden.tiffed; the..fUndam~ntal Problem with this process is the City staff has hot'cor{sidered or analyzed any alternative proposal that would result in lower density, less traffic congestion, and more acceptable impacts to our air quality which is already acknowledged to be the worst in the nation; for City staff to conclude that monumental problems in the plan are unavoidable begs the question: Why not just Change the plan?; the City of Tustin as the legally designated local redevelopment agency has the absolute authority to change the plan in any way it desires to correct the problems to a substantial degree; a plan resulting in lower density would also please the Federal government and make it easier for the City to obtain the no-cost transfer of the Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 6 Base property that it seeks; he shared his agreement with the City of Santa Ana and the City of Irvine that the City has not made timely responses to written concerns (referred to a letter he wrote to which he did not receive an answer for ten months); suddenly hearings are scheduled; the EIPJEIS is an integral part of the concern; the General Plan Agreement is not ready to go to the Council; the project needs work on mitigating ~traffic congestion, air pollution, and identifying sources to fund these mitigation measures; the City of Santa Ana has no funds or plans for expand, ing Warner to six lanes; unless measures are taken to identify the funding sources, the ~air pollution and traffic will be much worse than stated; the City is trying to get cooperation .from other cities through agreements in the future after certification of the EIR by the Council; stated his hope that the Planning Commission was listening to comments being presented to them and that the General Plan Agreement Will not be recommended for adoption by the City Council but continued to a later date in order to work out some of the problems. Chairman Kozak stated he had made notes and asked staff if it would be appropriate to highlight some of the issues and have staff summarize and provide input for the Commission before further discussion among the Commissioners. Doug Holland, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the Chairman should close the Public Hearing, share concerns, and adjourn for a recess to allow staff to prepare their responses. Mr. Holland also stated that the EIR/EIS was provided as an informational , document to be reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission, but no formal action is to be taken by the Commission because the EIPJEIS is stdctly a legislative action being referred to the City Council for action. At that time, the Council will take formal action in regard to the EIR/EIS. Chairman Kozak stated he would share his comments. Christine Shingleton stated it was necessary to close the Public Hearing and pose any questions for staff before the recess. Chairman Kozak suggested it woUld be appropriate to take a recess. Lois Jeffrey, city Attomey, stated'it'wa~ apPrOpriate, since all speakers has been heard, to close the Public Hearing at which time the Commission could share questions and issues to be considered by staff, stating also that staff planned to painstakingly address issues brought forward at this Hearing. Chairman Kozak closed the Public Hearing at 8:05 p.m. . Commissioner Miller remarked that it 'Was very interesting listening to the comments Of the various speakers; stated his concern regarding the change in the amount of land provided for Santa Ana Unified School District and asked for more information; he asked what is being done regarding traffic congeStion and' air "pollution; he asked how density and. development of the prOperty was decided. . . Chairman Kozak summarized his concems as follows: school dist'ricts, traffic modeling from City of Irvine and the City of Tusfin, shared jurisdi_ction of the property with respect to representatives from SAUSD and RSCCD, the City's actions being contrary to CEQA, the City of irvine's statements regarding Resolution.3739 and EIR consideration, joint planning efforts, and funding mitigation measures. Recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m: Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 7 Doug Holland reiterated that the Planning Commission is sometimes asked to approve and certify environmental documents presented to the Commission before taking action; on all the items brought to the Commission, a decision is made which can be appealed to the City Council; if no appeal is' made, the Planning Commission decision is final; the Planning Commission is obligated to certify the Commission has reviewed any environmental documentation before, taking action to approve or disapprove a project; tonight's action is strictly a recommendation to the City Council; the Planning Commission is not required under CEQA to take 'any 'formal 'action on the environmental documentation; the Planning Commission is only obligated to C~nsider the documentation, along with all other comments and testimony provided at tonight's meeting, as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Christine Shingleton stated staff would address various issues by category and began with the school issue: Tustin is sensitive to the overcrowding issue raised by SAUSD; approximately 120 acres at the southwest portion of the Base is located within SAUSD; no housing i~; proposed to be built on that portion of MCAS-Tustin; it is proposed for commercial industrial development; the nearest housing occurring within the SAUSD and RSCCD would be over a mile and a half radius away, separated by the SI:{ 55 freeway and large industrial tracts on both sides of the freeway; other school districts cited on the record proposed to receive property, not as part of the General Plan Agreement but as part of the recommended disposal action by the Navy (not an action before the Planning Commission this evening), are recommended for receipt of property based upon direct impacts on those school districts where schoOl enrollment will increase due to housing actually being developed on the Base; the school generation factor tied to that impact analysis is state-of-the-art in terms of the projections indicating direct impacts; the City carefully considered the studies provided by SAUSD; hired technical experts in socio- economic demography and school issues to project a potential range of impacts---using much of the methodology provided by SAUSD; as part of that analysis, the City's technical eXperts concluded that development within the SAUSD portion of the site will not create direct impacts on SAUSD; under the comprehensive legislative scheme adopted by Senate Bill 50, there is opportunity for development fees that could be realized by the SAUSD, and cities throughout the state are obligated to resolve existing over-crowding problems and to require imposition of thOse fees adopted by local school districts; the City has made a number of offers to SAUSD; beyond the development-fee issue and what the City is restricted to offer by Senate Bill 50, the City has publicly made an offer to provide ten acres at the Base to serve as an elementary school; any. indirect impacts on school enrollment are largely expected at this level based on methodologY develop, ed by the FEIS/FEIR experts; the South Orange CommUnity College District has. als° offered publicly to support attendance'by an additional 1,000 SAUSD high school students in an advanced technology center in the 100-acre leaming village at the MCAS-_Tust. in site; in good faith the City is continuing negotiations on school issues; 'a week Ego the City felt close t'o a transactional agreement with SAUSD and RSCCD;' for the record, the City is continuing in good faith to move toward resolution of this issue; as it affectsthe documents this evening, the City has met all obligatiOns under the law;, for purposes Of clearing up any misconception regarding representations that SAUSD and RSCCD have a"valid, approved conveyance from the Federal Department of Education: before the current Base closure legislative scheme adopted in 1994 was in place;' there.was a screenir~g process under which public agencies could go directly t(~ the Federal government to ask for decisions on former military bases without going through local redevelopment aa{h0rity;' that process became null and void with ad°pti0n~. in '1994 ~'of the_ Base 'ClosureI Redeyelop~nent Homeless Assistance Act; under provisions of that Act, all new reqUests and old requests had to come back through the local redevelopment/reuse authority for approval; at that time the Base Closure Task Force and Tustin City Council did not recommend property for SAUSD or RSCCD because of the issues that related to direct ~ersus indirect imPact;, all of the adjacent jurisdictions unanimously supported the decisions of the Base Closure Task Force, including the City of Santa Ana and the City of irvine. Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 8 Doug Anderson, Transportation Engineer, stated as follows: Traffic Study Methodology: There is not an issue with Irvine with the traffic study methodology at this point. We have been able to work out the methodologies with Irvine and have a letter of acceptance from them dated the first part of 1999 or the latter part of 1998. The traffic study for the final EIS/EIR was prepared using regionally accepted methodology consistent with the Orange CoUnty subarea modeling guidelines manual and the congestion management program and County growth management plan guidelines as appropriate for a project of this size with regional influence. This approach insures the equitable treatment of all affected, jurisdictions and allows an objeCtive analysis based upon accepted methodology in the entire traffic study area. We all know traffic volumes throughout the region and the study area are projected to increase in the future. These are projected by demographic data as well as County traffic modeling. However, the future condition also includes various improvements to existing roadways, construction of new roadways, new land-use patterns and more travel-mode choices for commuters. The traffic model used for this project provides the latest traffic distribution patterns throughout the region. At some locations within the FEIS/EIR, traffic will increase while at other locations there is a decrease in traffic. This is based upon land-use generators and travel-distribution patterns. Traffic volumes vary throughout the region also based upon the new capacity that this project will add. Traffic Corridors' as Free Facilities: Transportation corridors were analyzed as toll facilities in the 2005 scenario. They were analyzed as toll facilities and free facilities in the 2020 scenario. They were analyzed as totally free facilities in the post-2020 analysis scenario which was provided for informational purposes only. EIR Traffic Study Underestimates the Traffic Impacts in ~/arious Jurisdictions: We feel that the accepted and consistent methodology the traffic study was based on does not provide for any underestimation of any traffic impacts within the study area. To date, we haVe not seen any substantial information from other jurisdictions or from any other entities that would provide us info'nation tO question our methodology on this' study. Mitigation Measures and Cooperative Studie~: The FEIS/EIR commits the City, and requires any development approved on the base, to pay their fair share of traffic improvements. These are triggered by traffic thresholds within the FEIS/FEIR. We are not deferring mitigation. We are committing to a fair share of mitigation. We are committed to working with our neighboring jurisdictions, such as Santa Ana and Irvine, on implementing traffic improvements within their jurisdictions where this project is obligated to pay either all or their fair share of their traffic improvements. - Wamer Avenue Widening Issue: warner Avenue is included on the list of committed imprOvements. That list of committed' improvements Was based upon "probable future impacts' or improvements that are identified'~ in' documents, 'such Ks a Capital improvement program, a special funding 'program, or conditions of. approval on a specific project, in any approved EIR's, and also neighboring jurisdictions' general plans. Wamer Avenue is sho~vn on the citY of Santa Ana's General Plan as a long- range improvement to be improved to six lane~. That was ~:onsidered in our study. However, the City is sensitive to the issue that Santa ~,na may not have funds' or have plans to improve Warner Avenue, and we are committed to working With Santa Ana to explore altemative methods of funding for thosel such as OCTA, Measure M 'programs, competitive programs, and the joint-powers auth~Hty program we have with the City of Santa Ana at this time. .. Chairman Kozak asked if the COmmission had questions, for Ms. Shingleton or Mr.' Anderson. '. There were no questions. '- ;.. F- .. ~.. 2-'- ~.- ~-.. ?: Planning Commission Minutes November 28, 2000 Page 9 Christine Shingleton continued the presentation and referred to these specific, questions raised concerning the reasonable range of alternatives and the density issue: she stated that the planning process began as eady as 1992; during this planning process representatives present at the meeting tonight had an oppodunity to participate in identifying the alternatives that would be evaluated; the alternatives before the Commission were adopted with the support'of the City of Santa Ana~and the City of Irvine who v(Jted on record at the Base Closure. Task Force meetings to support the range of alternatives; in response to the initial draft EIP,/..EIS produced in 1998, there was a decision made to reduce the preferred project identified in the original draft EIR bylover a million square feet of floor area; that decision modified alternative I (the preferred project) to mitigate and reduce in density the. preferred project by over ten percent and was approved by those communities sitting .on the Task Force; looking at comparable projects around the City, the draft EIS/EIR, final EIS/EIR provides documented responses to those issues that were raised and clearly identifies the density of this project as significantly less dense than Tustin Ranch, Peters Canyon and adjacent projects within the City of Irvine; response to the density issues with data is substantiated in the documents; the densities proposed in the Plan balance the needs to generate adequate market-driven uses to offset necessary infrastructure improvements that would be permitted, not just to serve the impacts of this development but to meet regional needs including requirements imposed by regional agencies such as the extension of regional arterial roadways not controlled by the City and not driven by project impacts. Commissioner Jennings asked for clarification regarding the 77,000 new jobs, bringing 82- 500 students to the SAUSD, figures mentioned by one of the speakers, and whether that means people will move into the SAUSD to take jobs on the Base. Christine Shingleton responded that the 77,000 figure cited was initially part of the analysis completed concerning direct/indirect jobs and multiplier impacts which would result from development on the Base; approximately 23,000 direct jobs will be generated from development of the project; another approximately 15,000 direct or indirect jobs .due to a "multiplier effect" on top of that, and an additonal 38,000 Short-term, temporary construction jobs dudng the construction pedod; socioeconomic demography experts, in' the FEIS/FEIR, projected (based upon the employment impact of the project) what could be indirect impacts from commercial industrial development; the FEIS/FEIR assumes there would be some indirect student generation. · : . Commission Jennings then .asked if ~he impact would be spread through many school districts in the area. ~,- . Christine Shingleton respon(~e~! tha~ there Will D'e direct and indireCt impac'l~s or~'theTustin Unified School District (TUSD) and Irvine Unified School Distdct (IUSC); eadier comments addressed the. direct impacts of development, of housing these .two Districts will experience; regionally accepted figures are used in extrapolating the nUmber of Santa Ana households that could indirectly be expected from the types of induStries that are p~jected to occur on the Base based on a radius around the Base .... . Chairman Kozak asked if the p~eferred .altemative is a re~luced density from one considered previously. , .... -. Christine Shingleton responded affirmatively, refer .encing her earlier'statement regarding the one-million-square-foot reduction .... - .... . Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, addressed the folloWing issues: wedged between development of El Toro airport and MCAS Tustin: in the EIR/EIS for MCAS Tustin, the impact of the development of El Toro as a 38;million passenger ~irport was considered; the Board of Supervisors have approved an El Toro reuse plan for that Planning Commission Minutes November 28. 2000 Page 10 worst-case scenario; mitigation measures were developed by the City for the Base development project to pay its fair share; the same cannot be said for the environmental documentation which has been done on El Toro. Pollution concems: the area's natural geographic features and the numbers of cars being driven result in some of the worst air pollution in the country; if nothing were developed at the Base, this pollution would continue; the alternative proposed is the least harmful environmentally, yet provides the funds needed from commercial development to pay for the infrastructure--the new roads, new sewers, new water systems that are needed; nothing at the Base is useable; benef~s will include additional open space that cannot be used now, a large County regional park, a public golf course, and green space; if only one house is built in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, it is impacting on the pollution problem; the Plan is designed to reuse the property in a way that provides housing for Iow- and moderate-income people, provides housing for the homeless, provides for a regional park, addresses circulation issues, while attempting to control air emissions; the Planning Commission may recommend something less dense to the City Council, but the Plan, developed over a ten-year pedod, is at a density that the planners feel is necessary in order to pay for the roads and the parks that are planned; all of the issues raised by Mr. Maughan have been addressed in the report, but staff felt it necessary to provide background; it would be great to propose a project that did not have any impact; unfortunately, there .are impacts, but there are also beneficial results to the project; when this project goes forward to the City Council for all of those impacts which cannot be mitigated, staff feels there are offsetting socio-economic and recreation/circulation benefits; these findings are not before the Planning Commission tonight but are some of the things the City Council will be considering. Commissioner Pontious stated that she has been involved in this process since its inception; she was also involved in the Tustin Ranch development; the plan before the Commission involves much lower square footage numbers than envisioned when it began; what we are looking at today 'is a dynamic document which may change in the future, given economic and other situations; the staff has done an outstanding job as has the community and neighboring jurisdictions; this is 'a good basis to start from on which the , City will be building in the future and continuing to work with neighboring jurisdictions and residents to improve the plan as we move along; there are many valid reasons to move forward with the General Plan Amendment and support the staff recommendation. ' Commissioner Jennings thanked everyone who attended the Planning Commission' and made comments; she stated that the project is .complex and detailed; she 'requested those concerns expressed to the Commission and staff's responses be shared with the City Council; she feels the comments represent a cross-section of the community;, she supports the staff recommendation. Chairman Kozak thanked everyOne in attendance for taking tii~e to attend the meeting and prepare their comments; he thanked 'staff for .providing responses for clarification and understanding of issues; he clarified that the' reCOmmended-action does not approve entitlements or zoning matters; those matters will come later through a specific plan ' hearing and adoption; the Planning Commission is. a review and recommend!ng body; adoption of a motion to recommend consideration of the General Plan Amendment to the Council does not preclude any furtherance of negotiations; he referred to Commissioner Jennings' comments regarding the issues and staff responses; he asked that the comments be .summarized 'in the official minutes; he suggested a supplemental memorandum or staff report be articulated and addressed to the Council, in their discretionary approval of the General Plan Amendment and EIR, so thatr they have the benefit of these issues being explained; he stated his support of the recommended action. Commissioner Pontious moved, : Commissioner Jennings SecOnded, to adopt Resolution No. 3739 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment Planning Commission Ivlinutes November 28, 2000 Page 11 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan. The Commissioners requested that staff prepare supplemental information, in conjunction with the City Council staff report, on the testimony received from the pul~lic. Motion carried 5-0. REGULAR BUSINESS: 'There was no Regular BusineSs. STAFF CONCERNS: 3. Report on Actions taken at the November 20, 2000 City Council Meeting. - Presentation: Karen Peterson, Senior Planner:. - Continued the Tustin Ranch Estates appeal to January 15, 2001. Established the City's preliminary assessment that the Media One franchise should not be renewed; required provision of service logs to assess level of service; gave Media One 60 days to submit a new proposal that addresses the City's cable needs and issues related to Media One's performance. - Approved staff recommendation to approve exclusive agreement to negotiate a disposition and development agreement for the Utt Juice property. - Stated that there are still no items scheduled for the second Planning Commission meeting in December. Commissioner Jennings requested further information regarding the Utt Juice proposal. Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager, responded that the proposal is basically the same as the one previously recommended for a 22,000 square foot complex of ground-floor retail and setback second-floor office tenants; developer is Metropolitan Development who does joint venture projects with redevelopment agencies throughout the southem California area; goal is to conclude development negotiations within 120- day period timeframe;, will be undertaking environmental review on the site; Utt construction' could coincide with the water yard construction. Chairman Kozak asked if the Media One proposal includes or precludes other providers. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, responded negatively and indicated any provider may request a non-exclusive franchise to serve that area Chairman Kozak attested to lack of service provided by Media One. COMMISSION CONCERNS: COMMISSIONER JENNINGS No concems were expressed. COMMISSIONER BELl..' - Expressed concern regarding the weed growth at Cedar Grove Park and asked that Parks and Recreation be notified. Planning Commission Ivlinutes November 28, 2000 Page 12 CHAIRMAN KOZAK - Noticed several nuisance signs for "Employment 911.com" and requested that code enforcement remove these signs. - Asked whether, in view of recent Planning Commission requests at Tustin Lanes and Coco's, the bright yellow paint on the Der Wienersnitzel roof meets City code. Staff responded that these items will be pursued through the appropriate channels. - Indicated the Commission will consider at the December 11 ~ meeting whether or not the second meeting in December should be cancelled. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Bell moved, Commissioner Pontious seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Motion carried 5-0. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on December 11, 2000, beginning at 7:00 p.m., City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Elizabeth A. Binsack Planning Commission Secretary Chairman ! :omm~ss~on,!:and~, annlng -~r :' tY of TUStin's CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN EDNIOND M. CONNOR LAURA LEE BLAKE CRAIG L. GRIFFIN DAVID J. JIESSELTINE MATI'IIEW J. FLETCllER ATIORNEY AT LAW 2600 MICHELf, ON DRIVE 5UrTE 1450 ]RVINE. CAIJFORNIA 926 i 2 TELEPHONE (949) 622-2600 TELEFACSIMILE (949) 622-2626 F~MAIL: ¢¢onnor~busincsslil.¢om Letter #I November 28, 2000 Mr. Dana ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 VIA MESSENGER Re.' Objections to Adequacy of FEIS/FEIR for General Plan Amendment 00-001 Re Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station - Tustin, California Dear Mr. Ogdon: We are the attorneys for Santa Ana Unified School District (the "SAUSD"), the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the "RSCCD"), Victor and Susan Garcia (the "Garcias"), Fourtino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karina Valenzuela [hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the "Districts") and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall collectively be referred to as the "Concerned Parties"]. We understand that, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Navy (the '2qavy"), the City of Tustin (the "City") is currently reviewing the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter, "FEIS/FEIR") for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Air corPs Air Station at Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin"). We further understand that the City intends to use the FEIS/FEIR as 'the environmental documentation to support its proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment 00-001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"). On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we submit the following objections to the adequacy of the FEIS./FEIR: (1) in violati°n of the California Envir°nmental'QUhlity Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "CEQA Guidelines" or the "Guidelines"), including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequatelY address the sig~ ificant environmental effects and gr°wth-inducing impacts 'which the Project will have'on, inter alia, soeiteCon0mics and public services and facilities in the' City of santa Aha; "''~ -' ~' ' ~:' ~' ' RSCCD~lcAs-LandTms~ogdon.doc CONNOR, BI.AKE & GRIFFIN LI.P Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 2 (2) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to describe all feasible mitigation measUres to minimize the significant environmental effects and growth-inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City' of Santa Ana; (3) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including' but not limited to, section 15126.6 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to discuss all reasonable project alternatives which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects and growth-inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana; (4) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15130 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to discuss the cumulative impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana; (5) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, inclUding, but not limited to, section 15131 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately identify and analyze the economic and social effects with the Project will have on persons residing in the City of Santa Ana, particularly with respect to public services' and facilities; · (6) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,-including, but not limited to, sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the Guidelines, the proposed Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project and the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequate address the significant impacts, reasonable project alternatives, and feasible mitigation measures for the Project, as more particularly described in the preceding subparagraphs; . .. (7). in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,. inClUding, but not li. mited to, section 15097 of the Guidei~es, the Mitigati ~on Monitoring Program With th'e city proposes to adopt in connection with the Project fails to incorp0ra}e adequate mitigation measures and is legally deficient for the reasons set for in the preceding subparagraphs. In addition to the foregoing objections, each of the Concerned Parties also incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each of the comments and RSCCDXMCAS-LandTmafr~.ngageraent CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 3 objections set forth in the three letters which SAUSD previously submitted to the City of Tustin (the "City") relating to the FEIS/FEIR (or to the Draft EIS/EIR), dated March 2, 1998, August 23, 1999, and May 19, 2000. Likewise, each of the Concerned Parties incorporates by reference, as though set forth in fall hereat, each of the oral or.written comments, objections, or contentions regarding the FEIS/FEIR (or the Draft EIS/EIS) which have been, or will be, submitted to your Department, or to the City, by any other persons or entities, prior to or at the time of any of the public hearings which the City conducts before approving the Project. To be placed in the proper context, this letter must be read in conjunction with (1) the letter, dated November 24, 2000 (the '2qovember 24 Letter"), which I sent to Mr. William Cassidy, Jr. of the Navy on behalf of each of the Concerned Parties and (2) the letter, dated November 28, 2000 (the "November 28 Letter"), which I transmitted to Mr. Cassidy earlier today. Copies of both these letters are attached hereto for your reference and each of them is incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat. In the November 24 Letter, a number of objections to the City's Reuse Plan (i.e., the Project) were raised under (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI") and (2) the regulations of the Department of Defense regarding "Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs." The November 24 Letter and the November 28 Letter both contained a great deal of statistical information relevant to the matters discussed in those letters, but, to 'avoid unnecessary duplication, that information will not be restated in full here. ' -~ · "The basic thrust of this letter is that the FEIS/FEIR has failed to adequately analyze--and to attempt to lessen or avoid--the impacts which the Project Will have on socioeconomics and public ~ervices and facilities in the City of Santa Aha. In general, .it is the position of the' Concerned Parties that the FEIS/FEIR has grossly underestimated these 'impacts as a result of, among other things, (1) the flawed analysis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of students that will be added to the already- overcrowded public schools in the SAUSD when the Proiect is developed and (2) the lack of any anlysis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of credit and non-credit students that will be added to the community college facilities oPerated by the RSCCD as a result of the City's Reuse Plan. Of course, not only does the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequately address the impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana, particularly the public schools and community college facilities, but it also fails to provide adequate mitigation measures to minimize those impacts, including, but not limited to, the most obvious mitigation measure of transferring an adequate amount of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to SAUSD · CON'NOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Dana Ogdon November 28, 2000 Page 4 and RSCCD so that those Districts could construct new facilities to help ease the overcrowding problems which they currently face. In addition to failing to specify adequate mitigation measures to alleviate the Project's impacts on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana, the FEIS/FEIR also fails to discuss any reasonable project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these impacts by allowing SAUSD and RSCCD to obtain surpius land at MCAS-Tustin to-build new facilities. Not a single one of the reuse alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR contemplates the conveyance of surplus land to all five educational districts whose boundaries cover portions of MCAS-Tustin, i.e., SAUSD, RSCCD, the Irvine Unified School District ("IUSD"), the Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD"), and the South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD"). Regrettably, the alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR only contemplate surplus land transfers to IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD. The City's decision to exclude SAUSD and RSCCD from receiving any land transfers at MCAS-Tustin not only raises Title VI concerns as explained in the November 24 Letter, but it also has environmental implications to the extent that the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately explore ways to avoid Project impacts on socioecon0mics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana. On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we respectfully request that the City withhold its approval of the FEIS/FEIR until each of the serious legal deficiencies noted above has been corrected and a new environmental document has been recirculated for public review and comment in accordance with section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Very truly yours, Edmond M. Connor . . RSCCDNCAS-LandTmsfr~Engagement CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLI' ATIORNEYS AT LAW Edmond M. Connor · Laura Lee Blake Craig L. Griffin David J. Hesseltine Matthew J. Fletcher 2600 Micheison Drive Suite 1450 lrvine, California 92612 TELEPHONE (949) 622-2600 TELEFACSIMILE (949) 622-2626 E-Mail econnor~businesslit.com Letter #2 Honorable William Cassidy,' Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (C&R) Department of Navy 1777 North Kent Street, Suite 9000 Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 November 28, 2000 , VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Re: Objections to Adequacy of EIS/FEIR for DiSposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station - Tustin, California Dear Mr. Cassidy: We are the attorneys for Santa Ana Unified School District (the "SAUSD"), the Rancho Santiago Community. College District (the "RSCCD"), Victor and Susan Garcia (the "Garcias"), Fourtino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karina Valenzuela [hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the "Districts") and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall collectively be referred to as the "Concerned Parties"]. We understand that your Department is currently reviewing the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Envirotlmental ImPact Report (hereinafter, "FEIS/FEIR") for the di. sposal and reuse of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin, California C'MCAS-Tustin"). On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we submit the following objections to the adequacY of the FEIS/FEIR: . First, by failing to adequately 'consider whether the direct, indirect, and cUmulative environmental impacts associated with the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin (hereinafter_, the "Project") would result in disProportionate negative effects on minority populations in the areas, surrounding' MCAS-Tusfin, the FEIS/FEIR fails to comply wi.th the dictates of the Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environm6ntal policy Act (the "Environmental Justie'e Guidance") which was promulgated to enforce the provisions of Executive Order 12898, entitled "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 2 CONNOR, BLAKE& GRIFFIN LLP Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations" (the "Environmental Justice Executive Order"); and Second, by failing to adequately address the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana, and by failing to adequately consider all reasonable project alternatives and feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate such impacts, the FEIS/FEIR fails to comply with requirements of the "National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) ["NEPA") and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. Part 1500 et seq.). In addition to the foregoing objections, each of the Concerned Parties also incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each of the comments and objections set forth in the three letters which SAUSD previously submitted to the City of Tustin (the "City") relating to the FEIS/FEIR (or to the Draft EIS/EIR), dated March 2, 1998, August 23, 1999, and May 19, 2000. Likewise, each of the Concerned Parties incorporates by reference, as though set fOrth in full hereat, each of the oral or written comments or objections regarding the FEIS/FEIR (or the Draft EIS/EIS) which have been, or will be, submitted to your Department, or to the City, by any other persons or entities. This letter must be read in conjunction with the earlier letter, dated November 24, 2000 (the "November'S4 Letter"), which I sent to you last week on behalf of each of the Concerned Parties. In the November 24 Letter, which is incorporated herein as though set forth in full hereat, I raised a number of objections under (1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI") and (2) the regulations of the Department of Defense regarding ''Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs" (hereinafter, the "DOD Title VI Regulations"). The November 24 Letter contained a great deal of statistical information which is relevant to the matters discussed in this letter, but, to avoid unnecessary duplication, I will not restate that information here, other than to incorporat.e it by reference. Indeed, the purpose of this letter is not to repeat all of the Title VI objections asserted in the prior letter; rather, its purpose is to articulate objections to the adequacy of the FEIS/FEIR based on the facts set forth in the November 24 Letter. · The basic thrust of this letter is that the FEIS/FEIR has failed to adequately : ' analyze--and to attempt to lessen or avoid--the impacts which the Project will have on the public elementary, intermediate, high school, and community college facilities in the City of Santa Aha. . RSCCD/M CAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cass~dy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 3 As explained below in greater detail, it is the position of the Concerned Parties that the FEI S/FEIR has grossly underestimated these impacts as a result of, among other things, (1) the flawed analysis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of students that will be added to the already-overcrowded schools in the SAUSD when the Project is developed and (2) the lack of any analysis in the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of credit and non-credit students that will be added to the community college facilities operated by the RSCCD as a result 0fthe redevelopment of · MCAS-Tustin ............ Of course, not only does the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequately address the impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana, particularly the public schools and community college facilities, but it also fails to provide adequate mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts, including, but not limited to, the most obvious mitigation measure of transferring an adequate amount of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to SAUSD and RSCCD to aflow them to construct new facilities to help ease the overcrowding problems which these Districts currently face. In addition to failing to specify adequate mitigation measures to alleviate the Project's impacts on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana, but the FEIS/FEIR also fails to discuss any reasonable project alternatives that would reduce or eliminate these impacts by allowing SAUSD and RSCCD to obtain surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to build new facilities. Not one of the reuse alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR contemplates the conveyance of surplus land to all five educational districts whose boundaries cover portions of MCAS-Tustin, i.e., SAUSD, RSCCD, the Irvine Unified School District CIUSD"), the Tustin Unified School District CTUSD"), and the South Orange County Community College District CSOCCCD"). Regrettably, the alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR only contemplate surplus land transfers to IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD. The City's decision to exclude SAUSD and RSCCD from receiving any land transfers at MCAS-Tustin not only raises Title VI concerns as explained in the November 24 Letter, but it also has environmental implications to the extent that the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately explore ways to avoid Project impacts On socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Aaa. ~ - Hopefully, your Department will withhold its approval of the FEIS/FEIR until the serious legal deficiencies noted above have been corrected and a new environmental document has been recirculated. To this end, the Concerned Parties offer the additional comments set forth below in the hopes that your Department will take heed of these defects and will require the FEIS/FEIR to be revised accordingly. RSCC. D/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 4 CONNOR,BLAKE&(;RIFF' ' I.LP I. Environmental Justice Executive Order The Environmental Justice Executive Order was issued by President Clinton on February 11, 1994 for the dual purpose of (1) promoting nondiscrimination in all Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the environment and (2) ensuring that ali Federal agencies identify and address the environmental and human health effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. (Feb. 11, 1994 Memorandum by President Clinton accompanying the. Environmental Justice Executive Order.) .. In much the same way that Title VI and the DOD Title VI regulations prohibit any grogram or activity that receives federal financial assistance from being conducted in a manner that has a discriminatory effect, this first component of the Environmental Justice Executive Order requires each federal agency to "[C]onduct its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health and the environment, in a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or sub ecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under, such programs, policies, and activities because of their race, color, or national origin." (Executive Order 12898 § 2-2.) Clearly, the disposal and reuse process relating to MCAS-Tustin is a program, policy, or activity of a federal agency that has a substantial effect on human health and the environment. This is demonstrated by the fact that your Department and the City have jointly prepared the FEIS/FEIR to analyze the "significant environmental impacts" associated with the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin, and have concluded that certain environmental impacts could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (See, e.g., FEIS/FEIR at ES-6, ES-20 - ES-27.) This point is finther underscored by the fact that NEPA only requires an environmental impact statement for "major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." (42 U.S.C. § 4332(C).) The concerned Parties believe that your Department would be in violation of the Environmental 'Justice Executive Order if it were to dispose of the surplus federal property at MCAS-Tustin in the manner proposed by the City in its current Reuse Plan. This violation would occur because your Department would be conducting its disposal RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 ttonorable William Cassldy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 5 and reuse program for MCAS-Tustin in a manner that would fail to ensure that the program would not have the effect of (1) denying the predominantly-Hispanic students of the Districts the benefits of the program or (2) otherwise discriminating against such students on the basis of their race, color, or national origin. As explained in greater detail in the November 24 Letter, if your Department were to approve the land transfers currently being proposed by the City, the predominantly-Hispanic students of the Districts would be denied the valuable benefits that are expected to flow from the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin, and would be the victims of racial discrimination because the City's proposed Reuse Plan allocates no less than five school sites to the three other districts with boundaries that cover a portion of MCAS-Tustin for the purpose of serving the new predominantly-white students that would be generated for these districts by the build-out of the Pro ect. These three districts - TUSD, IUSD, and SOCCCD - have predominantly non-Hispanic student populations and experience only minor overcrowding problems which pale in comparison to those confronting the Districts. As discussed in the November 24 Letter, the Districts, with their predominantly-Hispanic student populations, will be forced to incorporate the significant number of new students that will be generated by the City's proposed reuse of MCASTustin into the Districts' akeady severely overcrowded schools because the City's proposed Reuse Plan fails to allocate a single school site to the Districts. More importantly, by ignoring the Districts' need for new school sites, and recommending that all property at MCAS-Tustin within the Districts' boundaries be used for commercial development, the City's proposed Reuse Plan prevents the Districts from utilizing available property not only within, but also contiguous to, their'curTent boundaries for the purpose of addressing the severe overcrowding problems that the Districts' students are currently experiencing. In addition to the possible violation of the Environmental Justice Executive Order by failing to ensure that the disposal and reuse process for MCAS-Tustin does not have racially discriminatory effects, another possible violation of that Executive Order could occur if your Department were to issue a ROD approving the FEI S/FEI1L Specifically, your Department would be in violation of the second component of the Environmental Justice Executive Order because the FEIS/FEIR fails to properly identify and address the impacts that the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would have on minority and low-income populations. The FEIS/FEIR acknowledges that the Environmental Justice Executive Order "requires that the relative impacts of federal actions on minority populations and · RSCCD/7% 4CAS-LandIransfer/Cassidy4 t-tonorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 6 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Iow-income populations be addressed to avoid the placement of a disproportionate share of adverse impacts of these actions on these groups." (FEIS/FEIR at p.6-8.) However, despite this acknowledgment, the analysis of environmental justice concerns in the FEIS/FEIR is woefully inadequate because (1) it is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the analysis required by the Environmental Justice Executive Order, and (2) it is improperly restricted to focusing on "socioeconomic impacts" only. The FEIS/FEIR spends approximately two pages of text making a variety of comparisons between the demographics of the census tracts that surround MCASTustin and the demographics of the adjacent cities of Santa Ana,. Tustin, and Irvine, the County of Orange, and the State of California. (FEIS/FEIR at pp. 6-8 - 6-11.) Based on these comparisons, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that the area encompassing these census tracts is not a "disproportionately high minority population area" in comparison to adjacent communities or the county. (Id. at pp. 6-11 - 6-12.) The FEIS/FEIR then reaches the ultimate conclusion that, because the area covered by these census tracts is not a "disproportionately high minority population area," the proposed reuse of MCASTustin is "not likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority populations." (Id.) This conclusion, however, is a complete non sequitur because an area that is not a "disproportionately high minority population area" could nonetheless be home to one or more minority populations that disproportionately suffer the negative impacts of a proposed action. More importantly, the analysis leading to this conclusion clearly employs the wrong test under the Environmental Justice Executive Order. As the FEIS/FEIR acknowledges in its own def'mition regarding what is a significant environmental impact relative to environmental justice, the proper inquiry under the Environmental Justice Executive Order is whether the proposed action "would result in disproportionate negative effects on minority ... populations" regardless of the size of the effected minority population in comparison to other populations in the area. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 6-8.) However, after properly stating the test, the FEIS/FEIR proceeds to i~ore it. By focusing its analysis on whether the.census tracts surrounding MCASTustin can collectively be considered a "disproportionately high minority population area," the FEIS/FEIR misconstrues, and fails to satisfy, the mandate of the Environmental Justice Executive Order to identify and address disproportionately high environmental effects, on minority populations. (Environmental Justice Executive Order at § I - 10 1.) RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 7 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLI" In addition, the FEIS/FEIR inexplicably and improperly limits the environmental justice analysis it does conduct to the "socioeconomic impacts" discussed in section 4.2 of the FEIS/FEIR - i.e., "[p]otential direct and indirect impacts on population, housing, and employment resulting from the proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin." (FEIS/FEIR at pp. 6-12, 4-14.) Not only does the FEIS/FEIR fail to provide any basis for limiting its environmental justice analysis in this fashion, but this limitation is also in conflict with the requirements of the Environmental Justice Executive Order. In the "Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act" (the "Environmental Justice Guidance"), the Council on Environmental Quality, which has oversight of the Federal government's compliance with ' the Environmental Justice Executive Order and NEPA, makes it exceedingly clear that environmental justice analyses are to consider all impacts considered under NEPA. (Environmental Justice Guidance at pp. 1, 8.) Specifically, the Environmental Justice Guidance states "[e]nviromnental justice issues encompass a broad range of impacts covered by NEPA, including impacts on the natural or physical environment and interrelated social, cultural and economic effects. In preparing an EIS or an EA, agencies must consider both impacts on the natural or physical environment and related social, cultural and economic impacts." (Id. at p.8.) The Guidance goes on to note that the potential effects to be considered under NEPA, and, therefore, under the Environmental Justice Executive Order, "include 'ecological ... aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect or cumulative.'" (Id. quoting 40 C.F.1L § 1508.8.) Accordingly, due to the fact that the environmental justice analysis in the FEIS/FEIR is limited to "socioeconomic impacts" only, and thereby fails to even consider whether any of the 0thor 13 categories of potential impacts identified in Chapter 4.0 of the FEIS/FEIR would disproportionately affect minority populations, your Department would violate the Environmental Justice Executive Order if it were to issue a ROD approving the FEIS/FEI1L' This ~'ailure to even consider whether a wide range of potential impacts associated with the proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would disproportionately affect minority populations is particularly troubling to the Concerned (1) The 14 categories of potential impacts associated with the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin that are identified and discussed in Chapter 4.0 of the. FEIS/FEM entitled "Environmental Consequences,~ are (1) land use, (2) socioeconomic, (3) utilities, (4) public services and facilities, (5) aesthetics, (6) cultural and paleontological resources,.(7) biological resources, (8) agricultural resources, (9) soils and geolo~, (10) water resources, (11) hazardous wastes, substances, and materials, (12) traffic/circulation, (13) air quality, and (14) noise. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTmnsfer/Cassidy4 ltonorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 8 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN L. IJ' Parties because it ignores the very analysis which would show that the Project's impacts on public services and facilities in Santa Aha would have a disproportionately adverse effect on minority parents and students residing in that city As discussed at length in the November 24 Letter, the proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin has disproportionate negative effects on the Hispanic student populations of the Districts! This is so because it provides the predominantly white districts of IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD with school sites to address future growth associated with the development ofupscale homes at MCAS-Tustin. However, at the same time, the proposed disposal and reuse bars the Districts from utilizing available space within, as well as contiguous to, their current boundaries to address (1) the overcrowding problems their students must currently endure and (2) the future growth in its student population that will be caused by the proposed disposal and reuse of MCASTustin. II. NEPA As noted above, the FEIS/FEIR is legally deficient under NEPA and its implementing regulations because it fails to adequately address the significant environmental effects, growth-inducing impacts, cumulative impacts, feasible mitigation measures, and reasonable project alternatives associated with the development of the Project. In particular, the environmental analysis set forth in the FEIS/FEIR regarding the impacts which the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would have on the Districts is inaccurate and incomplete, and leads to the erroneous and unsubstantiated conclusion that the reuse would not have any significant effect on the Concerned Parties. (See, e.g., 10 C~F.R. § 15 02.16 (an environmental impact statement must fully and completely analyze all direct and indirect effects associated with the proposed project, as well as the significance of each direct and indirect effect).) In the first place, the conclusion that the Project would have no significant impact on SAUSD is based on estimates that significantly understate the number of students that would be generated for SAUSD by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. The FEIS/FEIR relies on the "Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS-Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Aha The Environmental Justice Guidance makes very clear that Hispanics are a minority population protected by the Envirom-nental Justice Executive Order. (Environmental Justice Guidance, Appendix "A" at p.25.) RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 9 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLi' 9 Unified School District" (the "Updated Household Growth Report') for the estimate that the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin and the new jobs created thereby would generate only 82 to 509 new students for SAUSD. However, this conclusion is unreasonably low given the fact that the FEIS/FEIR estimates that the proposed reuse of would create approximately 77,400 new jobs. (FEIS/FEIRatpp.2-41,4-18.) Specifically, the FEIS/FEIR estimates that the proposed reuse would (1) directly create approximately 24,900 newjobs at MCAS-Tustin, (2) indirectly create or induce an additional approximately 15,000 new jobs (excluding jobs associated with construction at MCASTustin), and (3) create approximately 37,500 new construction-related jobs. (Id.) The bottom end of the range of students that would be generated - i.e., 82 students - is unreasonably low because it is based on the estimate that only 10%, or 2,490, of the non-construction-related jobs that would be directly created by the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would be new to Orange County - i.e., 90% or 22,410 jobs would simply relocate to MCAS-Tustin from elsewhere in the County. (Updated Household Growth Report at p. 6.) This 10% figure is based on interviews the author of the Updated Household Growth Report conducted with various economic and real estate professionals in Southern California. These professionals purportedly indicated that a "vast majority" of the jobs that are projected to be directly created by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin would simply be jobs that would relocate from elsewhere in the County. (1 d.) Of course, not only is this 10% fi=mare unreasonable on its face, but it is further brought into question given the failure of the Updated Household Growth Report to identify who the individuals are that were interviewed or to provide any explanation as to how or why "vast majority" equates to 90%. There is also no explanation provided as to what information was provided to these professionals or what factors or analysis they considered to reach their purported conclusion. This 10% figure also ignores the concept of "backfill," whereby the commercial or industrial space vacated by businesses that relocate to MCAS-Tustin is backfilled by new businesses or businesses that relocate fi'om outside the County. Under the methodology of the Updated Household Growth Report, the more than 9.2 million square feet of commercial and industrial space proposed for construction at MCASTustin would cause more than 8.28 million square feet of commercial and industrial space elsewhere in the County to become and remain vacant-for an indefinite period of time. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 2-23.) Certainly, that is not the case, and at least some of the employees that work for these "backfill" businesses would establish residence within SAUSD. The estimate of 82 students is also unreasonably low because the methodology the Updated Household Growth Report uses to arrive at that estimate entirely ignores the approximately 3 7,500 construction-related jobs that would be created RSCCD/MCAS-LandTranSfer/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 10 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP 10 by the proposed reuse, and expressly assumes that none of the employees who would fill the 22,140 jobs that would relocate to MCAS-Tustin from within Orange County would relocate their residence to an area within SAUSD. Logic dictates that out of the 37,500 construction jobs and the 22,140 jobs that relocate to MCAS-Tustin from within the County, more than just a "negligible" amount of the employees filling those 59,640 jobs would relocate their residence to an area within SAUSD in order to be near theirjobs. (Updated Household Growth Report at p.6.) However, the Updated Household Growth Report simply ignores these jobs and the additional students they would likely generate The high end of the range of students estimated to be generated for SAUSD by the proposed reuse ofMCA$-TUstin - i.e., 509 students - is grossly understated because, in calculating this figure, the Updated Household Growth Report completely ignores the approximately 15,000 jobs that will be indirectly created or induced by the proposed reuse, as well as the approximately 37,500 construction-related jobs associated with the reuse. (Updated Household Growth Report at pp. 3-4.) Just as the 24,900 jobs that would be directly created by the proposed reuse would generate a significant number of new students for SAUSD, these additional 52,500 jobs would also generate at least some new students for SAUSD. Interestingly, although the Updated Household Growth Report did not consider the construction-related jobs in calculating either the high or low end of its student generation range, the Report did consider the indirect or induced jobs in calculating the low end of the range, but not the high end. No explanation is provided for this disparate treatment A consideration that makes both the Iow and the high ends of the Updated Household Growth Report range - i.e., 82 students and 509 students -unreasonably low is that they both are based on the assumption that a mere 4% of the households associated with the new jobs that would be created by the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would reside within SAUSD. This 4% figure is based on the "Orange County Projections -1996 Modified" estimate that the City of Santa Ana will capture 3.8% of all housing growth throughout the entire county between 2000 and 2020. However, when one focuses on the housing growth that is generated by the creation of a total of approximately 77,400 new jobs in and around a city immediately adjacent to Santa Ana -as opposed to all jobs created throughout the entire County over a 20 year period - it is evident that Santa Aha will capture much more than just 3.8% or even 4% of the housing growth generated by those new jobs. The Updated Household Growth Report claims that its 4% estimate is roughly consistent with a survey its author conducted of seven businesses located near MCAS-Tustin to determine where the employees of those businesses reside. This survey purportedly revealed that 4.8% of those employees reside in Santa Ana with the figure for these seven businesses ranging between 0% and 14%. (Updated Household Growth RSCCD/MCAS-LandTrans fcr/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 11 CONNOR, BLAKE& GRIFFIN LLP 12 13 Report at pp. 3-4.) A mere seven businesses, however, falls far short of being a large enough sample to support any reliable conclusions, especially in light of the fact that the identity of these businesses, their precise location, and the industries in which they operate are not disclosed. Nonetheless, even using the survey's 4.8% figure, the range of students generated for SAUSD by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin jumps to between 98 and 610 students?3 In light of the foregoing, it is evident that manY of the assumptions and conclusions the FEIS/FEIR and the Updated Household Growth Report relied on are highly questionable and entirely unsupported. As a result, these assumptions and conclusions have caused the FEIS/FEIR and the Updated Household Growth Report's estimate regarding the number of students that would be generated for SAUSD by the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin to be understated. As such, these same questionable and unfounded assumptions and conclusiOns have also caused the significance of the impact the reuse would have on SAUSD to be understated4. On a related topic, xhe FEIS/FEIR's conclusion that the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would not have any significant effect on 'SAUSD flatly contradicts the definition set forth in the FEIS/FEIR as to what constitutes a significant effectparticularly when that definition is applied to the facts acknowledged in the FEIS/FEIR regarding SAUSD's overcrowded schools and the students the reuse would generate for SAUSD. The FEIS/FEIR states that an effect on school districts and other public services and facilities will be deemed significant "when the demand for public services or facilities [that would be caused by the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin] would exceed the available or planned capacity of those services [or facilities]." (FEIS/FEIR at p. 456.) In describing the "affected environment" - L e., the current conditions at and around MCAS-Tustin - the FEIS/FEIR acknowledges that "[a]ll but two" of the schools in SAUSD are presently overcrowded and that the District as a whole is "overcapacity." (FEIS/FEIR at p. 3-50.) In discussing the potential effects of the City's proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin on SAUSD, the FEIS/FEIR goes on to acknowledge that This range is calculated as follows: 2,197 hoUsehold x 4.8% = 105 household x 0.93 student generation rate = 98 students; 13,668 households x 4.8% = 656 household x 0.93 student generation rate = 610 students. (See Updated Household Growth Report at pp. 3-8; FEIS/1FEIR at p. 4-62.) See also the letter submitted to the City on behalf of SAUSD on August 23, 1999, by Bowie, Ameson, Wiles & Giannone, explaining additional deficiencies in, inter alia, the Updated Household Growth Report. RSCCD/MCA S-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 12 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP 13 such reuse will generate as many as 509 new students for SAUSD. (FEIS/FEIR atp. 462,4-63.) Accordingly, based on the definition of significance provided in the FEIS/FEIR, it is clear that the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin in accordance with the City's Reuse Plan would, in fact, have a significant effect on SAUSD because it would cause the District and certain of its schools to further exceed their available or planned capacity. In the face of these facts, the FEIS/FEIR nonetheless concludes that the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would not significantly affect SAUSD and, therefore, no mitigation measures would be required. It bears emphasis that the FEIS/FEIR does not conclude that there is a significant effect that would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Rather, it simply concludes there would be "no capacity impacts; therefore no mitigation would be required." (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-66.) Turning to another point, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that the new students that would be generated for SAUSD by the Project would not have a significant effect on SAUSD because it is assumed that funds from school impact fees, a proposed redevelopment project, possible bonds and special taxes, and "other state revenue sources .... could be available" to SAUSD, and together may provide sufficient funding for SAUSD to construct a new school(s) to serve the new students that would be generated by the proposed reuse. (FEIS/FEIR at pp.4-63, 4-66; emphasis added.) The FEIS/FEIR, however, fails to provide any basis or explanation for this assumption. The FEIS/FEIR acknowledges that SAUSD's share of any school impact fees associated with all new construction generated by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin would not be enough to support the consm~ction of new schools to serve the new students that would be generated for SAUSD by such reuse. (See FEIS/FEIR at pp. 4-63, Table 4.4-1; 4-66.) Moreover, the "redevelopment project" that the FEIS/FEIR and supporting studies rely upon as the largest source of potenti-al funds for SAUSD is simply a "proposed" redevelopment plan, which the City will seek to get approved at some undetermined point in the future. The FEIS/FEIR contains absolutely no details regarding this plan and it further "assumes" that this questionable source of ftmding will be augmented by funds fi.om bonds, special taxes, and "other state revenue sources" to provide SAUSD with sufficient Rinds for the construction of any new schools that would be required. The FEIS/FEIR makes this assumption based on nothing more than the fact that SAUSD has been able to obtain funding fi.om these sources at certain points in the past. (FEIS/FEIR at pp. 4-63, 4-66.) However, the FEIS/FEIR contains absolutely no RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 14onorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 13 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP 13 14 15 discussion regarding whether the situation relating to the new students that will be generated by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin is analogous to the situations in which SAUSD has obtained funds from these sources in the past, or whether these sources will even have funds available for SAUSD when thefands are needed. Interestingly, all of the sources of fimds that the FEIS/FEIR identifies as being available to SAUSD are also identified as being available to TUSD and IUSD. With respect to TUSD and IUSD, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that these fimding sources "together with" the provision of schools sites at no or greatly reduced costs are anticipated to provide TUSD and IUSD with adequate resources to construct new schools to serve the new students to be generated by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin. (See FEIS/FEIR at pp. 4-60, 4-61.) However, for some unexplained reason, the provision of a new school site(s) is not required to provide SAUSD with. adequate resources to construct a new school(s) to serve the new students to be generated by the reuse of MCAS-Tustin. Clearly, the FEIS/FEIR's failure to provide any reasoned explanation or basis for its assumption that sufficient fimding would be available for SAUSD to construct any needed new schools greatly undermines its conclusion that the proposed reuse would not have any significant effect on SAUSD due to the availability of such funding. This is especially tree given the FEIS/FEIR's conclusion that these fariding sources and the provision of school sites at no or greatly reduced cost were required for the proposed reuse not to have a significant effect on TUSD and ISUD? As discussed above, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately identify and address the impacts that the proposed disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would have on minority populations, such as the Hispanic student populations of the Districts, as required by the Environmental Justice Executive Order. The Department of Defense "Strategy on Environmental Justice," referenced in the FEIS/FEIR at p.6-8, provides that the NEPA process will be the mechanism for implementing the Environmental Justice Executive Order and evaluating the environmental effects of Federal action on minority and low-income populations. (DOD Strategy on Environmental Justice at § § 1, 3.) Finally, the FEIS/FEIR fails to conduct any analysis whatsoever regarding the impact the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would have on RSCCD. As explained throughout this letted RSCCD would suffer the same adverse impacts under the City's proposed Reuse Plan that SAUSD would suffer - i_e., RSCCD would have to incorporate 5 See also the letter submitted to the City on behalf of SAUSD on August 23, 1999, by Bowie, Ameson, Wiles & Giannone, outlining additional shortcomings of the FEIS/FEIR% assumption that SAUSD would be able to obtain sufficient funding for the construction of a new school(s) to serve the new students that would be generated by the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin. Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 28, 2000 Page 14 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP the significant number of new students that would be generated by the proposed reuse of the Base into RSCCD's already overcrowded campuses because the City refused to provide RSCCD with a school site to serve its current and future students. Although the FEIS/FEIR at least attempts to analyze the impact of the proposed Reuse Plan on SAUSD, it fails to even acknowledge the existence of RSCCD, let alone the impact the proposed reuse would have on RSCCD. In light of the numerous legal deficiencies noted above, the Concerned Parties sincerely hope that your Department will withhold its approval of the FEIS/FEIR until these deficiencies have been corrected and a new environmental document has been circulated for public review and comment. Very truly yours, CC.' Honorable Randall Yim. Under Secretary of the Navy, Installations Edm nd M. Connor RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfer/Cassidy4 CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2600 MICHELSON DRIVE SUITE14$0 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612 TELEFHONE (949) 622-2600 TELEFACSIMILE (949) 622-2626 E-MAIL: econnor~business]it.com November 28, 2000 LETTER #3 Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (C&R) Department of Navy 1777 North Kent Street, Suite 9000 Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 Re' VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Title VI Objections to Application of City of Tustin for Approval of Proposed Real Property Conveyances to Dispose of Surplus Federal Land at Mar/ne Corps Air Station - Tustin, California ("MCAS -Tustin") Dear Mr. Cassidy: Although discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin has been outlawed by federal law since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the sad truth is that, despite all of the efforts which have been made over the past 35 years to eradicate such discrimination, it is still an undeniable reality in America today. Indeed, in deciding who should enjoy the benefits afforded by providing government resources to construct new public facilities (such as schools, parks, libraries, roads, etc.) the unfortunate tendency on behalf of certain local agencies in our country is to make recommendations which have either the purpose or the effect of unfairly excluding certain minority groups from sharing equally in those benefits. Usually, such discrimination is not identified or remedied until long after its damaging effects have been felt by the minority groups in question. Fortunately, your Department is in the unique position of being able to take immediate steps to avoid what will otherwise evolve into a clear-cut case of racial discrimination against tens of thousands of ethnic-minority Parents and students residing in Santa Aha, California.' For purposes of this letter, the term "ethnic- minority" shall refer to the following ethnic groups: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, and African American. CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 2 A. Statement Of The Problem. By adhering to the strict prohibitions against racial discrimination which are set forth in the Title VI regulations of the Department of Defense and by deciding not to dispose of some 1,606 acres of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin in the discriminatory manner presently being proposed by the City of Tustin, California (the "City"), your Department could effectively prevent the City from carrying out its plan to unlawfully exclude over 56,000 minority students attending elementary, intermediate, or high schools in the Santa Ana Unified School District (the "SAUSD") from sharing in the valuable benefits which will flow from the conveyances of surplus land which are being proposed for MCAS-Tustin. As discussed in greater detail at the conclusion of this letter, we respectfully submit that the best course for your Department to follow at this point would be to support the earlier decisions of the United States Department of Education (the "DOE") regarding the public benefit conveyances of surplus' land at MCAS-Tustin to be made for educational purposes. If those earlier approvals by the DOE were to be endorsed by your Department, then both the SAUSD and the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the "RSCCD")--which itself has over 33,000 minority students enrolled in its courses--would receive sufficient land at MCAS-Tustin to meet their critical needs for new space to educate their students. If that were to happen, the predominantly-Hispanic student population2 served by these two districts (collectively, the "Districts") would (1) be directly benefited because new school facilities would be built for them to attend and (2) be indirectly benefited because these new facilities would help to ease the severely overcrowded conditions which presently plague the two Districts. Unfortunately, the City is adamantly opposed to any proposal which would allow the two Districts to acquire any'land at MCAS-Tustin. Although some 150 acres of undeveloped, vacant land located in the southwest comer of MCAS-Tustin falls directly within the boundaries of the two Districts3, the City is proposing to zone all of this land for commercial business uses and is presently seeking an economic development conveyance ("EDC") from your Department to acquire title to this property free of charge so that it can sell it at a 100% profit to real estate developers or other commercial business interests, such as large chain-store operators. 2 For purposes of this letter, the term "Hispanic" shall collectively refer to persons of Hispanic or Lafino descent. The district boundaries of RSCCD are coterminus with those of SAUSD. Attached as Exhibit "A' hereto is a diagram depicting that portion of MCAS-Tustin which lies within the boundaries of the SAUSD. The SAUSD boundaries shown on the diagram would be the same for RSCCD. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTmnsf/Cassidy2.Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 3 While offering no justification other than the need to generate land sale profits and sales tax revenues to protect the "economic viability" of its master plan to develop large retail stores, upscale residential projects, and a golf resort, the City is aggressively opposing any public benefit conveyances of any surplus land at MCAS-Tustin which would allow the Districts to acquire any new school sites anywhere on that base. Even though California law would allow the two Districts to operate new facilities and programs outside of their district boundaries by forming a Joint Powers Authority with other qualified agencies, the City is attempting to bar the Districts from participating in any way, shape, or form in any of the land transfers at MCAS-Tustin. What is so alarming about this is that, in the Final EIS/EIR which has been submitted to your Department in connection with the "MCAS Tustin Specific/Reuse Plan" (the "Reuse Plan") which the City has prepared in its capacity as the Local Redevelopment Authority ("the LKA") for MCAS-Tustin, the City clearly recognizes that the commercial development which it is proposing for MCAS-Tustin will generate new jobs which will increase the number of medium to low-income families residing in Santa Ana and will add hundreds and hundreds of additional students to the horribly overcrowded schools in that city without affording any relief to the beleaguered Districts in the form of any new school sites at MCAS-Tustin. (See, Final EIS/EIR, pp. 4-61 to 463.) Bo Proposed Land Transfers To Other School Districts. Of course, not only is the City planning on using the surplus federal land it hopes to obtain from your Department to develop commercial business uses that will clearly worsen the overcrowded conditions currently facing the Districts, but the City is also requesting that your Department transfer 180 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to the United States Department of Education (the "DOE") so that it, in mm, can convey the property'-free of charge--to three other districts, the Irvine Unified School District (the "IUSD), the Tustin Unified School District (the "TUSD?'), and the South Orange County Community College District (the "SOCCCD"), to use as new school sites. Specifically, on the basis oftheCity's Reuse Plan which your Department is currently reviewing, the City is asking that: (1) 100 acres be conveyed to S OCCCD to develop a new "Learning Village/Jr.'College;~ (2) 60 acres be conveyed to TUSD to build two new K-6 schools and one new high school; and (3) 20 acres be conveyed to IUSD to construct a new K-8 schOOl. The critically-important fact to note here is that these other three districts donot face the same degree of overcrowding problems currently being experienced by SAUSD and RSCCD, but, more importantly, each of these other districts has a white student population that accounts for some 40% to 60% of its total student enrollment. In contrast, SAUSD has a white student population of only 3% of its total student enrollment and white students comprise only 23% of the total credit/non-credit students enrolled at RSCCD. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTrans~Cassidy2.Doc Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 4 CONrNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP According to enrollment figures provided by the California Department of Education for the 1999-2000 school year4 when the total enrollment of white and nonwhite students attending schools in the 1USD (23,392) is added together with the total number of white and non-white students attending schools in the TUSD (16,192), the combined total (39,584) does not come close to matching the total number of Hispanic students attending schools in the SAUSD (53,112). While SAUSD serves over 53,000 Hispanic students--representing 91.5% of its total student enrollment--IUSD has a total of only 1,623 Hispanic students enrolled in its schools and TUSD has a total of only 7,047 Hispanic students attending its schools. Despite this overwhelming mismatch in the number of Hispanic students served by the SAUSD, as compared to the combined total of Hispanic students served by IUSD and TUSD, the City is nevertheless proposing that the latter two districts receive a total of 80 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin for four new school sites, but no land is to be conveyed to SAUSD. Likewise, even though RSCCD serves almost 25,000 credit/non-credit Hispanic students, as compared to only 3,800 credit/non-credit Hispanic students served by S OCCCD, the City is currently recommending that almost 100 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed to SOCCCD for the construction of a new "Learning Village" facility--without any land being conveyed to RSCCD.5 To its surprise and dismay, RSCCD has recently learned that, when the. City revised the original version of its Reuse Plan for the supposed purpose of making only simple "corrections" to the Plan in the form of an "Errata" sheet, the City quietly took steps to change that part of the Reuse Plan (p. 2-30) which provided that, as a condition for the City's approving SOCCCD's application to be recommended for a public benefit conveyance of 100 acres of surplus land for the development of a Learning Village, SOCCCD was expressly required to enter into an "agreement" with RSCCD to form a "coalition" to operate joint prOgrams and facilities within the proposed Learning Village. For some reason, the City chose not to provide RSCCD with any notice or opportunity to be heard before deleting this condition of approval from its Reuse Plan, and this shocking revelation only came to light when our office recently obtained a copy of the so-called "Errata" document Which was submitted to your Department. Attached coIlectively as Exhibit 'B' hereto are spreadsheets obtained from the Internet website maintained by the Educational Demographics Unit of the California Department of Education setting forth enrollment data by ethnic group for SAUSD, TUSD, and IUSD for the 1999-2000 school year. Attached collectively as Exhibit "C' hereto are spreadsheets obtained fi'om the Internet website maintained by SOCCCD setting forth statistics regarding the credit/non-credit students enrolled annually at its facilities during the period from fall 1992 through fall 2000. Attached collectively as Exhibit 'D" hereto are spreadsheets of data maintained by RSCCD showing the ethnic background of credit/noncredit students enrolled as of fall 1999. RSCCD/NlCAS-LandTransf/Cassidy2.Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 5 The City's decision to relieve SOCCCD of the obligation to work out an agreement with RSCCD to share programs and facilities at the 100-acre site to be transferred to SOCCCD is quite disturbing because it will mean that the blatant inequity in land holdings between SOCCCD and RSCCD will only be exacerbated. Indeed, although SOCCCD now has some 300 acres of land available at its two campuses to meet the needs of some 33,000 students (63.5% which are white), SOCCCD is to be gifted with an additional '100 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin. In sharp contrast to that generous gift, RSCCD--which has only 110 acres at its two campuses to served the needs of some 52,000 students (only 23% of which are white and 49% are Hispanic)--is to be prevented from receiving any land at MCAS-Tustin or from even jointly using the land to be conveyed to SOCCCD.6 In the absence of any logical explanation for why the City has changed its mind and is now proposing that RSCCD be excluded from sharing in the benefits of the 1 00-acre land transfer being proposed for SOCCCD, the question which must necessarily be asked at this point is whether the City's actions in this regard have been tainted by racial discrimination--whether by design or by effect. Clearly, that same question must be asked when one struggles to understand why the City is recommending that your Department transfer surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to provide a new school site to a predominantly-white school district, IUSD (58.7% white), without providing any land whatsoever to SAUSD which is overwhelmingly Hispanic (91.5%). C. The Districts' Critical Need For New School Facilities. Putting aside the troubling question of racial discrimination for a moment, the irrefutable fact of the matter is that the need for new schools in SAUSD and RSCCD has reached a crisis level. SAUSD has grown 23% in the past ten years and is expected to grow another 33% in the next ten years. Almost 2,000 new students enrolled at SAUSD's schools this year as compared to last year. Moreover, enrollments at RSCCD have increased 45% in the past five years and, as a result, RSCCD has been forced to lease scores of off-site facilities at churches, hospitals, schools, and commercial buildings to accommodate the huge influx of predominantly-minority students. At both of the Distriets, relocating students to "portables" (otherwise known as "relocatable trailers") has become an absolute necessity to deal with the severe overcrowding problems. For example, at its 54 schools, SAUSD has been forced to relocate approximately 24,000'students to some 912 portables. As such, there are now more students attending classes in portables at schools in the SAUSD than the total number of students enrolled at all schools in the 11TJSD (23,392). 6 As reported to the State Chancellor's Office which supervises all community colleges in California, SOCCCD has 625,020 assignable square feet available to serve its 33,000 students, but RSCCD has only 429,276 assignable square feet to meet the needs of its 52,000 students. · 7 Although TUSD presently uses a number of portable classrooms at some of its schools, the total number of students housed in these portables is only 3.750, which does not even begin to approach the total number of students in portables in the SAUSD, i.e., 24.000 students. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTrans~TCassidy2.Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 ' Page 6 This comparison becomes even more dramatic when one realizes that the number of students in portable classrooms in SAUSD (24,000) is well over 1-1/2 times the total number of students attending all schools in the TUSD (16,192). Unbelievably, however, with 24,000 students crowded into portables in the SAUSD, the City is recommending that TUSD receive land for three new school sites, IUSD receive one new school site, and SAUSD receive no new school sites. As discussed in the enclosed article from the Los Angeles Times (see, Exhibit "E"), the shortage of classroom space at the public schools in Santa Ana is truly acute. The one example cited in the L.A.' Times article is particularly disturbing: at Valley High School in Santa Ana, "40 portable classrooms consume the school's blacktop because of severe overcrowding." This same theme is repeated throughout the SAUSD which has a total enrollment of over 58,000 students, but only has the capacity to house 35,000 students without the use of portables. As a direct result of these horrendous overcrowding problems, SAUSD has been forced to go to a "year-round" calendar at 25 of its elementary schools and four of its intermediate schools. However, as indicated from an article published just this week in the Los Angeles Times (see Exhibit "F"), there is a growing concern in California that 12-month "multitrak" schedules in poor and minority communities "present students with hurdles that do not exist at other schools" and may "take a cumulative toll on learning, spawning what many call a two-tiered system of education." Unfortunately, despite its efforts to remedy the problem of overcrowding, SAUSD has been unable to make any significant headway in fighting this problem. The reason for this is really quite simple, but it is als° quite disheartening: with the city of Santa Ana almost 98% built out, there is virtually no vacant land left in the city for SAUSD to acquire for building new schools. Ironically, property tax assessments generated by a general obligation bond issue have provided SAUSD with sufficient money to build new schools to ease what many consider to be some of the worst overcrowding conditions in the state of California, but there is simply no land available to use for new school sites. That is why the vacant land at MCAS-Tustin which lies within SAUSD's boundaries is so precious and irreplaceable. Since the land presently consists of agricultural fields and asphalt parking aprons, no businesses or residences would have to be moved offofthe property and no toxic clean-up would have to be done before construction of new school facilities to serve the students of SAUSD and RSCCD could cormnence. Of course, if the two Districts are prevented from obtaining this land, the rampant overcrowding which exists now will continue unabated and, as noted above, it will get even worse if new commercial businesses are developed as the City is presently proposing. The adverse effects of continued overcrowding are obvious and need no RSCCD/MCAS-LandTranxf/Cassidy2.Do¢ CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 7 explanation. Students in the two Districts who are crammed together due to a severe shortage of space are not being provided with an adequate environment in which to learn and, as such, they are clearly being disadvantaged when compared to students attending schools in the IUSD, the TUSD, and the SOCCCD which do not face overcrowding problems of a similar magnitude.7 D. Request To Withhold Approval Of Proposed Land Transfers. Obviously, the City cannot be blamed for the overcrowded school conditiOns which presently exist in Santa Ana, but it can clearly be faulted for having presented your Department with a proposed list of surplus land transfers at MCAS-Tustin which, if approved and allowed to be implemented, would have a disproportionate adverse impact on minority parents and students residing in Santa Ana by unjustifiably depriving them of federal property benefits which might otherwise might be extended to them if everyone were treated fairly. Some of the parents who, along with their minor children, would be prejudiced if the City were to be allowed to proceed with its plan to exclude the two Districts from receiving any surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin would include (1) Victor and Susan Garcia and (2) Fourtino and Bertha Rivera. Both the Garcias and the Riveras have children who presently attend Century High School in Santa Ana where some 2,600 students are jammed into a campus built for 1,800 students. Mrs. Garcia presently serves as president of the School Site Council at Century High and Mr. Rivera formerly served on the Parks Commission for the City of Santa Ana. As concerned citizens and parents, the Garcias and the Riveras would like to ensure that they and their children are given an equal opportunity to share in the obvious benefits associated with the surplus land transfers at MCAS-Tustin. Likewise, Karina Valenzuela, the student representative on the Board of Trustees at RSCCD, would like to make sure that all credit and non-credit students at RSCCD are treated fairly and equally with respect to the benefits associated with those land transfers. Accordingly, on behalf of the two Districts, and also on behalf of the Garcias, the Riveras, their minor children, Ms. Valenzuela, and all persons similarly situated in the city of Santa Ana, we implore your Department to withhold its approval of the' surplus federal land transfers at MCAS-Tustin currently being recommended by the City until such time as your Department is satisfied that such transfers would not have the purpose or effect of violating the provisions of(l) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq.) [hereinafter, "Title VI"] and (2) the regmlations of the Department of Defense (the "DOD") regarding "Non-Discrimination in Federally Although TUSD presently uses a number of portable classrooms at some of its schools, the'total number of students housed in these portables is only 3.750 which does not even begin to approach the total number of students in portables, in the SAUSD, i.e., 24.000 students. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTranff/Cassidy2.Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 8 Assisted Programs" (32 C.F.R. Part 195 et seq.) [hereinafter, the "DOD Title VI Regulations"]. As you are aware, on the basis of its Reuse Plan, the City is asking that your Department issue a Record of Decision ("ROD") to allow certaih economic development conveyances and public benefit conveyances to be made to a number of recipients recommended by the City--including the City, itself. However, our clients are gravely concerned that, if your Department issues a ROD authorizing the conveyances proposed in the Reuse Plan to take place, the City will be handed the vehicle necessary to block the Districts from obtaining title to the land which they desperately need to serve the manifest · needs of their students. Once the surplus land is transferred in the discriminatory manner being proposed by the City, what will occur will be the very type of "disparate impact" on minority groups which is expressly prohibited by Title VI and the DOD Title VI Regulations. E. The Clear Mandate Of Title Vl. Title VI provides that "no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." (42 U.S.C. § 2000d.) The statute also directs each federal department and agency to issue rules, regulations, or orders that effectuate the objective and purpose of Title V1. (42 U.S.C. § 2000d-l.) The Title VI Regulations adopted by the DOD apply to, inter alia, all programs administered by any department or branch of the DOD regarding the disposal of surplus federal property, including the disposal of closed or realigned military bases that have been desi~maated as surplus federal property. (See 32 C.F.R. § 195.3; 32 C.F.R. § 195 Appendix A.) Section 195.4 of the DOD Title VI Regulations provides, in relevant part, as follows: (b)(1) "A recipient under any program to which this part applies may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, on the ground of race, color, or national original: ~ (i) Deny any individual any service, financial aid, or other benefit provided under the program; (ii) Provide any service, financial aid, or other benefit to an individual which is different, or is provided in a different manner, from that provided to others under the program; RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransf/Cassidy2.Doe CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 9 (iii) In determining the site or location of facilities, recipient may not make selections with the purpose of excluding individuals from, denying them the benefits of, or subiecting them to discrimination underany program to which this part applies,on the ground of race, color, or national origin; or with the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially. impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the Act or this part." (32 C.F.R. § 195.4(b)(1)(iii).) (2) "A recipient, in determining the types of sei'vices, financial aid, or other benefits, or facilities which will be provided under any such program, or the class of individuals to whom, or the situations in which, such services, financial aid, other benefits, or facilities will be provided under any such program, or class of individuals to be afforded an oppormnily to participate in any such program, may not directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origins, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin." (32 C.F.R. § 195.4(b)(2), emphasis added.) As the above-quoted provisions indicate, a recipient of federal financial assistance or other benefits, such as free federal land conveyed by your Department, can violate the DOD Title VI Regulations by either (1) conducting or administering the program for which its receives such assistance or benefits in a manner that intentionally dis. criminates against a person or group on the basis of race, color, or national ori~dn, or (2) conducting or administering the program in a manner that has the effect of discriminating against a person or group on the basis of race, color, or national origin. In other words, as is the case with all other Title VI regulations which have been adopted by the other departments of the federal g°vemmenk the DOD Title V1 Regulations prohibit actions that have a · "disparate impact" on ~oups protected by Title Vl-such as Hispanics--even in the absence of_ discriminatory intent. (See, e.g., Cruardians Ass"n v. Civil Serv. Commn., 463 U.S. 582, 584, (1983); Villanueva v. Carere, 85 F.3d 481,486 (10th. cir. 1996); Elston v. Talladega County Bd. of Educ., 997 F.2d 1394, 1407 (1 lth Cir. 1993); Georgia State Conference ofBranches ofNAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1417 (1 Ith. Cir. 1985).) RSCCD/MCAS-LandTran.~Cassidy2.Doc' CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William CassJdy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 10 F. Disparate Impact On Hispanic Parents And Students. If your Department issues a ROD based on the City's Reuse Plan and surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin is allowed to be conveyed to the City 'and to the recipients recommended by the City (e.g., IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD), it is exceedingly clear that the City will use the land conveyed to it in a manner which will have a "disparate impact" on the predominantly-Hispanic student populations of SAUSD and RSCCD because, although these students clearly have the greatest need for new school facilities, they and their districts will receive not one square inch of surplus federal land under the City's Plan. In contrast, IUSD, TUSD, and SOCCCD, each with large white student populations, will receive up to 180 acres of free land for new school sites. In addition, as discussed above, when the City proceeds to adopt its Specific Plan upon the issuance of the ROD and zones the real property it acquires in the southwest comer ofMCAS-Tustin as "commercial business," thus making it unavailable for educational uses, this will impose a disproportionate adverse impact on the minority students attending schools in the SAUSD and the RSCCD because it will only serve to perpetuate the terribly overcrowded conditions which presently exist in Santa Ana. In this regard, the Final EIS/EIR for the City's Reuse Plan states that, although the City's reuse of MCAS-Tustin would not "directly" generate any new students for the Districts because it does not propose any residential development within the Districts' boundaries, it would "indirectly" generate a substantial number of new students for the Districts due to the fact that many of the workers who fill the jobs that would be generated by the City's proposed reuse would find housing within the Districts' boundaries. (Final EIS/EIR at p.4-61.) Indeed, in the Final EIS/EIR, the City concedes that its proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin will generate as many as 509 new students for SAUSD. (Final EIS/EIR at p. 4-63.) Of course,' it should be noted that the figure of 509 new students is grossly understated ,, because it is based on the patently unreasonable assUmptions set forth in the Final EIS/EIR regarding how many of the workers who would fill the 77,400 new jobs that would be generated by the development of the City's Specific Plan would end up residing in Santa Ana. For example, the "Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS-Tustin Site Upon Household Groa~ in the Santa Ana Unified School Distrieff which is set forth in the Final EIS/EIR, it is estimated that only four percent (4%) of the households associated with the new jobs by the implementation of the City's Specific Plan would be located in Santa Ana. That is a ridiculously low figure because far more than a mere 4% of the tens of thousands of unskilled workers that would be called upon to fill the new jobs in question would, of necessity, end up living in the closest- available affordable housing which would principally, if not exclusively, be found in Santa Ana. RSCCD/MCAS-LandTmnsf/Cassidy2.Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 11 However, even assuming for the sake of argument that the City's estimate of 509 new students is correct, what it demonstrates is that the City's proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would unmistakably exacerbate the Districts' overcrowding problems and this impact would be dispropOrtionately felt by the predominantly-Hispanic parents and students r0siding in the two Districts in comparison to the predominantly-white parents and students of the ITJSD, the TUSD, and the SOCCCD. For example, in the Final EIS/EIR, the City estimates that its proposed reuse ofMCAS-Tustin. would generate 1,143 new students for TUSD. To accommodate these'new students, the City recommends that three school sites be set aside for TUSD. As for IUSD, the City estimat&s that its proposed reuse would generate 302 new students. To accommodate these new students, the City recommends that IUSD receive one school site. What is crucial to note here, however, is that the new students that will be generated by the build-out of the City's redevelopment plan will be the children of parents who are sufficiently affluent to be able to afford the expensive new homes to be built in the upscale neighborhoods that are slated for development around the proposed new "Golf Village" at MCAS-Tustin. In other words, the new school sites to be transferred to TUSD and IUSD at MCAS-Tustin are not being allocated to serve the needs of minority students, rather, it would appear that just the opposite is true. As 'far as minority students are concerned, the City estimates that its reuse plan would generate between 82 and 509 new students for SAUSD. However, it recommends that SA~USD receive not a single school site to accommodate these new students. What the City is saying, in effect, is that the predominately-white student population that will be generated on-site at MCAS-Tustin when the City's Specific Plan is developed and expensive homes are built should be accommodated with four new school sites, but SAUSD should receive no new school sites to serve the needs of the 509 predominately-minority students that are expected to be added to the schools in Santa Ana by the development of the Specific Plan. As stated above, the Districts believe that the City's estimate of between 82 and 509 new students for sAusD is ur~easonably low. However, even if the median of this range were to be used for the sake of comparison - i.e., 295.5 - the difference between the number of new students to be generated for IUSD and those to be generated for SAUSD wc;uld be only 6.5 students, which would hardly justify awarding IUSD a new school site and giving SAUSD nothing to meet its far more extensive needs. Likewise, the three school sites proposed for TUSD would work out to one site for every 381 new students generated by the development of the City's Specific Plan, but, again, when compared to the 509 student figure, or even the median figure of 295.5 for SAUSD, the 381 figure for TUSD cannot possibly justify the City's proposal to generously bestow three school sites on TUSD while sending the Hispanic parents and students in Santa Ana away empty-handed. · · RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransfTCa-ssidy2.Doe CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 12 G. The Preferred Solution. Our clients are aware that the DOD Title VI Regulations establish a complaint procedure whereby "any person who believes himself or any specific class of individuals to be subjected to discrimination prohibited by [the regulations]" may request an investigation of such discrimination. (32 C.F.R. § 195.8(b).) However, our clients sincerely hope that this matter will not proceed to the point where a formal "investigation" will have to be undertaken. Fortunately, the discrimination our clients are complaining about will not occur unless and until your Department approves the land transfers being proposed by the City and allows the requested economic development/public benefit conveyances to take place. Once that is allowed to happen, however, our clients will be irreparably injured because they will be left with no recourse, other than going to court, to enjoin or undo the real property transfers. Unfortunately, however, once title to the MCAS-Tustin parcels passes to third parties, it may be too late to remedy the situation by filing lawsuits to set aside grant deeds and to unwind complicated real estate transactions. The more prudent and lawfi~l approach, therefore, would be for your Department to take steps to avoid what will otherwise mm into a serious violation of the DOD Title VI Regulations. How can this be done? By simply supporting the earlier decisions of the DOE to convey surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to meet the needs of the two Distri.cts. ' ' In 1993 and 1994, the Districts submitted applications to the DOE and the City requesting that two parcels of propertyat MCAS-Tustin - one parcel that falls entirely within the Districts' current boundaries and one parcel that is contiguous with the Districts' current boundaries - be transferred to the Districts by means of public benefit conveyances for use as new school sites. On July 25, 1994, the DOE approved the application of SAUSD for a public benefit conveyance of 75 of the 150 acres at MCAS-Tustin that fall within the Districts' boundaries for the construction of a new high school. In so doing, the DOE requested that your Department assign such property to the DOE for conveyance to SAUSD at a 100% discount. Similarly, on February 3, 1995, the DOE also approved the application of the Orange County Education Coalition (the "Coalition") for the public benefit conveyance of approximately 116 acres of land at MCAS-Tustin that is contiguous with 'the Districts' current boundaries. The Coalition was comprised of the two Districts, SOCCCD, and the Orange County Department of Education, and sought to develop a "Learning Village" on such property. As the Reuse Plan and the Errata thereto acknowledge, "[RSCCD] was the originator of the 'Learning Village' concept and was instrumental in its being included in the approved [Reuse] Plan." (Reuse Plan at p.6-20; Errata at p.6-20.) Again, in approving this application, the DOE requested that your RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransf/Cassidy2.Do¢ CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. ' ' November 24, 2000 Page 13 / Department assign such property to the DOE for conveyance to the Coalition at a 100% discount. Without question, the best solution for the two Districts and the parents and students which they serve would be for your Department to support the DOE's earlier decisions to approve the above-described land transfers to the Districts. Those land transfers would, if implemented by your Department, serve the greatest educational needs of the greatest number of people residing in the areas immediately surrounding MCASTustin. Hopefully, your Department will take a long, hard look at this situation and will decide that, in good conscience, it should serve the needs of all, and not just some, of the students who could potentially be benefited by the conveyances of surplus land to be made at MCAS- Tustin. H. A Possible Compromise. To assist your Department in resolving this difficult problem, the .Districts would be willing to discuss a reasonable compromise to accommodate all of the competing interest involved in this matter. One proposal which the Districts would be willing to consider would be to reapportion the 100 acres of surplus at McAS-Tustin which the City is currently recommending be transferred to SOCCCD. Specifically, instead of being used exclusively by SOCCCD (which was never the intent of the original Base Reuse'Task Force), the 100 acres would be divided as follows: (1) 80 acres would be conveyed to a Joint Powers Authority which would include the Districts and (2) the remaining 20 acres would be conveyed to SOCCCD. Under this proposal--which would clearly not be the Districts' first choice--the Districts would be provided with sufficient acreage to jointly develop a state-of-the-art K-14 facility to serves the needs of their burgeoning student populations. Such a proposal would allow the City's master plan to remain intact and it would likewise provide SOCCCD with sufficient land commensurate with its actual needs. In addition, the proposal would not affect the proposed land transfers t° IUSD and TUSD and they'would go forward as planned. Regrettably, the City has refused tb discuss such a compromise proposal with the Districts to date, even though it would appear to be a "win-win" situation for everyone involved. The City's refusal to participate in good-faith negotiations regarding such a proposal-which would appear to do no hann to the economic viability of its Specific Plan for the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin-again raises the ugly spectre of racial discrimination as being the tree motivating factor behind the City's staunch opposition to allowing development of any new school facilities at MCAS-Tustin which would be attended by predominantly-Hispanic students from Santa Ana. The simple lamth of the matter is that no one who looks at this problem objectively can fail to see the racial implications of the City's proposed actions in RSCCD/MCAS-LandTransPCassidy2.Doc CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP Honorable William Cassidy, Jr. November 24, 2000 Page 14 attempting to shut the Districts and their students off'the base. The City is apparently afraid that, if the Districts are allowed to build a K- 14 facility at MCAS -Tustin to be attended by predominantly-Hispanic students from Santa Ana, this might be viewed as a negative factor by prospective owners and operators of the brand new homes and businesses to be developed on the base. However, the DOD Title VI Regulations do not allow such a racially-bas,ed concern to influence the City's proposals as to which school districts should receive surplus land at MCAS-Tustin. In conclusion, whether by design or simply by effect, the City's proposal to exclude the Districts from the list of recipients of surplus federal land transfers at MCAS-Tustin will clearly result in unlawful racial discrimination against Hispanic parents and students residing in Santa Ana. However, bY exercising its leadership in this matter, your Department can avoid any potential discrimination by ensuring that the Districts are not foreclosed from participating in the surplus land conveyances at MCASTustin. If all five educational districts whose boundaries cover portions of MCASTustin are treatedfairly in how the surplus land is to be apportioned, then there will be no discrimination and no violation of the DOD Title VI Regulations. As such, your Department holds the key to solving the present dispute and to upholding the letter in the spirit of the DOD's policies prohibiting discrimination in the selection Sf persons to receive federal surplus land. On behalf of°ur clients, we sincerely hope that your Department will use its best efforts to effectuate a just and honorable solution to this difficult problem so as to prevent it from escalating into an even bigger controversy. If Our office can be of any assistance to your Department in trying to craft a workable solution to bring this matter to an end, please do not hesitate to contact us. cc: (via Federal Express) Hon. William S. Cohen Hon. Richard Danzig Hon. Richard W. Riley Hon. John Podesta Hon. Randall Yim. Sen. Barbara Boxer Sen. Dianne Feinstein · Rep. Loretta Sanchez RSCCD/MCAS,LandTransf/Cassidy2.Doc Very truly yours, Edmond M. Connor 3.4 I'ub]ic Set'Acc:, and Faciliti',:s AVE · , · TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT: · AVE · o. W'At:U4ER AVE o,. · IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL.. DISTRICT '% ;ANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOl J- DISTRICT .. : ALTON PKWY · · .. -- REUSE PLAN' BOUNDARY' ~;CHOOL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES · · · IRVJNE 0NIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ' ' SANTA ;a;~I/~ Ui~IIFIED'SCHO~- DISTRICt . TU~TIN UNIFIED'.~;HOOL DISTRlC~-T ' " · · o. .· 'Base Map: HNT~ 1999 Figure 3.4-1 · . Boundaries ~[ SChool'Districts Page 3-49 ·. EXHIBIT Il ~Z[ II 0 The Almanac udent Characte~ 2000 ;ENDER ale ale ,ETHNIC1TY Indian White (not Hispanic) *Click on links to see detail for Asian, Hispanic, and White catego Z~,~SHIP Visa flee Visa ldentVisa Visa dit dit Non-credit Both PATTERN EXHIBIT "C" Page 1 of 4 Pages http ://~.soceed. cc. ca. us/re f_/almanac/d em o graphi cs/di ststud charf, htm 11/17/00 Everdng Non-Credit Evening Both RESIDENCE District Residence _ Other CC Districts Out of State/Foreign bGE DISTRIBUTION under 18 lage 22-29 bge 30-49 Fge 50-69 over 69 ~NIT RANGE 0-5.99 urdts ]9-11.99 units 12 or more ENROLLMENT STATUS ][ First Transfer 1I U~ow~ II [ Ii sru~cr Lr,'EL II ~g~,Saoo~II [Sophomo~ Il Other Undergraa II ~^ ~~+ 11 ~o~ 11 II II !1 ~oo.o~11 ~oo.o~11 ~oo.oq ~6.s~ll ~.s~ll ~-~!1 ~z~ql ~zgql ~2.s~ll s.9~ll s.s~ll s.s~ll ~s.~%ll ~s.7~ll ~9-°~il o.~11o:ql o.~11 o.sq[ o~1 Ii o.o~11 o.oql o.oq o.oql !1 o.oql o.o~11 o.o~1I o.oq o.o~ EXHIBIT "C" Page 2 of 4 Pages http://www.socccd.cc.ca.us/ref/almanac/dem°graphicddiststudchaff2'htm 11/17/00 The Almanac [ Full District Student Characteristics: Fall 1992-Fall 2000 11 aoo.o%ll aoo.oq aoo.o%ll ~oo.oq aoo.o%! Il .39.1%][ 39.4%![ 39.7%1[ 39.s%[[ 40.3% ale Il 6°-9%~I 60.6%11 60.3%!1 60~%11 59.7% Il il Il Il Il Il aoo.0%ll aoo.oq aoo.0%ll aoo.0%]l ~00.0% II o.~q 0.7%1I 0.6%11 0.6%11 0.6% II 12.3%!I13.2%11 13.5%11 13.0%1~13.4% ,~c Ii ao.2%][10.8%]{ 10.9%l[ 112%1] ~a.6%] ~c~o~~c) II 66.a%]1 ~.2~1{ 63.6%][ 63.5%]! :NS~ Il ~oo.o~ll 98.5%}~ aoo.oq a~.o~ll ~oo.o~ II 85.9~l[ 85.6~]1 85-s~ll 85.a~11 85.6~ w~ il o-~ll o-=~l~ o.=q 03~]l 0.3~ Il ][ II II S~OE~ Il ~oo.o~ll aoo.o~}! ~00:0~11 ~oo.oq ~.0~ II 29.6q 2~.3~1[ 30.0%][ ~.~l[ II II ',11 Il il l~oL~~~~ll ~oo.oq ~oo.o~11 ~oo.oq ~-o~11 ~oo.o~ ~yOea~ 11 ~7~ll ~-e~ll ~1I~11 ~-s~ II-o.~%,il o.s~ll o.~11 o.~1I o.~1 ~y-mv~om II ~.o~1 o.~11 ~-~11 ~11 ~: ]GENDER IMale ,[ErHNICITY ilAmerican Indian EXHIBIT "C" Page 3 of 4 Pag.es h ttp ://www. s oc ccd. cc. ca. us/re galm ana c/ dem o graptfi c s/ diststu d chaxi2 ah tm 11/17/00 Day Eve Credit Day-Eve Non-cred it ;trict Residence )ther CC Districts Out of State/Foreign ,GE DISTRIBUTION under 18 18-21 22-29 irst Time First Transfer Re.-ming Transfer g STUDENT LEVEL ,~..hool omore Other Undergrad Degree !1 "'--'--'~F'~-~I 6,05911 6,318]F6,~081I 6,970d EXHIBIT "C" Page 4 of 4 Pages http -.//www.socccd- cc. ca. us/re f/almana c/d e m o grapM, cs/distsm d ch arf. htm 11/17/00 Total RSCCD' Enrollme.nt All Credit Non-credit TOTAL 20701 14923 356241 25184 16231 41415 24706 25255 21253 45959 25968 21055 25849 4631O 51817 25% 73% 45% RSCCD Student Characteristics By Ethnic Group For All Credit And Non-Credit Students Enrolled As Of Fall 1999 ~an Indian Affican-Amencan ~__ spamc/Latmo ~ w~Vhite Other/Not Reported___~ -Y-O-T~ 'Number 423 Percentage · <1% 2o/-X-- _ Exhibit "D:' P~ge 1 of3 Rancho Santiago Com, .,ity College District Student Cha_ .cristics (all credit sludcnts) Fall 1995- Fall 1999 Ethnicity*. American Indian African-American Asian Chinese Japanese. Korean Southeast Asian Oth~ Asian Latino Mexican Amer. Central. Amer. South Amer. Other Latino Filipino Caucasian Other not reported A~e 17 and under 18 19- 20-21 22-25 26-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 over 64 not reported Day/Night Status Day NigJat ~ Both Untmow~ . Gender Male Female Not ~ported Enrollment Status First Trine Returning Continuing not reported 1 21 1 <1 -I0 14 -9 31 -28 43 -14 43 49 63 29 25 13 10 35 o! 118 43 25 13 2 20 26 46 71 6O 44 30 93 3O 21 . 29 Exh/bit'"D" Page 2 of 3 RSCCD School of Continuing Education Student Characteristics Fall 1994 - Fall 1999 Ethnicit~ American Indian African-American Asian, Latino Filipino Caucasian Not reported 17 and under lg 19 20-21 22-25 26-29 30-39 40-49 50-64 over 64 not reported ;tatus Day Night Both · ~ender Male Female not repo~ted inrollment Status First Time Returning Continuing not reported Status U.S. citizen immigrant other 61 49 94 100 '142 67 413 60 306 54 50~ 60 9 13 18 16 79 56 112 72 46 31 44 98 115 27 35 Exhibit "D" Page 3 of 3 . " ...... ' "-;::~:..'".'.. '.:.-":':'i'::. · '..'-.'--'. ' "--'..':-' :'.,-." :';.': '.' .'."."'.':; :{'; .'.':'.. "'-" ....... '; ~ :..':.'.i... ""':,.....'-i.:.' ?::'-:~' ' ":.0."::' :": ' ": ........ :"" "':'"":" ' -'""'"" '''~'' '"': '"'"'-" ' '"' :" '"" '" ' ' '"" :' ':"':~.': '-.-' '::i.i~':-:.~-:.-.:-.:.:::.-.~..;.::,,-"'"~.:':.:'::?::. '- :' .' i..::.'~: ..:::-;.:-:i:.:.-., -- ... ,..-. -: :. ,: ..: -....:.. ,:. ~.-., ..~....... .... -.---..,:.: .,.- .:~' -:: . · .-'Yin, -,';":' :.: -' x..:,-;:' .-;:--..":'-.-., -.:.-:':--'--'.' · '- ':_ ---: ::_.. :.:.-.: ........ ::.':"::. *'.'/:' :. ~7' 7' ':'- -'"-'-;: ...__ ._..:_..: _'". '~' '-'-' :".: ....:: '.. , _":'" .:.."' .:;' !'d: :...:'::'.~," ' "...'-'""-'::"-..- - .... :..-.,, :-.-:...-.,: · .-.: ...: ~i,a~-(h~-a~4~t~-~a'¢~'.~94"~¢pro~f'¢~:" ~,~Wa,h~n~to~'to~e~p'~.~.~¢:,,et,.?,~,¢,:., .... ~;Sahta}A~i.~'ffi~AIS:h'6~:td ':'~: ''-'~'',.~, ~t ,,- '-:: .-.r: t~e'": ..... base,' wh, ch- me~udect" "" ::" ':: .... --' ~=': '".I beheve'" '" tha~. the ' '":' '"' :'federai..go'cernment' .... -.. '.' '.'..!: ';-:~. :'....Y:'.'"':.::::;:"-" ' ; ,.:.t-.-'..:' ..... · ,,.:,o,.. o, ,=,, ,, ,, ,o.= ..... · .,,...-. >.~-~,v. ~---............,.~...,.:::[:.: ~.~ .....-......-'.'.::~.,: -..ii-...~ :~ .' .th~ ~gfit:an~i tCe'r~'~'oing to"~,~n.".-,,6wed ' '~g heed 6t"pro{;-iding'a quali~y i~dficati6n. ' :.oVer..10C~a.~.r.,.~)?;¢.:~:?:.~:~- ::.:(:..:..:..) -:.. 'Bri.a..r(.C..%'.n..13~.pr~.si.d~ent..of-?.anc.ho 8.a.n-: ..~r. our.k?d.s{. ~e.gi.d.: -.. :, .. · "..: .. · '.~..~..'-X.:.. 5.- :.".~--'-.. ":--'.?- -.-%':." ...: --- tia~"s l~a~d. Bf trusties;at'a press"eomer-. : .Lastwe¢~ a:mst-mm.n eImrt [o m . . '~½ j~ii~'-'i~'~" '"'"': ""-'}: '-2 '?'''''}'¢ "i :'. :.' ~n~}~t:.~'a_"I':l~ ~.'h-:~cti6$1-i~'s'/n'ta A~,.::.'-the:lanri''t'r~ihsfe'~:: through.-~tate law passed-' .- :'.': '2.::: :':; ~ ~:'-~ 55'.;~:.2.--':::.:.-~ ?--.'". - ..:'-:;:;"hti'~d!~Tb~h~-t~l~i~i~¢~h}~ of ~e~rer'~.'..cr.'gw~-':-a ~'~]0ri¢.-o~r:vot~ in"the Senate.-Bdtjthe" ' · .".'; .;.-?.'-i'".;.'~":_:;'.'_-z?.~=,",::':,i.~;'o-.-':.:.2:~2,~::~".~.s: ::~".;¢"-':.-..;¢' ' . -'. '.':'-.l~ffi"hi~'d-,~,i~hbu{[a4otein'thgI3el~i.s.I~tui:e:s"' c'4.-.~nta'--~.rm,.scnopupmc~u-":~.u.'~.'a~.~&u.'.----- -- -- --"'~ --"- ---~'wg..:-~i:;'-'-",:'*:-; .:kS '.~.: ..... :' . .. _' ",' ..-... '..- . .: : ', :_'__ ,~.':.:'~', f~;,... . ..'.,~____._.___._e::~.~=a_r}z;~,~,.t~tlr;l:}[l~r~l~,.~,l,r,.:.. · :..., -.., - -. --- ---'": -....-~:-.:.-:.. ,.: :x .--.~.:.--..-:.---- .... : ~: :n,~-:': :/, - -' :--'..: ~ :-- ':.: - .:.'..- - : 'v'ers.' 'e'~.~.'th. the- · fig/~it' minpte$ .alter m.ten~e' ,luoujsasfi'. ~.,j' · .~.ecreuarw"~:~ca.[~"n...:r~.~-"~r~`:.`"..````e~.`..:.v`~....mn~~::wem``.c~" ..- ....... '. - --.- · ..'" -;,--;.-- .:o-'.%: -' ',- .":~'.-.-' '.~ ~.: ' c ':;¥~:":'~- ~:~'--'-~."~'"' ""':' - ~':: .... '~ .-..~-~.v:., . *-....- ,.. -.~: -. -:--'- ....... i-'to mterarene'.-m'.--tl~' ..q¢...'_~_ ;_'r6_.'-f~-~,m.--- .W. t~it~';Houge."-~'0~skur_'eJ that-we: (re.: g'?¢n. ?.ta~. S ..e..n....:.'~: ss'...J.o..-.hh.,so..h~_.R.-E~_e?~.a.[~na..'- -. '"-;, ,,.~,~ .4.~ ~:_~,: .r,~ ,- .,,... · ,~ m-,~,; ~'-~ :"'~'-::-' ..... :::.-.. ,:.,.~-x..-.-- ~.,g.'r~:.;: --.- -: 4? :' -',..- -- .:'-' .-, z..,,-: '-.....' .- .sa.' id Al ~i'a~;esj. -b'nr Senat~ rri/gioent, r. ro:~ e.m,.,uup ~.m ...... -.to.mm'.o.ver..~w.ac~es:on.-,~m,-z.-s,~rme::'.~,_.~qua,erevres~,--..?,on, . ., ,...:_. ~;. -.-., ..... .-. -. -..--~.-...--. -.; -. ' . ,.,,- : ;'?. :* ff -' .' ,'¢~:-:"~'.:~ o:;:"~ '-.: '-'-;- '-*'.-J.", .7' · - %- 2. -.'-' '- - - - .-"*-" ' -": : · . -': ' " ' - ' ' - ' : ' '- ° ..... ~} · ' ' : . . . -' · :.-,t~l~iri/ie'has~.:fOg'a-~nt;-carr)_~p..u,~s_?:..---~:---: * :-."--...:'._~u. permmnd.-.ekt.'~fSahm.. K.na Umfied._-: .., (O-S .an :~r.a.._n.c,~.s~.?....:,. ';"~-'~'-' ~::- a:~l~:- ":' · .'-:.'."f.'~"":;-f~J':'"',-.,,- -- .,..~,: ,-,_:_,_-;a-.--.~..'r~_.~.~a.. ,4 _ n -:~.:~ ~,~."~-~-~,- l-~rd¢:".". L"..: -~.'""..'.-",~ '."""'"='~ '"- :' : :"' "" '"' '"' "'":'""""~': ' " ' ' n Gr~vd} ' Ufldaiitired, ~an~ Ana'omc}am.a~.~:.,~. - . ~`.:.:.uJu.~`~.~.~`~.~e~.`..~.:s.`..`.::~v.*".~.~.~¢~..e~.w~`.?~:~`~h~.).~::.- .- -':..-- -----',-, -, ~-,~ ~-~ :- :~d ~9~. ~.':. : '. ~ch%':s~ii't'ia.'.~d'-i.~5~i~.~t.~ol. le. ge.:di~ ':'. s. al.d..':i.h-.a pr. ep~ed.'s.tatement: ~v. eon..e_s.aa, y.-- rog. rt. u.ey .t..o.. n. e,l~,...u.~,,~,::,:.;2:.~~ ... -::-=;,'.-::'--'-'-~.'---':=:~'- -:.~:.-'-.-~-.-° :- ': ' .- , .'. '. -'.- '- 't,.,.A,, A ,,,,, - "' ti~tidr/OttlCliUS -- ..::,... -..-. ~ · ~w.,>~., ..... _--, .-,. tfic~:.~2d-.'~.;ho.];~...to:.~.~-aileX t~'.'th.a.t:she~'.'ig..'-'~'~.J.a'-'m".:~°. ....... . :. ,'X- -'-'-': '- .......... ' .... · ':. . '.J .. -'. , · '.. · · .. . EXHIBIT "E" Pag~ i of'2 Pages , · . ~iat~ .Aha ~61~boisl are ~omf'6~'tJ~e most.:~/'owdbd ih'th~'sta:t~; "' !f'at v~ue- ~ti~i,'Thb'sch~r~'.-5~600' gt'ud~fits' a}e ja~me~ ir~to ~.c~mp, d~''built :f°'r''~ib~-0;~bd'fn~s''' "-" l.l'ies . ~ .~, ~-'. · ............. --~ ,:-..~- ....:- · -' '-:.'.' .- .-..-." ' '. '..','-'.. --. ..... - ,..... : · .... ....- . . :~-'....-.:.-- . .. , . ... - . : :. .--, ~,:::.:.[ -. . ..: .- ~...- .-..: . . - , :'-.-'?'"'" ..,..:.-...-.. .. . .. ' .-,... .. , -...- ~..- ,- .... -~...--::. ~'.=,-.-: ... :-: ustm Says '-: c~d~o~m ::-..'...;'-:,- :.wtadh..! .... :.. .. - '..--,,---f~;~'~t~':'.:.~..: D?,".?'-:.-/- ' 'b f~leral ed[Jcation-offi- :- :'We. believe f.~.p, rai I. aw-~s~_o~,,~ .O..~..g., pr6val- .y !. ".- - '--:' ' - - -'. lliam -..SaBra.. ..~ - .-.:,.:.;..'...:..;.' .:: -' ' · "· ' thbt'Wodld have side~.s...,~stin~-ttT, l~tanag..er,-~ '~'2' cmls.of a plan ......... - ..... ~ ' ' sn{' o°~l-'eno'l~ -- -.~ ........ ...... '. ' "'." .' id W'ednesday:2:;'.. -: "°...- ~,-::*:--'.-,' ':, ,;'t -";', '" ' ~- .... the 1.584:acre-base to. ~.Hust.o..rtsa · .-. --- .... ,? ..-' r, -'. -.~ · .... -. 'n'davelo. e'.d .l.a..~d. ~ten.landaL... ,. ...... - :. -." ~z.-.-.-:'..- - ' -" ' le' ~sla-- lias.n..t. ~ ....:' "' nified Rancho San-. -, --.W, hen you Ioo..k,a.t tti.e. ~.g.,., '-' ' ..... "'SbiC,and fi'.ces.some -., Santa..kria. U .......... · :-' . "" '- '- -' ......... t-' lef~ to build sch .... ,.:,,_. .., , ......: .-.. :'- ~'- "': - 'fij. h0mzi eCounty tNe~Iiisrorg,.¢o, ng.r.,~_,s.!?n--~!~m.-t.,ep .' ':-r ':'",??:'~.:.:'..~--"~Sw'd~d: 6ond.tz..' :~ia o and the So g · · -.... ...... --., ... · . - - : . · .~he;.-most,..~t.er .. ..... -. · .--.- · o . .. - ..... - ........ der~l level,, of . .~-...,..~.,.. ..... .~. ...... . .. · ..... · '.' .... 611e~e. DtstncLOnty a.n~l-c~as.e--l.a~.t.i[~.ho~....---:,--'.e r:r-:---o.-:,.-~' ',.z:r_.4i'~'...':,.s: .... ' '. .C.o.mm.u~it.Y.¢ . o.~. ,; .,..-.:..- ,-..-,_.:;-..'--.- .... -..,---'-_:z~;,..,~.2.r~,~t~ent '. ttons.m'tli~}~(,-.~;Z~:~....._ ._:' ...... · !I1 . .... : . ... - . -. o-.-.'- r : - -:'"" ' ' ':' ' '~'?.:..'":._-~'- ,-173--.... · .... -'x .- --" ," · ........ · ..... '-T~ offered-.. ........ -- .¢.'J .... ~. .... --- ... - ...: ..... ..... .~ 996:the.'~t relecte{l.:~nca... ~ a..comp.:?:.mj_s.~ . -:- · . ,-.-;- . ~,tiiit~'_-.nJ~. :-.-.- :...:'..:,. '- ~ '~: ~'~vi} ":a//' ,'-ulis't'~/~vajr"'" '"~' ' .' "-J -' :-' ...... "--' met:' : ...... 'that g~ g - J' -, ....... ' - ' ...... tetid a-ma ri~t :-. ~lis '- ~ ".'.'.: · -:. · .".: ' '.. · i.-.,-- : ..... --: .... ' velo' me~t'" fart;..t,O00.studemtS-to at.=:. =. g ..... : .. ~.. . - · · -itestroy. -~tz.~.e. cle. ;P... I~. ... ....... . .... :,....: .::>. . ....... EXHIBIT "E" Page 2 of 2 Pages .. LOS ANGELES TII~.S MONDAY, NOVEMBER20, CALIFO IA NEWS .. '"" 'SChOol : Year;RO'Und"at::H gh D scontent :.~ Twel~e-mr~th ~ched'ule ~ · '~ows more students to ' ' ' · cycle throu~ the building. but wfiaes'.the effect on . ,their eddcafion?'. ' "' .- .. By DUKEHELFAI~' - TIMES EDUCATION WR .rl~R · dea~OO~' opeh ]2' mor~t~s a year to o~ow.d~.-~ ~. e~-ro~d s~edu]e nllow$ t~e ¢~mpu~ to.rrm- hu~c~eds more. ~tudenLs t~roug~h its cramped classrooms- !t also cbi~s a~ay at.'t~.'.~.edu~a~or~ , -Teachers sMp p.ag...es o~ mateff~ assign less homework and give fewer tesLs becaC~e.thek school '~undre~s.~o.f: pupils take .t.he ' Stanford g'.e~am short]~ after re- tum~g-'fi'0m'ah eight.week vaca-. - tion. Oth~r.s will be.taking the.. .. '-.. ~ '- · .: -"' .... ' ' - : state's new high' school exit exam' Ri~arc~ Cdhningham, abo~,, teaches 'A."~ivan}ed' . hanna'. Figuero& in Er~glish ¢l~/d~,{ She hol~/S her ju~. tw/~ days. alter they ret'urn Pla6enient English at Hollyw'.ogd High.-~e'i0~t; ¥o- ' Jgnu~brua~y taxation d6esn t hinder'studies;; tr6m th .e~,/..win.t& Ureak-. -.' .' ' · .t~_ y,~ge~.'..c~..~l ge.t .c~i.'~.ea~. ' s/miine~ ba~ps~and jobs .ma~. , ... - - '.. '. '. ' 1 .ooI~ '~o6d on' coIlege.~l/p..lieati6ns ' -because the~jre in: ~chool, .wtu'le.. -.. - . . - . others' must .retum'~..campus · · ~ their vacati6ns.to partici.'pate in,. ' e. xtr/c/u/~icul, ar ~Ctivities such,as . 'band.and-yearbook.:: ' :' .'Asknearty-any teacher at -.~,ood High wheLher '.students are" .[g~tting a fu-st-cl~-i .education and: .-'tl~ amwer ~ a resoancling no. - -- ."If yofl'wanted, t0.clegcro7 public - schools, you'd start', wiLh 7ear: · roun~t'.'~heclules,">s'aiit English' EXHIBIT "F" Page 1 of 3 Pages .tpA!y-.~(,c,d Ih~b offers a L:lirnl,:e L',to the future of c<luc, ation in lx,s Angei~. Within five' yea::, ever)' high r~che/-~] in ~ Urdfied mu~ convert to · schedule like'Hollywood High'z; casualties of erplosive ~.owth a~d the disb4ct's failure to build schools. }/lore than half .of · middle-schools also will l~.'~e, to run · ..~e~ ro.unc~ '" · · Twe. lve~month ~h;dules have. l>,~ome a'primarY, solution to over- ; crowding in a growing number .of · '~u~ because t~y all.ow., .s~.. ools · to ser~e, idditional' Students in -'f.' Use'of the y .,e~.,.-ro. und'.calen~t~. ,' bver two dedad~. ~ Unified. now .'~ .m~re y~ar-round-Campuses' · u~n New.¥o.'r~, C~go, ?mmde]- · Phia~ Miami. :/Ed'Hous. t.o.n. "b~ed.' ' :.' 'The e~erience :it Hbllywood High show: ho~r multitrack ir. heal- -' ules present..studemts wit.h"hur.dles :-that do not exist-at, other schools. ': .'the setbacks, .while not crippling on - :theii' ow~,take a~ cumulative toll pn 'leai-nifig, spawning what many c,311. "a two-tiered system of educa .tion. " "In a welFintenti0nc~d effort- to "~olve overcrowding, we h,3ve e~c- 'erbated inequities in. schools," said -- Jeannie Oakes,-ass~cia(e ·dean of' UCDA's GradtmteSch60l ~f Educa-' -' tion and Irffonnation Sthdi~s. '~Peo-' : ple with' more private.and .polit[-. · . Cai 'clout 'don't want their children in'these schoblsF-' ~ · . ... in Grade Schools-' eAuo a -campuses servinginore thah ! mil- '- :lion student.6,' priman'ly..in pOOr and' 'fiai~ority cortimunities- ~ost multi- track calendars.are found at the el- em'entary level... - .In-those grad~,..studies have ~. shown a mixed impact off'achieve- . 'ment. IJttle analysis, l~as been done . '. on the eff~zt of j;ear-i'oimd ~checl: : ules-at-middle and high ichools, perhaps be~.~ ~o few exist out side Los Angeles. ' . ' ..' But among-those.who have L'perien.ced the impa&, it'd'hard to . fmd"defeniters.of multitrack, year-.' '.-' a, otind education, ~. '~:ularly wlaen ? it%omes t6se~, oi~dafiff schoo.l~ . . ; . Los An*geles'school~ Supt. Eoy .-P~omer ~l!u ~ar-'rotind'calendar~ a ' -'hanfiickp" for st.ud, ents,'ah.b~inioa -shared .by Holl~rw~ad 1Tagh's prin .ci- ..~y~· '' - ' en aske~ ~8 c~te t~e . ·tages of.the year:round schedule at her campus, Fliria Anderson Trim.-. hie offered just' two: teach, ers can . · -e~-n ~ mon6y Working during their·~acations, .and those whose - breaks land iff tl~sprin~.-or, fall can ' trave~/tui4ng 6.~-peaX pefi.oc~ '" : :'As. far as I'm coneerned~, the · - 'year-round calendar is vl0t an 'opfi-.. ' mum learning r. ituation," Trimble raid. · Hollywbod tIigh senior WMkAria Quiroa ag'ri:e:. The aspiring high school teacher .began her eight- 'week vacation in late October,' · right in .th.e middle of college appli- cation'season. · · Quiroa is mi~'sing a chance to" meet recru:ters, .'whose .wsRs. are , w~ll p. ubli~ized on campu, s. If she ~ere in school, she.also c0uld.wal~ d6~n th~ hall to .thi~ college advi- ' : sor's office and get.help filling out her application for Cal State North- · ridge. .... "Wheli 'you're no[' there. '~rou don't hear what's going on," said' Quiroa, a B ktddent who 'trans- ferred.to Hollyivood High fr~m a .parochial .sc,h .ogL "I should have go~e to a private, high schooL"' Yohanna Figueroa worries that 'her :vacation in Januiry and Febru-' .ary v]ill cost her valuable time to prepare fo~ Advahced Placement :exams' in the spring .... ; -.With a 3.5 gr'4de point ~ve .rage and half.a dozen AP courses on her' transcripts, she is settin~her si'ght~" oh USC. High AP scores c6uld earn .l~.'gu~o.a..c.ollege credit and-Save h~ thousafi~ of dollars in tuition.. ' With so milch a£ stake, she ~alans t.o '" spend he~ eight:week..vacation at school, studying with'frien.ds. ' ' ~'It v~6uld be ~asier. if we were' lik~ everyone el~". she said. 'I'he; pla~ag field would be level." to level the playing field .thfou. gh · .the courts. In a lawsuit' filed 'in May, the ' kinetic/re' eiv~ La.]aerties. Union ar- .. '.gued that. tens o! thohsandsof poor. ' .and minority .students.in California '. "are denied an equal education be- cause they attend schools that lack 'ad~uafe re~urces anel-operat~ on. multitrack calendar.. The lawsuit' dR'ed the short~ s. cti..ool year'at high s~hools in. Los Angeles and · ~sew. here as a.priniary obstacle'to l~am~.... · · -' The suit di~. not t~rget the state's 482 year-r'ound sehogls that · kee~ ali students on a single'traeL .eral shorter yac~tions in place of. the long summer ~areak. Thzt- schedule is advocated by offieial~. wh6 sa~ long .vacations .hinder. leami.ng. -' "'-" ' ' ' ' · Leadj.'ng'educators ~ay 'th~ law-. ' ~it's atta0.Z on-multitrack schools ca~ ~'spotlight oit a'pressing issue ..' that has attracted little, public, at- tentio'n. · · · "Why aren't .'th'ese. 'scHools · '( eveorwhereT' asked ~-'u. gene'Gar- ci~ dean'of the Orad. uate Schogl of · Eklucatio. n at U~ Berkeley. "In' the .suburbs, we. m~ire' ~'dangement~' : We build facilities.". ·. · EXHIBIT "F" Page 2 of 3 Pages ~tntewide, the poverty rate in rnult,W~ck ~bc,ok in nearly dguble the rate at -.~tmpu~es on tra4itional ~dcndarz. The ~te of ztu~zn~ learning ~ngli:h is nearly three ~ gr~.. L.A~ ~nified's ye,-round :tu- ~ents ~e ~ng the n~e;t M the ~. N~y ~1 qu~ify for fed~ i~ch.a~'~nce, the l~ding ~r'of'~eAY ~ong ~h~le~- 'dren..~m~t'two-third~ are still. t~u~ M ~ Kngel~ at J ~g~e' sch~l a q~er~entu~ ago as a · ~mPor~ fix' for overe?~ding. Today year-roun0 camp~ ac- count for ~ore. than· 0n~third of'. the distfiet'i re~ <h~ls. ' ..' ,Ac.co'rdihg to"'the l~t6st.state data, L.A. Unified is the qrily.~s- trict in California [hat run.~ high 'schools on staggered, ye. ar-round schedules, with .one' exception.. Vista Unifi~'in San.Diego County has one char'ocr school on a ~nulti- track sch.~ule. ' The Los ~mgeles district al~o has 'relied on. busing to relieve'over~ crow~iing.-But as an 'enrollment: bulge moves up the'grades,'bfficials . ~ill be forced to ~cpand.the year- - -.r6un. d progra~ -- Eight'e. efi of L.A. high schools already are year.· round, and '.-disTtri'ct Officials say the , remaining 31 ~'ill follow by 2006. - Similarity, 17 6f '/2. middle.scho~ls . are year-round, but officials ~xpect. the number to more thar! double in the coming fiveyears. .. - : The district is developing an am: i bitious school construction pro-. · 'gram..that calls' for 15 new-high . scho61s ahd .seven new middle· 'schools 6ver .the next.five ye. ars..- But those 33,0'.00. new se~ts will 1 '.~r... dly keep pac~ with growth, and · -. {alans call. for. those.campuse~; to ru~.': year-round.- · Hollywood I-figh is one oflthe lat- est to }oin the club. It switched in' t~4,.~, ter more than 90 years On a traditional calendar. As a crowded urba~ high schoOl, Holl~wood faces man~ problems regardless of its- 'schedule. .But the calendar here; .as. at other .year-round sch.ools; crc'- . another )o( 2 Tracks in So, sic)n, I on Vacation The cramped, 13-acre campus · sits a bilk from the Hollywood Walk of F~me and Mann% Chinese Theatre. Busloads i)f tburists mix with ~udents.on the i;idewalks around the Sun,et Boulevard cam- pun, where Mickey Rooney, Carol ~ and dozen~ of other celeb- xiti~ attended school. . · · Like mo~t other year-round cam- pdse~, ih .Los Angeles, Hollywood . High dNide~ its ~tudents into three staggered track. Two are ii se~-. ~ion at a time ~thile phi is on vaca- tion. The rotating schedule has al-' 16wed the. scho61 o[ about. 3,000 ~mde.nts·to increase it~ capacity '41~-~ne~rly ~10 extra students. · · .. But sq~'tliree tracks.onto · the campt~ ha~ reituired the'school to pare 17 days from it~ calendar. It . has made.up the difference by add-. · . · . -- . .ins 39 minutes [6'eada.da~ That· mounts-to 6~ extra minutes ,.per. · - Teach,rs'dismiss th~'addltional itim~_- as- logistic, sleight-of-h~nd.: With little, educational .v. alue. Stu- dents, they ~ay,' c/m't confientrate through cla~s periods that now nm · 'rh.~y ~ho~i~a up the days ~hd. minutes b'ut.w.ere~. 't. thinking about -' the_ con~equen.ces,' said che.mistry. t~acher Pa/ri'cia Barker. "Just be: cause you have a couple more rain- -' utes added onto class d.oesu't m.ean you can do more.:' Standing.in her classroom o.n a. recent day, amid rinks without nm-. nj/ts water 'and' gas. valve~ that diitn't Work, :Barker ticked off the topic~ ~he wori't.have tlme' to Cover thi~ year:.' bibchemistry, orga. fii.e. che .~,' chemical equilibriuni,' the electron's role in tile ato'n~. "My ~tud~.nt~ are.no/.b.e., ing e.x-. po~l ~o material that will allow' them to achie~:~," said Barker,. wh6se 'clas.sroom is still ~ oYei-. ~with 40 ~tuiient%'m. me ~it- aug on counter tbs.' ~ol(' .and at' herde~.' ' · -' · · nme ki~ are ~ike '~,~ 'cnints,:- 'abe ma. "tm doing .them.'a.' 'di~_r-. vice~.I feel so. frustum. - - Teachers also .complain abo~t from the previous term each time their stude.,its return from their two eight-week.vacation~.. It's not tmcommon to start the year with'a review; the difference at Hollywood' l~h is that it .happens mor~ 6ften. F~me' instructor~ say the more. freciuent break~, are reju. venatihg, "I. co~tanfly recl~ige"the bat-. tory," ~aid English teacher Janie Chapman. "Academically," she added, "it's not ideal." The complexiti~ 'a~d tight- schedules of a y6ar-round calendar aiso lead t~ other problem Teacher: muzt change rooras cvc,D' time they corn,_' b~ck from vacation. Some al~o must. change clasaroorn~ in {be course of a single schc, ol day because of the. lack of -*.pace, storing their suppli~ in the trunks of their cam M~,intenance ix. difficult to ule when school is n~rly alWays in session. Gra~ c~n't grow on much of the football field because it's constantly in u~e, turning it into a hard patch of dirt in summer and a wet slog in whn.' ter. Getting 'books into.students:' han~ also becomes more difficulL The school took several days to col- lect and tally textbooks from stu- dents who went on break Oct. 2,t. The ne~ track started class Oct. 25, giving officials Ii{fie time to re- distribute the materials. Oh the.first day back, Chapman's 11 th-grader~ were w-iiting for their class novel: John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men." Chapman let the · students chat quietly as she took roll. Then, without an~hihg for them to read, she offered to talk about her rece.nt trip to Eg3rpt. "You guys, we don't have our' books. We won't get them' until Pi-ictay,' Chapman told the class on a Wednesday. "So sit back 'and re- lax. Since ~ve don't have books, I'm going to show you my slides." ' Many of Hollywood's studen~ have only known year-round schedules because they came from crowded elementary and middle ~hools. Several students said they're -happy at Hollywood. Some are :grateful for the opportunitie~ to make up classes during vacations. Others like the schoors'menu of specialized programs. "I cameto Hollywood became of the acting," aid Andrew Farkas- Jone.'s, who travels from the West- side to attend.the school's Pedorm- ins Arts Magnet- - "People say ·that Hollywood High is not a good school for aca- demics, but-we don't miss out on. learning," said the senior, who dreams of becoming a profe~ional actor but al~o ~ of attending a- community college or' UCLA. "Teachers do a'really good job. I can't really complain." . . Still, teacher~ and admini~t, ra-. · t6rs worry that the Schedule frag- ment~ the school, creating three campu~'e~ in one. The track~ act - 'like fault line~, fracturing student~ by abilities and .talent~ The A:track incltid~ ~e art~ .; magnet and closelY resemble'the traditional .September to June cal- . endar. B.track is home to student~ who are still learning English. C · track .enc6mt~ar~ the. New Media Academy, a progrim thab teach6s high-tech skills such ~ how to pro- EXHIBIT "F" Page The A track includes the art~ magnet and clot, ely resembles the traditional Septeinber to June cal- endar. B track ix home to students who are still learning English. C track enc°mpas-/~ the N~,v Media Acaciemy, a program that teaches high-tech sh'll~ such is how to pro- duce computerized videos.. Administrators freely ackno'~l- edge.that th~'~chedule creates ~n-' equities within the school. They say B trick is the $iggeit loser, even'questi, oning.'whether it is "academically ~ound..". . The trick offers 'fewer honors and Advanced Placement courses than the other two, a gap theschogl is trying 'to close. B track students' also have had to take the Stanford 9 exam jm-t thr~ days after ~:eturning from eight weeks of vacation. Be-. ginning next ~pring, thee sfudents will take the Stanford 9 about weeks after returning from vaca- tion, the result of new state rules that push back the test!ns dates. Teachers welcome the additional time,.but they' say the stud~_nts still won't be as prepared 'as others at the school. "How can y0Lt expect these kids to be on the same par as kids who have been in school all semester7" 'asked Trimble, the principal. "It's criminal." B track suffers one additional dot-' riment: more dim-uption~ during the year. While the other two tracks are in sessioff for 16 weeks and then are' -off for eight, B track go~ on vaca- tion after only eight we,_ks of school, · in the middle of its term- Students with a limited command of English say the stop-and-start schedule in- 'terferes with their pro~ "It would be much bettm: if we didn't have this system? said jun-' {or Jaman Ym~ri, a Kosova~/dba- nikn who has been in the United. States about a year. Television is Ymeri's teacher during, his vacations· He practices English by watching videotapes o[~ his favorite idms, the Indiana Jones movies and 'Braveheart-~' He also reads'the closed-capti6n words that run across the screen of his television. It's about the most English he gets at home, where his family primarily speaks Albanian. - "~ I were in school," he said, "I would probably learn more and do · - betterT 3 df 3 Pages OtLANGE COUNTY PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION I AFF LOCAL 3631 15941 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 210 - Tustin, CA 92780-7319 ['berne (.714] 25g-3636 - Fax (714) 258-1953 - Web v,.ww.ocpfa3631 .otg Board of Directors Joe Kerr Pre sidcnt John Latta Vice President David J. Thompson Vice President Dennis Shcam Treasurer Hiddo H. Horlings Richard A. Comcli Director David T. Rose Dire~or JeffH: Williams Director Dan S. Young November 28, 2000 Letter Planning Commission, City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: (USMQ Dear Ms. Ogdon: The Orange County Professional Firefighters Association, representing the 721 professional firefighters of the Orange County Fire Authority, is in opposition of the development of the .Tustin Air Base until, and unless, adequate fire protection is .provided to the area. It is my understanding that there is no additional fire protection planned for the area under consideration. With the proposed addition of 4,049 dwelling units, 11 million square feet of commercial, industrial floor space as well as the planned public and recreational buildings and open spaces there is a definite need to increase fire protection. A community of approximately thirty thousand residents would constitute a good size city alone. I do not think that if you were building a new city of 30,000 people you do so without addressing fire protec, tion for those people. Using a baseline of one professional firefi~ter'for each one thousand citizens gives you some idea of how lacking the fire protection will be for the proposed development. The city currently has approximately 33 professional firefighters to serve a population of almost 60,000. As you can see by applying the above formula, the city is already below the number of professional firefighters that should be employed. Even with assistance from fire stations in Irvine and the surrounding area, the number is inadequate. Taking into account the population, type of buildings planned and the traffic that will be generated by the planned proposal it is imperative that there be a firehouse located inside the development. It would be best to plan for a firehouse and the related vehicles and personnel now while the site is in the planning stages. This will allow the city the necessary time to explore both the firehouse locations, to serve the population best, and to study the fiscal impacts of maintaining a fire station and crew permanently. Representing Professional Firefighters protecting the cities of.' Buena Park Cypress - Dana Point Irvine - ~ Hills - Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods - Lake Forest La Palm-. Los Alamitos Mission Vicjo Placentia Rancho Santa Margarita Snn Clememe - San Juan C. apistrano Scal Beach - Stamon - Tuslin Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linda Unincorporated Orange County Page 2 Tustin Planning Commission November 28, 2000 If the planning process does not take place before the building begins and the people arrive you will find that the additional workload of protecting the new develoPment will be the "straw that breaks the camels back" and places both the citizens and the firefighters in danger. Thank you, John Latta, Vice President Copy Joe Kerr, President M~uel A. Puhcio MAYOR PRO TEM T -boreas E. Lutz COUNCILMEMBERS Li--~a Bist Alberta D. Christy Britt Franklin Patricia A. McGuigan Ted R Moreno November 28, 2000 CITY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY · 20 Civic C,e~er Plaza, M-21 Post Off~.,e Box 1988 Santa Aha, California 92702 CITY MAr;AG.'F R Dav,d N. P..e=rn CITY AT'r ORt.IE Y Jo'~eph V,/. Flelcher CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Heal), Let/er 5 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Tustin Planning Commission SUBJECT: FINAL EIR/EIS FOR DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MARINE CORPS AIR STATION This letter is to provide a summary of our issues of significant concern as to the adequacy of the environmental document that has been prepared to support the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Tustin MCAS Reuse Plan. The City of Santa Aha has provided consistent written comments on the draft EIPJEIS on three previous occasions. The first comment on the environmental document was in March 1998, and our last comment was on January 24, 2000. Tustin's final EIR/EIS, as noted in the. January 24 letter, fails to adequately respond to several significant concerns. Our comments were also reiterated in numerous meetings with City of Tustin staff during 'the past two years. We continue to be concerned that sufficient and specific mitigation of traffic impacts in the City of Santa Ana is not being identified in the EIR/EIS. Attached are copies of correspondence previously sent to your staff.. 5-1 5-3 A summary of our issues is as follows: · The EIR assumes that all arterial highway General Plan improvements will have been construct'ed by 2020. 'This is not a valid assumption since many needed improvernents do not yet have fund!ng commitments. .. · With'appr°ximately"300,000 vehicles per day being generated by the project (alternative 3), the EIR/EIS shows that traffic will decrease for several intersection turning movements in Santa Ana. Traffic over 15 years (2005-2020) is likely to inCrease not decrease, and the magn'rtude of this development can be expected to further add additional traffic to the roadway network under any of the 'alternatives, not less for many turning movements. · The post 2020 analysis is unrealistic in that-the traffic model assumes the transportation corridors operating as flee facilities. This assumption assigns a disproportionate amount of project traffic to the adjacent '~:orridsr instead of local surrounding roadways, against masking the true impact of the/project. November 28, 2000 Page 2 5°4. A close look at the daily traffic forecasted indicated major discrepancies and inconsistencies in traffic volumes. It is unclear why Edinger Avenue east of Grand Avenue increases by approximately 25,000 VPD while Warner Avenue decreases by 1000 VPD for the same segment. The MCAS traffic study is incorrect in assuming that all mitigation and roadway improvements will be built before MCAS and the MCAS traffic can then utilize the excess capacity generated by those improvements. Many projects are developing much more slowly than anticipated due to economic factors, resulting in a lower level of traffic, thereby deferring the need for many of the mitigation programs. 5-6 A fundamental concern with the EIR/EIS continues to be the definition of the committed roadway network. Many of the improvements needed to implement the committed roadway network as defined in the EIPJEIS are unfunded capital improvement projects in the City of Santa Ana. An example is the widening of Warner Avenue to six lanes west of Grand Avenue. The City of Santa Ana has no plans or funds available to widen Warner Avenue to six lanes. This flawed assumption in the Final EIR/EIS grossly distorts and under-reports the traffic impact associated with the development of the base. 5-7 The EIR fails to determine the feasibility of implementing the recommended mitigation measures. The EIR assumes that an agreement will be entered into with Santa Aha which basically provides that fi. rture environmental review will be done with subsequent phases and agreement as to appropriate mitigation measures will be negotiated at that point in time. This approach is completely contrary to CEQA law and eliminates future remedy for Santa Ana. The reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station in Tustin is a regionally significant project that would have profound impacts on the City of Santa Ana and Tustin. We understand and appreciate your desire to reach closure in this extensive entitlement process. However, given the fact that the Final EIPJEIS fails to adequately respond to significant concems as brought to Tustin's attention on three previous occasions. we urge you to defer approval on the GPA until both cities can develop a mutually agreed upon mitigation plan. ' Sincerely, ~ Cynthia J. Nelson Deputy City Manager for Development Services Attachment Leller 5 £fTY OF SANTA October 11, 2000 5-8. Mr. Witliam Husion, City Manager City of Ttmin 300 Centemnial Way Tush, CA 926~0 SUBJECT: TRAFf~ MITIGATION FOP, REUSE OF MARINE CORPS. AiR STATION Dear Mr.~n: I hope you enjoyed your recent ~cmion.: This is ~ follow up to my conv~sation ~ Christin~ Shin~etou wh~e you were on vacation and a follow-up :o om' Febru~-y 17. 2000!m~ with you and your stair, ~cl several sabse, quent meetings beween om' ~e ~,~r~-eg~cling ua/fie mitigation for ~e reuse of the Marine Corps Air St~tion in Tm'fin. As promised at tim meeting, we are providing a list of traffic improvemmt~ that ~.¢ net. esm3, to adequately mitigate the impam caused by tho 1600 acre reuse plan. We are also requesting tJ~ City of~'s agreement to fund the widening of Warner Avenue in the City of Sama Aaa. · The City of Santa Aha has provided consistent written ~ommenu on tt~ draft ~ on three previous ocx:~on.t The first commmt on thc cnvironm_~ral documcut was in ~ I998, and our last comment wai on la~nuary 24, 2000. Tustin's final EIR/EI$, as noted in tlhe lmua.ry 24 letter, fa/Is to adequ~cly respond to $c-veral significant concerns. Our commmts.were also reiterated in unmerous meetings with City of Tustin staff during the pt~t two years. We continue to be conca'ned thor s-/~ident and specific mifig~ion of traffic impa~ h the ~ of Santa Aha is not being i ,de~ifi~ in the ]EIR/EI-K. W'F& thc ack1~On of UP to 300~000 ~hicl¢ tri13s per day. gemm'ated by ~ re.se t{lan, the City of Santo Aha cominues to ~ s~o~s conc.=us With ,he ~ of th=/r~ mR/F.5. We do nm 20 CIVIC CJ~NT~R PLAZA TEi. EPi-IC~E (7t4) FAX U~*) 5-9 5-t0 5-11 5-12 Mr. W'fl}iam Huston October 11, 2000 Page 2 The strectq in Santa Aha tim will be most significantly impacted include: Wamm' Avenue b~wema Grand Avenue and Main Street Dyer Road between Red ITtll Avenue and Main Street Imm-section of Grand and Edinger Avenues Thc EIS/EIX assumed Ix~d out of a circulation ~m:m within Santa Ama by thc y~.ar 2020. We know for a fact by the review of the traffic portion ofthe environmental docann~ that thc extension of Warner Avenue through the MCAS in Ttmin will increase traffic fro./n approximately 26,000 to 41,000 vehiclez per day between Grand Avenue and Main Street The final EIS/EIR ~sumes as a given that Warner Avenue would be widened to six lanes az plannediin fie Ma~er Plan of Arterial Highwayz. However, the City of Santa Arm haz no plenz or funds available to improve Warner Avenue to ~ix lane~. Th~.~ i~u~ have been reiterated in previous correspondemcc sevexal time~ throughout the reuse plarming proce~. The City of Santa Aha hax prepared a li~t ofmitigation projects as we have previ0udy promised to provide in a meeting with you and reprerv~ta*ive~ of'both citiez in February 2000..The list of projects to mitigate the traffic impacts in Stnm Aha is provided below: LIST OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR TUSTIN REUSE OF MCAS ' 'ii6 cr rmns COST -(1) Widen Warner Avenue to six lane~: Grand to Main : $34.0 million (2) Construct Enhaac~ InI~on ~ger $4.7 million (3) Construct Alton Overpass Al'SR-55 $7.4 million . _. (4) Widen ~.t0n,t.9 four hnes Smdard to l~in.. ~a.0 mi~Iion TOTAI~ $49.1 million -, As s first priority to mitigate the traffic impae',.q, the City of Santa A.na requests the City of Tustia to fully fund the wideaing of Warner Avenue between Grand Aveame and Main StreeL The __~ima,~ ~ for thc widening including engln~ right ofway, and ~ction i, $34.0 million inch~ an t~, _~ imersecfion at Grand Avmue. This wideaing'i~ necessa~ to ~onstmcfion of'the Alton Overpass is needM to rdi~'~ tl~ traf~ coagesfln,, on Dyer Road betweea Red 19111 Avenue and Main Stre~ Th~ r_~,,-l,,~g proj~,s (2) through (4) in thc list of afthe Alton ~ at SR-$5, and improvements to Alton A~e w~st to Main Street could be i~ed by a mixiare o£M~amr~ "M' competitive funds, f~ta'al ~ a~l TSIA £ee~ collea~l from de~lopme~ ia the Santa Ana/Tustin IP.( 5-12 cont. October l 1, 2000 I : The req~ protocol for the Warn~ Avenue w~de~g is t° first include th~s ~;a ~figagon m~re ~ ~e ~S for rms~ of~ MC~. We would ~en r~ue~ Tus~ ~d S~ ~ to ~t~ ~to ~ ~m~ ~ ~p~ ~ Tu~ ~y ~d the W~ Av~u~ that. ~n~~n bc p~ ~ on-~c d~e]opm~t. In reg~ds ~o ~e S~b~ 21.2~ l~ ~v~ flora ~b~c Works D~or~ ~ th~ ~e ~es of Tu~ ~d S~ ~ ~n r~ch ~n~s on a ~per~e a~m~nt ~d the W~ Argue ~d~ It ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ter~ of~ to r~ r~olufion ~ a t~ely ~~ on ~s ~fi~ ~n~ I look for~',,-d to hearing from you. Please contact my office at (714) 647-5200 .to szhedule a meeting to o3scuss this in further dctm'l. City Manager cc' Mayor and City Council EMT MAYOR /,4igue, I A. Puhdo MAYOR PRO TEM Thomas E. Lutz COUNCILMEMBERS Li~ Bist Alberta D. Christy Brett Franldin Patricia A. McGuigan Ted R Moreno CI.TY OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 20 Civic Center Plaza., M-21 Santa Aha, California 92701 CITY MANAGER David N. Ream CITY ATTORNEY Joseph W. F~chef CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Patricia E. Healey' Leller 5 October l l, 2000 Mr. Tim _S erl et, Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 5-13 5-14 5-15 SUBJECT: MCAS TUSTIN REUSE EIS/EiR OFF-SITE CIRCULATION MITIGATION Thank You for giving the City of Santa Ana the oppommity to review the construction cost estimates for mitigation associated with the Alternative 1 land use plan. We understand that the City' of Tusfin is responm'ble foi~ entering into an agreement with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure off-site roadway imprOvements needed to mitigate the impacts for Alternative 1 land use plan are constructed. As a first Step leading to an agreement, you have asked Santa Ana to review and provide written comments on the constructi6h cost estimates. In reviewing the construction cost estimates for widening nine intersections in the City of Santa Aha as identified in ybur report and letter dated September 21, 2000, the City of Santa Ana provides the following comments/concerns: At this time, it would be premature to agree on improvement cost estimates. We have cominually brought to Tustin's attention the fundamental disagreement that the traffic study in the environmental document underestimates the traffic impacts. Until we can mutually agree on a traffic study methodology, we cannot agree in a fair share costs. h is unclear in how the proposed off-site improvements will be coordinated_ with the on-site development The total cost estimates for mitigation in Sauta Aaa for Alternative l land use is approximately $8.0 nn~on. The cost share is $3.5 million for the project and $4.5 for others, undefined at this lime. A mjor concern of Santa Ana is how will $4.5 malion of matching funds be provided. Mr. Tim Scrlet October l l, 2000 Page 2 5-16 The $8.0 million cost estimate in the report is for nine intersection improvements in Santa Ama. No mitigation is provided for widening Warner Avenue between Grand Avenue and Main Street. We have continually informed the City of Tustin~that Warner Avenue, a four lane arterial, does not have the capacity to eany between 34,000 and 40,000 vehicles per day as projected in the tra~c section of the environmental document unless it is widened. The Warner Avenue widening needs to be included as a priority project in the mitigation cost estimate. 5-17 In reviewing the intersection improvements as described in the report, we find that the proposed improvements may not be feam'ble to construct. For example, adding an additional left mm lane on one leg of an intersection, but not the opposing left mm lane, will result in an unacceptable offset. Conceptual plans showing the intersection widening are needed to make certain the proposed improvements are feasible and adequate. This will also assist the City of Santa Ana to fully vis~]ali×e the proposed improvements and determine if other improvements are needed. Again, the City of Santa Ana's focus and high priority project is to first widen Warner Avenue between Grand Avenue and Main Street. We would be pleased to meet with you and your staff to discuss the Warner Avenue widening project and the other mitigation measles at your earliest convenience. Thank you for providing the construction cast estimates, and I look forward to hearing from you to further discuss these mitigation measures. Sincerely, ~..~'~. ..... .--&: James G. Ross Executive Director Public Works Agency CC.' City Manager City Engineer .. M,~,.uc'l A. l'uhd~) MA'fOR I'RO 'TFM 'lhoma~ E. Lulz C~JJ~CILMEMBE RS Albc~ D. Christy Brell Franklin . P~ricin A. McGui~n Ted R Moreno CITY OF SANTA ANA PLANNING & BUILDING AGENCY 20 Civic Cenler Plaza 0',4-20) P.O. BOX 19~g · Santa Ana, California 92702 F~x ~714) 973-1461 CIIY l/,l,.t(,I..g[ R D,~v,d t,/. R:.,~rr, CIIY ^TTORN[ y joscph W. lrlc. lChf..-r CLERK OF 3'HE CC~,./NCIL Janice C. Guy Letler 5 January 24, 2000 Mr. Dana Ogdon City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 SUBJECT: Final EIS/EiR for Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, .California Dear Mr. Ogdon: 5-18 This letter is provided to transmit the City of Santa Ana's comments on the MCAS Tustin Final EIS/EIR. Attached to this letter and incorporated by this reference are the comments provided to the City of Tustin on the Draft EIS/EIR on August 31, 1999. The Final EIS/EI~. fails to adequately respond to several significant concerns raised at that time. Within a Final EIS~EIR, a lead agency's response., to comments must state reasons for rejecting comments on significant environmental issues. Conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information, such as those provided in the MCAS Tustin Final EIS/EIR, are not. adequate responses. While the City of Santa Aha .recognizes the challenge Of providing detailed responses to each of the City's comments, we are disturbed by the fact that the Final EIS/EIR is not responsive to what we consider to be extremely important environmental issues and, therefore, fails to comply with CEQA. and AlE_PA. These issues are not new and have been repeated 'on several occasions throughout the reuse planning process. While our complete comments are provided in the attachment, I will summarize some of the most significant below. Mr. Dana O~don City of Tustin Janugry 24, 2000 Page Two 5-18 The City continues to be critically concerned on the methodology ~nt. that was used to determine traffic impacts in Santa Aha. In the Final EIS/EIR, the traffic model redistributes traffic throughout the region. Under Alternative 3, for instance, the I project would generate approximately 295,000 vehicle trips per i~3 day. Given this high number of vehicle trips, we question how ! ~ traffic projections and turning movements are actually projected /,;to decrease at several intersections in the City of Santa Ana.. " Without a sufficient response to this comment, the City has significant concerns on the adequacy of the traffic impact analysis and the recommended mitigation measures provided in the Final EIS/EIR. Another fundamental concern with the Final EIS/EIR continues to be the definition of the committed roadway network. The Final' EIS/EIR assumes built-out of a circulation system within Santa · Ana by 2020. Many of the improvements needed to implement the / committed roadway network as defined in the Final EIS/EIR are/ unfunded capital improvement projects in the City of Santa Ana. 'The assumptions, therefore, fail to assume the ~worst case -"'-scenario" required by CEQA. As an example, common sense would indicate that. Warner .Avenq~ would serve as an important east/west travel route for vehicles going to and from the redeveloped base. The Final EIS/EIR assumes as a given that Warner Avenue would be widened to a capacity of six lanes as planned in the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. However, the City of Santa Ana has no plans or funds available to improve Warner Avenue to six lanes. This flawed assumption in the Final EtS/EIR, therefore, grossly distorts and under-reports the traffic impacts associated with the development of the base. Additionally, the' Final EIS/EIR fails to determine the feasibility of implementing the recommended mitigation measures. Some of' these~mitigation measures could, in and of themselves, result in significant impacts to the City of 'Santa Aha and may not be able to be implemented. The analysis to determine the feasibility, and environmental impacts associated with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures should be included in the Final EIS/EIR and should not be deferred to the preparati'on of subsequent environmental documentation. Mro Dana Ogdon City of Tustin January 24, 2000 Page Three 5-18 The reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station Tustin is a regionally cont., significant project that:; would have profound impacts on the City of Tustin and the City of Santa Aha. It is in the best interest of all to provide resolution on critical concerns that affect both cities. With this in mind, we once again request that the City of Tustin respond adequately to our ~concerns before certifying the MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR. We look forward to receiving your responses to our concerns. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please feel free to contact my office. /~~rely, ' ~Executlve gr~fDirel~~~ RU/DB/klp Attachment ; n .z_.,> Z ~ > : -f io __ ~'-o >~'g ~ -=- ~= _ .. " I t i * .. o. · ,f, o j. q i' I gc .,, ,~-~..... .rid ~m~l ,~~ ~. ~'"~ ~ 9 .;.~. ~,, ~ ,/> . ~ &.rI ~ ..... ,~ ~l~ ~ "- _... -~: .--.- ~<:~. 1 ~ll,f .111,1 I'tl ' Iii,1 ~ON ~ .JJIN Ixr'L/'lflN P~F I~u~.~ 'l~/1.gf~ PJ£ pJf. p P3J~I~ Ul~lJN i -..II~VIi~ j.N:J INI-:J AOIidt~tl NOI.LN'~)LLII"~ ~'Y-'~I,~I ~)NV'~ ghtO"l J.J~JAO~d J~ll ~ONY~! S'N O I J.,D.:I S'~ 3,_LN I (~¥ ~ N OI.I.Y-~,O~ ,~C0 '~ proud ~u!P3 ~ puP..JD NOItY=)O'i t :"flO V.L uoXy' ? !~1 Pal: ~y t'~J~S ;aptm ) 0% 1:lSN 'Jg~ Ol ,LN:.Jt~I:'I AO~I-II~II SNOI.LDEIS~I~£NI NOS~:JYdHOD ~DIA ON'O' NO~f~dNO~ .~/A {3NY $.~rll'l'lC ~on15 NOS~rlfd ~IA ON~ S31~qqOA 'l~f1~;J.l::l~' D~*'DV~ 'T~ifNIDII:JO I, z'P/* D NO~;~:IYd~O::) ~IA Oh?ll? ~YII'IgCU~ Io 14ed t. Ws & Oy~',~ln'anc3 .'-'-:~-~-? & Dr-' n 4n 0il _n.~ m__m_aJ'O n___~( n~ ..n~ ~ r~e ~ 0.81 L~ & ~ ~1 n ~ fl ~ ~ O~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~....~ & ~ ~ T~ ~ & M~ ~ 0.~ T~ V~ & ~ ~ 0.~ I ~ TASLE 2 T,e~LF_ 1 /zA'fOR )/,AYC)R FRO TEl.,', ~s E. Lul. z . C.~.~CILMEMB£ P..S ;Jber~ D. Chri'~y Bre:l~ Franklin P~ici~ A. T~ R Moreno CI"I:Y OF SANTA ANA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY 101-A W. Fourth .Stree~ M21 - P.O. BOX 1988 Santa Aha, California 92702 Letter 5 August 31, 1999 Mr. Dana Ogdon Senior Project Manager City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 RE' I~CAS TUSTiN EIS/EIR COMMENTS/SCH No. 94071005 Dear l{r. Ogdon'. 5-22 Attached are the City of Santa Ana's comments On the Draft MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR. The reuse of the 1,600 acres for the construction of over 11 million square feet of development and 3,000 homes, immediately adjacent to Santa Ana will obviously. result in a dramatic increase from the activity levels of MC_AS Tustin. As you will see fro~ our comments, we continue to'be deeply concerned regarding thE potential traffic impacts to our community resulting from the reuse plan. We do not see a clear, accurate picture of potential impacts in the EIS/EIR traffic. study and, therefore,, cannot'feel secure that impacts are adequately defined and fully mitigated. We appreciate the 'time extensions granted to the City forour preparation of comments. We believe that our two communities have worked extremely well together through our joint powers authority to advance economic prosperity in both cities without sacrificing quality pf life. It is our intent to continue to work cooperatively in this ~egard.' We trust that Tustin will, in turn, Work diligently to provide us with the information and assurances necessary to fully address our concerns over the base reuse plan and its environmental consequences. 5-22 Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions. RU/klp Attachment CITY OF SANTA ANA COMMENTS - ON MCAS TUSTIN DISPOSAL/RE-USE EISIEIR 5-22 cont. General Comments Table 2-16 on page 2-45 Of the EIS/EIR provides a listing of various approvals and permits required to implement the Project, along with the Responsible Agencies charged with the responsibility for such actions. This table does not recognize the City of Santa Ana as a Respons~le Agency. According to Section 21080 of the CEQA Statutes, a Responsible Agency is "a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, responsible for Carrying out a project." In this regard, the City of Santa Ana will be responsible for approving street improvements and traffic signal upgrades within the boundaries of the City of Santa Ana. If the Project is approved, and circulation measures in EIS/EIR document are implemented, the City of Santa Ana will be required to amend its Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan. Program Level EIR · Chapter 7.0 of the EIS/EIR indicates that the document is a program level EIR as defined by Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. Justification is given for this depiction based upon the following five Implementing Actions: · Adoption of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; · Amendments ~o the General Plans and Zoning Ordinances for the City of Tustin and the City.of Irvine; · Amendment to the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways;- · Final designation for MCAS TuStin by the California Trade and Commerce Agency under the LAMBRA Act; and . · Designation of MCAS-Tustin and adjacent areas as a redevelopment project under Car~orn~ Community Redevelopment Law. The City of santaAna cr~:jrees'wilJ~ this assumption by the City of Tustin based upon the following: · Program EIRs have enough information to cover a series of actions. The Implementing ~ns noted by the City of TuslJn are all at the general plan and zoning levels. None go to a subo"mision or area plan level_ · Program EIP, s' provide the'spec~ and detail to cover a wide spectrum of activity. The EIS/EIR provides deta~ appmp.'.ri~t, e for the General Pi=ih and Zoning levels, onlY. InformalJon and analysis in the EIS/EIR are insufficient to adjudge its appropriateness for construction level development. 5-22 cont. · Program EIRs provide specific mitigation measures appropriate for the vadous levels of the program. The EIS/EIR provides spec/ficity in mitigating future traffic impacts only. · The City of Santa Aha regards the EIS/EIR as a Tiered EIR that will be followed by more detailed, construction level EIRs and Negative Declarations at project implementation levels. ' ' Project Description Fails To Meet CEQA's Requirements 'An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." (San Joaquin Raptor v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 729, 32 Cal. Rptr.2d 704 .) The Draft EIS/EIR totally fails to meet this test. '. The Draft EISIEIR fails to meet the San Joaquin Raptor test in a number of crucial areas. First, the document flails back and forth between being a Program and a Project EIR, and as such fails to meet CEQA's obligation that the each and every discretionary act for which this document will used must be clearly identified. In-so doing, the issue of whether and when deferred environmental analysis will be performed becomes nothing more than a' shell game, with any person who wishes to comment being le~'t in a quandary. CEQA does not allow the lead agency to defer environmental analysis that can be performed now to a later date simply by calling a portion of this document a Program EIR. A number of critical impacts, such a,.s mitigation of lost wetlands, traffic mitigation, and. preservation of biological diVe.rsity do 'not have mitigation measures imposed. Instead, such mitigation measures are deferred to a later, unknown. date. For example, mitigation measure IA-9 Calls for Tustin to 'enter into agrccments with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that off-site roadway improvements .... are constructed.' (Page 7-39.) This mitigation measure is illusory, regardless of whether the EIS/EIR is called a program or a project EIP,.. CEQA imposes on Tustin the following obligation with respect to significant traffic impacts: ae Identify mitigation measures for project impacts For impacts that can be reduced by alternative m~gation measures, determine which measure has the least .impacts of its own Determine whether the significant impacts, after imposition of mitigation measures, are reduced to a level of ins'Kjnifi~nce. ' - .5-22 cont. The EIS/EIR fails to do this. Given the very detailed land uses set forth in the three projects analyzed in the EIS/EIR, there 'is no doubt but that specific traffic impacts on the SR55 and streets in Santa Ana and Irvine can be identified at this time. Tustin is required to-identify these impacts and to describe all feasible mitigation measures- not to defer this analysis. It is a separate question whether such analysis will be adequate when actual development approvals are .put before Tustin; CEQA does not allow the use of the phrase "program EIR" to be an excuse to defer mitigation. , Worst Case Scenario The CEQA Guidelines requires the use of a worst case scenario inl analyzing the impacts of projects. In the MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR, the traffic model does not appear to use a "worse case analysis". For example, presuming that the current "toll road" will be free at the time of ultimate project buildout is a best case analysis, and is contrary to factual information on the' Iow level of ridership that exists at the time of drafting the EIS/EIR. ' As an additional example, the traffic model assumes that the Santa Aha will change its current policy and allow a number of major streets to be restriped from 4 lanes to 6 lanes of traffic. A "worst case scenario' would assume that Santa Aha will continue to allow parking on these streets. Elimination of curb parking would in itself create a significant impact on businesses that use such parking - an impact which is not analyzed in the EIS/EIR despite CEQA's requiremeht that mitigation measures which cause significant impacts must be identified and studied. Reasonable Range Of Alternatives CEQA requires that an EIR descri.be a range of reasonable altematives to the Project; or to the location of the project, which would feas~ly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. (C. JEzens of Go/eta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights ImproVement ~iation v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 CaL3d 37.6). The Draft EIS/EIR fails to do so, including only tw° different alternatives to the proposed Project, ali of which fall into a mixed Use of housing, commercial and support uses. (The 'No Project' alternative must be included in all EIRs.) The reuse of the Tusfin MCAS is a once in a century opportunity, not only to Tustin but to ali of the_citizens of Orange County. Table 2-2 at page 2-5 men§ohs a nurrlber of alternatives that were crtscarded and not analyzed. None of these potential alternatives were stud'~l in the EIS/EIR. . CEQA provides'that factors which allow, altema'~ to 'be discarded inci[Jde:(i) .fa~ure to meet most of the basic project objectives, pi) infeasib~T~y, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. (State CEQA Guidelines § 5-22 cont. 15126.6(c).) Finally, it is the obligation of Tustin as lead agency, which is not delegable to any "task force,' to determine what alternatives should be analyzed under CEQA.. State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) Table 2-2 does not show that the discarded alternatives fail to meet "most" of the basic project objectives, are infeasible or are not environmentally superior. Many of the discarded alternatives appear to have been left out because they fail to meet an "issue of highest concern' set forth in a "community opinion survey"; the "need to create a positive financial impact" on Tustin's local economy. Alternatives eliminated as not being proff~ble enough for Tustin include the Rancho Santiago College Educational. alternative (section 2.3.1 of Draft EiS/EIR), and a regional park such as Balboa or'Golden Gate Park (section 2.3.2). It is impermissible under CEQA to eliminate alternatives because they are insufficiently profitable to Tustin (i.e., as stated at page 2-11, they do not "generate high sales tax or property tax revenues"). While the EIS/EIR claims to be analyzing three alternatives, for CEQA purposes, which require identification and description of the "project," Alternative I is the project t and Alternatives 2 and 3 are the alternative to the project. The EIS/EIR admits that these two alternatives have greater traffic (and other) impacts than the Project itself (i.e., "Alternative 1"). This violates CEQA. The major alternative that should have been analyzed in the EiS/EIR is a less intense mixed use alternative to the project itself- a lower density alternative that generates fewer impacts to traffic, air quality, noise., loss .of biological diversity and less need for potable water, sew&r capacity and solid waste disposal. Deferral of Mitigation Measures Another major error in the EIS/EIR is deferring of major mitigation measures. For example, the EIS/EIR identifies a number of streets and intersections in Santa Aha where the Project will create or contribute to significant environmental, impacts. At this point, however, the EIS/EIR basically halts its analysis. CEQA does not permit such half measures. Having identified the Project as having significant impact on these streets and intersections, CEQA imposes the following additional requirements: ' . . Identify mitigation measure at .each such street segment' and intersection .to reduce these significant environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4.) This would require design of traffic impmvemer~ts, such as additional lanes of traffic, dedicated right and/or left turn lanes, and realignments of streets. For each sUch intersection or street .segment, the EIS/EIR must identify the additional right-of-way that_would . 5-22 cont. need to be acquired (condemned) and specify the properties involvedfi The major purpose of CEQA is to advise the public of the environmental impacts of proposed projects. (S_fate CEQA Guidelines § 15121.) Failure to identify these properties ieaves private .property owners without knowledge that approval will require them to lose their properly. If there are more than one option to reduce environmental impacts to a level of insignificance, compare the options. By failing to design and analyze each intersection and road segment, the EIS/EIR impermissibly defers to a later date analysis of whether these significant impacts can be mitigated. At a minimum, this requires a cost estimate of every mitigation measure. If there is more than one way to mitigate the impact, the EIS/EIR must analyze all such methods and select the mitigation which would create the minimum impacts of its own. (Stevens v. City of Glendale(1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 986.) Each such mitigatiOn measure must be fully enforceable. Only after imposition of every feasible mitigation measure, determine whether a statement of overriding consideration is required. The EI.S/EIR jumps' directly to this point, but skips the first two elements in the required analysis, violating State CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B). As an additional example,-the EIS/EIR takes this same approach with mitigating impacts on wetlands. The EIS/EIR defers the mitigation of Such impacts to issuance of a 404 permit. Again, CEQA does not permit such deferred analysis when the impacts themselves are fully known and apparent at the time of preparation of the environmental document, if the analysis of the significant impact of losing these wetlands is not analyzed in the EIS/EIR when will it be? Consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers need not, and cannot be deferred. The EiS/EIR must also examine the aitemative of · expanding or altering the open space/park element of the Project to preserve all of the wetland area. Mitigaffon Measures The CEQA Guidelines require that Mitigation Measures be appropriate to carry out the. whole of the action, in the MC, AS Tustin EIS/EIR, the baffic model includes mitigation measures that are non-funded capital traffic.improvements in the City of Santa Ana. These measures are speculative, since the improvements may or may not ever be funded. A new mitigation measure must be added,'to read: ~ F°r all sucJa prolx~es located in t~c City of santa Ana~ t~c City 'w~ bca "reSP°nsibl¢ ag~ncY? und~ CEQA, and must ~c thc EIS~ to myport its discretionary act of acqUidfion and/Or cond__~nnation. (Burbank-Gle. v~-'!e-Pasadena-dir~rt Auth. v. Hen/~er (1991) 233 Cal. App.3d 5770 ~ noted in this comment lctt~r, thc EIS/E[R errs in not recogni~ng 8azlta Jld3a as a reSponm'blc agency. 5-22 cont. For each street imprOVement in the City of Santa Aha iden~ as mitigating the project's impact which is not currently listed as fully funded in the City of Santa Ana's Capital Improvement Plan, the City of Tustin shall fully ~nd such improvement, subject to repayment pursuant to a Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Tustin and the City of Santa Aha. The traffic model includes other speculative mitigation measures in that it assumes that other, currently non-existent, funding will exist to contribute to traffic improvements at intersections identified as 'c" (i.e., the project.will contribute to a s. ignifi .cant effect at these intersections). A new mitigation measure must be'added, to read: For each street improvement proposed in the City of Santa Aha for which the project is identified as contributing or "c," and for which funds are not currently available to pay for the City of Santa Ana's share of such improvements, the City of Tustin shall fully fund such improvement, subject to repayment pursuant to a Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Tustin and the City of Santa Aha. Potable Water The EIS/EIR states that the lrvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) has "indicated" that it can obtain sufficient potable water from the:Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to-sUpply the 3 million gallons per day that the Project needs. (Pages 4- 46.) This is insufficient. Unless the IRWD has provided Tustin with a 'will serve" letter, then it must be presumed that' water will not be available to serve-the Project - in other Words that provi'~ion of potable water will be another major significant environmental impact not analyzed in the EIS/EIR. MWD relies heavily on water from the Colorado River, and under U.S. Supreme Court orders, this water is being diverted away from Califomia. In addition, it was only a few short years ago that MWD adopted mandatory cut-backs on all of its member agencies due to drought 'If:the Project is relying on well water, then it muSt -analyze how such a major increase in pumping will not dangerously dewater the aquifer or deprive pre-existing users of their water dghts. Hazardous Waste The Project includes alternatives showing residential development on areas that are currently contaminated with hazardous waste. Such a use may violate SB 501, California Health & Safety Code § 25220 et seq., which in general bars in perpetuity .residential and other sensitive' land uses within 2,000 feet of contaminated property. The BS/EIR provides no .ap. alysis of the risks, healhwise or financial, of developing expensive homes over property IAat was formerly COntaminated. 5-22 cont. Community Financing Plan The City of Tustin has not provided the City with the 'Community Financing Plan" or its "Business Offer to Navy.' These documents are critical to the City's review of the Draft EIS/EIR. in addition, at a meeting held between the two c'rfies last .week, the City was provided copies of portions of what appears to be a prior, non-circulated versions of the Draft. EIS/EIR dated June 6, 1999. As can be seen from the attached excerpt, the list of impacted intersections was reduced in the 2+ week period between this screen check draft and the circulated Draft EIS/EIR. Since the traffic study, Appendix F, did not change over this time, it is not clear on what basis these intersections were removed. Public Resources Code § 21167.6(e)(10) provides that "all intemal agency communications, including staff notes and memoranda related to the project or to compliance with this division" · are part of the record of an EIR. santa Ana requests copies of these documents including this screen check EIR pursuant to the provisions of the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6250 et seq. Endangered Species Act Consultation . The EIS/EIR does. not include the preliminary consultation with United States Fish & Wildlife Service regarding the existence of endangered or threatened species on the subject property. This appears to defer the CEQA requirement that the public be informed of the environmental impacts of proposed projects. Moreover, such a consultation may possibly reveal, for example, that there were major flaws 'in the methodology of the diversity study performed and reported in the EIS/EIR, such as failure to include a sufficient number-of on-site investigations, failure to schedule 'investigations during times most likely to discover flowering or migratory species of concern, etc: COMPARISON WITH EARLIER DRAFT EIS/EIR COMMENTS: · We have compared our prior March 2, 1998' review comments with the June 1999 draftEIS/EIR document. Following this review it appears that: o.. Our previous comments regarding the study area boundaries were partially addressed. However, we are not clear why the overall study area was not inCreased.. There could, be other associated impacts beyond the current boundaries. · 2. A significant, issue from our March 2,. 1998 comments, continues to be a , problem in this document and has still not bcca addressed. The cumulative projects and their impacts are included but not separated from the 2005, 2020 build-out, and post bm'id-out project analyses...This methodology preveffis the ~' actual project traffic impacts from being accurately disclosed separate from cumulative impacts. Additional scenarios separating out these analyses are 5-22 cont. needed. Until the study dearly separates-out the cumulalJve from project impacts, the identification of mitiga~n measures and which ones belong to the project versus cumulafJv.e proje(~ is premature and cannot realistically be addressed. m Several of the remaining comments in our March 2, 1998 letter, have still not been either partially or fully addressed in this 1999 document. These are comments numbers 2-7, 9, 11 (due to lack of diagrams with peak hour traffic volumes), 13, 16, 20, 28-30, 32 (in general), 33-35, and 37-39. , 4. Although the traffic study has bccn repackaged since the City of Santa Ana provided our comments on March 2, 1998, we are concerned regarding some of the significant changes in the methodology and the results. For example: Ao Bo Ce D. The June 1999 study Utilized a different traffic distribution pattem than the 1998 study. It is unclear why the distribution pattern significantly changed. For example, the percent distribution for traffic on Edinger & Warner is 4% & 7% in the 1998 study and increased to 10% and 13%, respectively in the 1999 studY. Given this increase, why are the recommended improvements for Edinger and Warner less in the 1999 study? It seems more likely that the improvements would stay the same or increase. This creates questions regarding the validity of the data. The June 1999 study 'utilized a base year (1993 data, Section 3.3) scenario approach that reduces the actual project impacts by approximately 25%. The City of Santa Ana has a maximum of two years to give credit for existing buildings and State CEQA guidelines, Section 15229, limits such credit to EIR's completed and certified within five years from the date that the federal record of decision was rendered. The credit for the MCAS Base does not accommodate City of Santa Ana or State CEQA requirements. The June 1999 study does not use the. mid-block assessment methodology adopted by the City of Santa Ana's General Plan Circulation Element and by the County of Orange MPAH. (This comment was already given in 1998.) Instead, peak hour volumes were used. in some cases, this methodology indicates no impact where the County's Average Daily Traffic (AD'i') analysis (and Santa Ana's) show an impact for the same location. We do not agree with this peak hour methodology due to its' misleading results. Consequently, we again request that the appropriate City and County method be utilized so that the impacts are not underestimated. The June 1999 study states that any average volumes under 2% of the da~ volume is 'nominal'. This is incorrect especially considering the high trip generation of this project.. A'1.5% of daily traffic for Altemative 3 equates to approximately 4500 vehicles:per day (VPD) or 450 vehicles per hour (VPH). We request that all traffic increases be re-included in the analyses witho~ the introduction of this assumption. 5-22 cont. Eo Fo' O. · Lyon s/o · Main s/o · Main n/o Additionally reduction in realistic. The June 1999 study eliminated a number of mid-block locations potentially impacted by the project and previously included in the 1998 study. For example,, some of the eliminated segments are: · Dyer e/o Halladay · Dyer e/o Redhill · 'Edinger e/o Ritchy · Halladay s/o Dyer · Halladay s/o Warner McFadden Alton Sunflower some of the segments included in the analysis show a daily volume resulting from MCAS which does not appear The June 1999 study also eliminated a number of intersections that would be impacted by the proposed MCAS. For the short-range scenario (2005), the June 1999 study eliminated almost all of the recommended arterial improVements in the. 1998 study. · The original trip generation for the short-range scenario is 27,000 VPD; current trip generation for the short-range scenario (2005) is over 105,000 VPD. it is unclear why the findings of thC methodology excluded the following improvements. oo LOCATION Alton (Main to Standard) Alton (Daimler to Standard) Alton (Jamboree to Harvard) ~/Bry (Newport to Main) an Columbine (Main to Halladay) Del Arno (SR 55 NB Ramps to Edinger) EXCLUDED IMPROVEMENTS Improve to 4 lanes. ' SR-55 4-lane overcrossing Improve to 6 lanes Improve to 4 lanes Improve to 4 lanes Realign with SR-55 NB Ramps Dyer/Barranca (SR-55 to Jamboree) ImproVe to 8 lanes Ha!!aday/Standard (Dyer to wamer)· Realign Haliaday to Standard Harvard'(Walnut to lCD) ImProve to 4 lanes , Mac/~ur (SR-55 to Campus) Improve tO 8 lanes . Ma_'m (Sunflower to San Diego Creek Improve to 6 lanes Wamer (Bristol to Main) J:mpr0ve to 6 lanes 5-22 cont. H. The same in g) above applies for intersedJon improvements. The following Iocafio~ were recommended for intersection improvements in the original study but_ eliminated in the June 1999 study. · Redhill & DyedBarranca · Standard at Wamer - Main at MacArthur Please note that the original trip generation for short range is approximately 80,000 VPD in the 2005 scenario (short range). The same phenomenon applies for g) & h) above (short range or 2005) also applies for the long-range analysis. See attached Table I for previous recommended improvements eliminated in the June 1999 study. 5. With the large amount of data in this study, peak hour traffic volume exhibits are needed for all study intersections for adequate review, not just for the project area intersectionS that were provided. An exhibit showing all study intersections' peak hour volume scenarios for each alternative is cdtical to our agency's review. We request that peak hour traffic volume, exhibits for ali study area intersections be provided. Although this document notes t~at the peak hour intersection A'nalyses are the basis for mitigation measures, with the exception of Figure 6-2 and 6-3 (development site), there are no peak hour traffic volume exhibits for the rest of the study area. Instead the data is listed only in Intersection .Capacity Utilization (lCU) tables which is cumbersome and unclear for review.) ,. . in Table 1-2, Traffic Analysis Performance Criteria: 1700 capacity is used for all lanes. Santa Aha uses 1600 for iett-tum lanes and 1700 for all other lanes at an intersection. Additionally, Santa Ana does not allow .cr~it for the right- tum-on-recl (RTOR). This comment was already made in the March 2. 1998 letter. The City requests that its traffic analyses 'guidelines be utilized for Santa Ara Jntersec~ons for .this document. Additionally, mid-block link analyses am typically done on an Average Da~ Traffic (AD'i') basis rather than on a lane'capacity bass as indiCated. 'Why Was 1600 per hour per lane used for mid-bl°ck lane capacity?. 'This appel_rs to create different results which are less conservative. . - 10 5-22 cont. . in Table 3-4, Roadway System Committed Improvements: This EIR appears to assume that all General Plan improvements will have been constructed by 2020. However, this js not a' valid assumption since many needed improvements do not yet have fundihg commitments. The only committed improvement for Santa Ana is Edinger Avenue from Ritchey Street (rather than Lyon 'Street) to the east of Red Hill Avenue. The limits for this project should be corrected. With the exception of these Edinger. Avenue improvements, all other. Santa Aha "committed to" projects should be removed from this table and should not be in the base model analysis. These improvements must be listed as recommended instead. Additionally, this document's assumptions, should be modified to reflect that while these projects may be needed, they are not necessarily funded. Also,. there is no funded widening project on Warner Avenue from Bristol to Main Street. There is a rehabilitation project, but no widening project scheduled for his street. Additionally, 'for this table, the percent of commitment level that each funding source will be contributing should be indicated. (Also see prior Comment.s.) Se With regard to mitigation measures, it is not clear which mitigation measures require restriping only versus lane additions with right-of-way "takes". In some locations it may not be feasible to provide the additional lanes without obtaining street widening and/or right-of-way. Please indicate throughout the 'document ali improvements that will require street widening and right-of-way and indicate that those .costs will be included and paid for by either fair share (Chapter 4 of the draft EIS/EIR) or 100 percent by the project, as applicable. For 'example,. in Tables 4.12-8, 4.12-9, and 4.12-10, lane changes for mitigation are shown 'in bold with a note "without mitigation". What does this mean? Does it mean that a re. striping of the lanes is feasible within the existing roadway width and fight-of-way? Please clarify this information. For example, in Table 4.12-9, it is not feasible' to add the lanes indicated for Grand and Dyer, Bristol and Warner, Standard and Edinger, Hutton Center and MacArthur without additional fight-of-way. The need for fight-of-way should be clearly indicated for each mitigation measure and all improvement costs must be identified. (This is a significant comment that was ~also made in 19980 9. A statement regarding intersection improvements at interchanges occurs in several places (example on page 4-67). This statement says: 'The exact nature of' the improvement in each case would be the Subject of' special design studies in association with Caltrans.' Understandably a Project Study Report (PS.R)/Project Report (PR) might be required, for these Caltrans improvements. However, in what manner will these currently non-identified improvements be insured to be fully tied-back,.financially to the project? , . · . 5-22 cont. MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THE TRAFFIC STUDY DOCUMENT: 10. With approximately 300,000 vehicles per day being generated by the project (in the worst case--Alternative 3), this document shows that traffic volume will decrease for several intersection turning movements in Santa Aha: · fifteen years into the future from the 'baseline' (2005 to 2020), and · when the projects (Alt 1, 2, and 3) are each added to the 2005 and 2020 "baseline." conditions. (Numerous examples can be found through-out the calculation sheets in Appendix F.) The above data will not reflect actual traffic impacts. Traffic over 15 years is likely to increase not decrease,, and the magnitude of this development can be expected to add further additional traffic to the roadway network under any of the alternatives, not less for many tuming movements. Although the.data were presented in a different manner, 'our 1998 comments also stated this similar and significant concern. 11. So many critical aspects in the document require extensive review by traffic engineering professionals that we feel that this document does not meet the intention of CEQA guidelines, regarding having a readable document. For example: · The Draft EIS/EIR states that cumulative impacts have been addressed within the 2005 and 2020 project analysis. The City of Santa Ana finds that this methodology prevents the real circulation impact of the project from being 'accurately disclosed. Additionally, since the "project" impacts are inaccurately, characterized, the resulting mitigation program is Cumulative- based rather than reflecting the true pmject4evel mitigation. The' California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the direct effects of a project be discussed within the EIR. The City of Santa Aha requests that the traffic study include separate impacts and mitigation measures for both projects and cumulative impact scenarios as requested in this document, our 1998 comments, and in our 'original correspondence to Ms. Gray of HNTB. The term 'baseline· is used with respect to 1993 and 1997 traffic and the term 'base' is used in Tables such as 4-8 with yet a different meaning. The terminology is sim~r but appears to be app~ed differently. Although very pertinent, this is ambiguous and it remains unclear as to how the 'baseline" relates to 'existing'. For example, the MErtary Base was open in 1993 'existing' and dosed in 1997 (also 'existing'). And which 'existing' is being compared to the project---1993 or 1997. This is key to knowing if the project has an' impact and it remains illus'nte in document. It is also unclear in Tables such as 4-8 if the altematives=_.are being compared t-o the "baseline' or 'alternative + baseline' cond'~on. This type of important information must not be ambiguous. 5-22 cont. The study ncc:ds to clarify what the project is. Alternative 3 appears to represe, nt the worst ~ in terms of generati~ the most traffic. However, in several instances, it appears that Alternative 1 is~being referred to as 'the project,' instead. This-ne.eds to be absolutely dear in this CEQA document and the assumptions should be on the consewa~e side altemafives with more traffic, if that altemative is to be cleared. On page 2-23, 2n~ paragraph, the document states that: Project traffic volumes that would be generated acco/cling to the tn'p distribution shown in figures 2-7 through 2-9 would not be directly added to the existing or projected volumes on the indicated roadways. Interaction between the project and the sUrrounding land uses results in a unique 'redistn'bution" effect for each altemative which is derived by :the traffic model. A close review of the data indicate that existing traffic is actually replaced by 'the MCAS traffic. This results in the minimizing of the actual traffic impacts. We disagree with these assumptions. By the time the tdps generated have been reduced several times down for internal trips, "interactions with surrounding area land .uses," etc. (also see later detailed comment #14), the approximately 300,000 vehicles per day generated by the worst case project scenario results in very little new traffic on the roadway. We disagree with this significant underestimation of how much traffic will be on the streets. 'And, as a result, very little mitigation is needed due to the project when the opposite would be expected. ~> This document states any' volumes under 2% of daily volume are considered. 'nominal'. Wrth the high trip genemtion of this project (approximately 300,000 vehicles per day (VPD).Altemative 3), significant trips have been .ignored due to this assumption. A 1.5% of daily traffic for Alternative,3 equates to approximately 4500 VPD or 450 vehicles per hour (VPH). We request that. all traffic increases be included in the analyses and not simply disregarded. If these significant traffic volumes are ignored, the actual project impacts will be underestimated. Regarding 'other inconsistent assumptions in this study,, the Eastern Toll Road Corridor (E-i'C) opened in February of 1999.. However, the baseline of either 1997 or 1993 (whichever was actually used) should not include the ETC being open.- '~- On page 1-3. last 2 Paragraphs,.the document states.~ In analyzaing the reuse alternative.% three time' pedods am addressed in the impact analysis: 1. ExisEng (Project stand,one analysis) - Year 1997; 2. Short-Range - Year 2005; 3. Long-Range- Year 2020. In the existing time period an~ project bugdout is added to the existing (1997) transportation system and idenbT~s bSe resulG~ impac~ After reacting this section and the dcx:ument, what is the.'project buildout'~(altemative 1, 2, or 3)? And, where is the 'No Action- or 'No Project' Altemative. Later in the same 5-22 cont. paragraph, it says: The 2020 analysis also includes projecled growth in the surrounding area plus changes in the transportation syxtem. VVhere is the 'projected growth" e_lsewhere in the document that follows? This information should be clearly stated to satisfy CEQA requirements. On page 1-4, 2~ paragraph, the document states: in the analysis, such projects include roadway improvements that are projected to be funded in some manner, such as through a capital improvement program, a special funding program, or they are conditions of approval of specific Projects. Such roadway improvements will be referred to hereinafter in this report as the 'committed roadway network." This gives the impression that all improvements are already programmed and funded, hence the project will have nothing left to mitigate. However, the reality is quite different. Many so-called committed projects are not funded at all or are at best are only partially funded. Since the analyses include all of these as completed, the analyses show a much "rosier" picture than will be the case and the project does not have to mitigate its true impacts. This needs to be corrected throughout. · The associated level of service values should be listed adjacent to the ICU results in all tables rather than having to croSs-check the ICU data with a table elsewhere in the document. 12. The methodology used by the author for street segment analyses determined that no mitigation would be needed for locations such as Edinger Avenue (49,000 vehicles per day (VPD)) west of Broadway and east of Main Street. However, when Santa Ana's (and County of Orange's MPAH) methodology is used for the same segment, 45,000 vehicles per day is the maximum allowed such that improvements are actually i'equired for the volume of traffic forecasted. Hence, we again rd=quest that the MPAH (County's) methodology be utilized so that the project's impacts are not underestimated. 13. Table 3-6 identifies what this study accepts as "intersection lane changes for 2005." For Santa Ana's intersections, several non-existent funding commitments are cited GENERAL TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION COMMENTS: 14. The trip generation, distribution, and all of the reductions applied result in a significant and unrearLwtic reduction in the amount of traffic being assigned to the ma'dway network. This contributes to the document indicating significantly fewer impacts than would be anticipated for this magnitude of a project. Here is a r~t of the process used: a) Gross trip generation rates were 'uhlized and not appropriately 'sourced" or referenced. We request': that all references and assumptions be incorporated into the trip generation tables. 2 14 5-22 cont. b) It appears that all of the project trips were then reduced by 12% for "internal" trips, On what basis is this being assumed? in addition to being too high of a percentage, this type of reduction should not be generally applied to all land usTes. Rather at most, perhaps a significantly smaller percentage might be applied to only residential land use. c) The trips were further adjusted by assuming that MCAS trips are not directly added to existing and projected traffic volumes due to the interaction between between MCAS and the surrounding land uses. d) The trips were again reduced or:'"adjusted" based upon the "interaction between MCAS and' the surrounding land uses." This document asserts that the land use will not generate "new" trips to and from the study area network. Instead, the current trips already being .generated by existing land uses will disappear or simply be rePlaced by an MCAS trip. Hence, the project's impacts are further minimized. e) The trips were even fUrther reduced by applying/crediting the baseline scenado with up to 25% (see baseline trip generation Table 3-3). As noted eadier, the baseline scenario has already "expired" according to Santa Ana's two year and CEQA's five year allowance. The impact assessment was then compromised by using traffic analyses guidelines not adopted by Santa Aha, resulting in a better LOS (Table 1- 2). g) Impact assessment was further compromised by applying RTOR Saturation flow factors not used in Santa Ana; resulting in a better LOS.. · h) Impact assessment was" compromised by allowing the application defacto lane assumptions to present a better LOS. of Actual LOS was further compromised by applying inconsistent traffic distribution: percentage for base line condition resulting in the traffic pattern favoring the MCAS traffic over on street traffic; i.e. the model. distributes traffic to accommodate MCAS generation (for example while Edinger AvenUe at baseline would increase by approximately 25,000 VPD, the same segment on Warner Avenue will decrease). The acaral cr~tribution is compromised by assuming a "committed street network" and intersection improvements at'over 12 intersections Where these improvements are not committed and/or funded. This presents a best case for MC, AS by providing and assigning improvement by others that would be utir[zed by MCAS traffic Without their contribution. _ 15 5-22 cont. k) The resulting impacts were yet further reduced in at least some cases by applying the ATMS credit of 0.05 which Can completely erase an impact at an intersection. The project's actual impacts have been further compromised by not analyzing the mid-block location's congestion using the methodology commonly know in the profession, adopted in the City of Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element, and included in the County of Orange MPAH. m) Last but not the least, the analyses focus more on Alternative 1. However, the worse case scenario is aitemative 3, which generates approximately 80,000 VPD more than Alternative 1. All three alternatives will be approved and/or the EIS/EIR will probably clear ali alternatives to be utilized, but without having to mitigate the difference and worst case impacts. 15. A close look at the daily traffic forecasted indicates major discrepancies and inconsistencies in traffic volumes. As an example, please note the traffic volumes on Edinger and Warner. (For additional examples, please refer to the attached tables in the back of these comments.) TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY..,./ / LOCATION 1997. . BASELINE CHANGE _ . · · Edinger e/o Main 30,000 48,000 +18,000 VPD · Warner e/o Main 25,000 28,000 +_3.1~00' VPD Edinger e/o Grand 32,000 57,000 +25,000 VpD Warner e/o Grand 19,000 18,000 - 1,000 VPD It is unClear why Ed'mger east of Grand increases by approximately 25,000 VPD while Wamer decreases by 1000 VPD for the same segment. Does the model use capacity constraints or other assumptions that force vehicles from one link to favor or transfer vehicles to another location? , 16. The stUdy states that baseline is developed by utilizing the estimated external trip generalJon for the MCAS Base in 1993. The baseline volumes developed by the model appear to be considerably higher than actual 1993 counts for the same segment City of Santa Aha records indicates that 1993 traffic volumes 5-22 cont. for Eding~ Avenue at the freevray are approximately 30,000 VPD. baseline developed by the study is considerably higher. The 17. The EIS/EIR uses 1993 ~s the "baseline" for all traffic. As such, a traffic credit for the base was appr~,cl. The EIS/EIR is bound by Santa Ana's and CEQA's guidelines. In Santa Aha, a crecrrt can only be given for up to 2 years from the date of building va~ or demorrtion. Additionally, the use of a 1993 baseline violates State CEOA Guideline section 15229(0, which addresses this issue. This Guideline allows the use of a 1993 baseline only if this EIS/EIR were completed and cedJf]ed within five years from 1993.. State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15229 15229. Baseline Analysis for Military Base Reuse Plan EIRs , (0 This section may be'applied to any reuse plan EIR for which a notice of preparation is issued within one year from the date that the federal record of decision was rendered for the military base or reservation closure or realignment and reuse, or prior to January 1, 1997, whichever is/ate/', but only if the EIR is completed and certified within five years from the date that the federal record of decision was rendered: Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21083.1,' Public Resources Code. 18. The Post 2020 analysis is unrealistic in that the model assumes the transportation corridors operating as "free facilities". This assumption assigns a disproportionate amount of project traffic to the adjacent corridor instead of local surrounding roadways, again masking the true impact of the project. The post project bu]d-out scen~iri0 should analyze traffic impacts with '~o11" and "no toil"' scenarios for the Foothill/Eastern and San Joaquin Transportation Corridors. The current traffic analysis assumes a "no toll" scenario. This is not acceptable to the City of Santa Aha. 19. The TSIA fee approved by the Board in 1992 identified a specific list of projects with limited opportunity for partial funding. Mitiga§on associated with the reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station was not included in the approved list.. Increasing the Est of mitigations will minimize the opportunity for the original list to be implemented and necess'~te the TSIA to amend all of its existing Transportation System Improvement Fee Resolutions. This is an action that we do not support nor see warranted by the project. Additionally, the improver0ents presented in Table 7-5 shall not be fully or partially funded by TSIA. 20. The City of Santa Ara does not concur that mitigation measures in the-Draft EIS/EIR that defer (rLr:z~losing improvements t(~ subsequent studies. This is also supported by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, Subd. (c) (5-), which 17 5-22 cont. states a program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities as it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. Further, the_ CEQA court case of Sundstrom vs. County of Mendocino (1't Dist. 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d296, found that by deferring the identification of project mitigation, the County had evaded its responsibility to engage in comprehensive environmental review. Our concerns with the deferral of project mitigation are related to several locations. 21.The list of 2005 mitigation measures is unclear regarding who will be responsible for the cost of these imprOvements; and what activity (i.e., issuance of building permits) would trigger the need to construct these improvements. The claim of committed improvements and/or a "committed network" as presented in the document is not valid and incorrect. These assumptions further contribute toward a gross underestimation of the actual impacts of the proposed project. 22.1n a letter to Kathryn Gray dated June 4, 1993, the City of Santa Ana identified certain intersections and ICU analysis methodology to be incorporated into the traffic study. These requests have been ignored and the Draft EIS/EIR does not reflect the scope of work requested in that letter. Our current guidelines are: a) With respect to the ICU methodology for calculation, the City of Santa Ana does not allow for RTOR saturation flow factor of 0.75 or for the use of "defacto" right-turn lanes. The calculation and results, therefore, do not ~ reflect actual intersections" level of service. Santa Ana'S intersections need to be analyzed using the following criteria: . . · 1700 through and right-turn movements. · 1600 left-turn movements. · signal clearance interval factor = 0.05. · Wrth no reference to RTOR satur~ition flow factors; · . W'rthOut crediting 'defacto' right-tum lanes. b) Additionally, level of service values (LOS) should be noted adjacent to v/c (Volume to capacity) ratios throughout the document.. This will help the public review the document. This type of information Should not need to be found elsewhere in the document.' c) The inte~ection of Technology Center and Dyer was not considered in the analysis. · 18 - 5-22 cont. d) The City requested that ICU analyses be conducted for the following scenarios: · Existing. · Existing plus entitled (cumulative). · Existing plus entitled-(cumulative) plus project by phase of project development · Existing plus entitled (cumulative) plus project build-out · Project alternatives plus existing and entitled (cumulative). This requirement was not considered. Most importantly, the project by phase scenario, as it affects the implementation of mitigation measures, is associated with the various project phases. It is unclear why the project was included in its entirety in the analysis while it is recognized that a project of such magnitude will eventually be implemented utilizing several phases. 23. The baseline traffic volumes are outdated. 1992/1993 traffic counts. The data appear to be based on OTHER TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION COMMENTS: 24.1n Table 3-7, Existing OCTA BUS Service: The bus service on Warner Avenue should be extended by OCTA. 25. On page 4-17,.there is no mention of lane closures dudng construction. This is a potential construction impact surrounding the development. Other construction impacts should also be listed. Additionally, construction should be phased to ensure minimum disruption to the Public. 26.1n Table 4-8, the City does not agree with advanced transportation management systems (ATMS) contributions replacing,mitigation measures such as lane additions. For example,' on page 4-18 and throughout the document, we do not concur with the ATMS reductions being taken at intersections where an ICU. Analysis has been~ used. From a traffic perspective, a key ~assUmption in the use of ICU. analyses is that the most efficient signal operation of' an intersection is already in place, if that is not the case but the ICU method is still-used, then the vic ratio should actually be increased by 0.05 (rather than credited by that amount) to more accurately reflect intersection conditions. Instead, this document cred'~ the intersection with the 0.05 reduction.~ This appears to'be 'double dipp'mg". 'We disagree that this- 0.05 reduction in' the vic ratio should be taken for ATMS improvements, '.'Als°, since a s'~nificant impact ranges from 0.01 to 0.03, how is this reduction of 0~05 in the ICU 'consa, vative"? Rather, it appears to be quite generous and not realistic'as related to ICU analyses. The phasing plan th~lds for off-site improvements shoula be .revised with these ATMS credits removed. 19 5-22 cont. Regarding the application of the ATMS reduction, it has been applied to at least some of Santa Ana's shared interseOJons with other agencies. We request this 0.05 signifi_cant reduction be removed from our shared or Santa Ana only intersections. However, page 4-2 end of last paragraph, further confuses this issue by stating that: The A TMS credit of 0.05 for IBC locations and for locations in lrvine identified as an A TMS intersection are not shown in the ICU Table...or the calculab'on worksheets...but have been included in the analysis. How can we be sure that this credit was not taken at all Santa Ana intersections also? 27. Page 6-14, Section 6-3-B, Phasing Plan for Off-site Improvements: A reference should be made to Table 4-32 on Page 4-68 for the example of Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway for better understanding of the numbers used in Step 1 and 2. Also, the Step 1 title ("Percentage of project causing the impact threshold to be exceeded") is confusing. In fact, the entire Section 6-3 is problematic. On page 6-14 and page 6-15: the phasing of off- site improvements needs to be clarified. And, it is not clear who is paying for what with regard to "fair share costs" and at what point. As conditions change, how would the phased improvements be implemented and "triggered". instead, Santa Aha prefers to have the study attempt to identify which Agency should handle which improvements (subject to negotiation). Otherwise, constant revisions would be required as entitlements change. 28. Page 6-15: it is not clear if the fair share costs of construction contributed by the City of Tustin would include right-of-way costs for Grand Avenue and Edinger Avenue. 29. Page 6-16: Off-site Improvement Responsibilities, a clarification is needed regarding who will pay for 'flair sham improvements'?. The City of Tustin, the developer or other? .-. 30. Page 6-18, Table 6-4: A clarification is ncc~Jed regarding the percentage share 'of intersection mitigation. Does' it-refer to the financial responsibilities for the City of Tustin or the developer?. 31.Which improvements are intended to be exacted from MCAS? The study is not dear regarding this key issue. Santa Ana wants to insure that those impacts that the development is respons~le for va'il be taken as exactions from the developer only and not paid for by TSIA funds. 32. It is not clear where the fair share equation r~ed in the domment came from. The consultant alluded to it being associated with OCP and/or OCTA. However, communication with OCTA on this matter indicates that the said equation is not 'sanctioned' by them. We d'sagree with this formula and will want to cons'~er other equations that are more directly tied to trips generated prior to them being extensively reduced. Long range assumptions assume that all tran~lSortation corridors will operate as toll free facaTrties. However, the latest estimates anticipate that the corridors 0 - ~ 5-22 cont. won't be 'toll-free" for 40 years (Year 2040). Under the 'toil-free" scenario, some of the traffic on SR-55 might swffch to the toll facilities, instead. However, as the tolls remain for 40 years, SR-55 can be expected to serve additional traffic then it W[uld under 'toll-free' conditions. -the traffic projections ncc~J to be revised to accurately'reflect,this additional traffic on SR-55 and other adjacent roadways. The project build-out scenario should analyze traffic impacts with both a toll and toll free scenario and for the appropriate year. 34. The mitigation for each spec'dic project phase should be indicated. 35. At this time, it is unclear'as to how the City of Tustin intends to impose traffic impact fees, especially for residential development. How will the residential development within this project pay its fair share costs if not through TSIA fees? Will the residential developments within the project and all residential developments in the City be assessed for Traffic Impact Fees? If not, how will residential development be paying its fair sham? The development of a significant number of residential units (ranging from 3500 to 5300 DU in the City of Tustin for build-out) does have an impact to the street system. 36.A traffic-study for a project of this magnitude---1600 acres-- (generating approximately 300,000 vehicles per day) should carefully look at the potentially impacted areas. Traffic impacts associated With a project of such magnitude should be analyzed until project traffic would have no impact upon Santa Ana intersections. 37. The discussion pertaining to ADT link deficiencies is unclear. Additionally, City of Santa Aha staff do not agree W'CLh the statement, "...for locations in the Cities of Tustin and Santa Aha, an ADT link deficiency is considered theoretical rather than actual if the intersection at the end of the link operates at acceptable levels." .Please indicate the source for this assumption. Mitigation measures and recommendations made in this study based on this assumption must be corrected and MCAS's obligation(s) to mitigate roadway segments in Santa Aha should be identified. 38. The study did' not analYZe the CMP intemeCfion of 4~ Street/Irvine Boulevard @ SR-55 in the City of Santa Ana. Because of.its close proximity to the project, this intersection may .be significantly impacted. City of Santa Aha Projects and Related Improvements 39. Some City of Santa Aha projects and their related mitigation improvements are assumed to be implemented when said this project comes on line. For example, MC, AS traffic study assumes that the MacAdhur Place development will be bait at its original density .and that all associated transportation improvements will be fully bu~ on time. This is incormcL The following are similar, examples that should be carefully e~.luated and compared to the study mitigation assumptions: 21 5-22 cont. Main/MacArthur Intersection Upgraded to Dual Lefts: Three through and separate right turn lanes all four legs. Funding source: Private development. Funding for improvements are based on build-out of Hutton Center and MacArthur Place. These projects are not funded if these projects do not proceed.. South Grand and Warner: Enhanced intersection ultimately'to allow for dual lefts, 3 throughs, and separate right at all 4 legs. Funding source: No obligated source at this time. Dedication and improvements shall be secured as affected properties develop. One leg of each intersection conditioned at this time. Main and Warner: Enhanced intersection ultimately to allow for dual lefts, 3 throughs, and separate'right on south leg; single left, 3 through, and separate right on east/west leg; and 3 through, dual left, and separate dght on north leg. Funding' source: No obligated source at this time. Dedication and improvements shall be secured as affected properties develop. One leg conditioned at this time. · MainlHalladay Street Alignment: Realign and upgrade street segments between Dyer and Columbine to 4 lanes. Funding source: No obligated source at this time. Grand Avenue Widening: ° Widen Grand to 3 lanes each direction with landscaped median. ° Funding source: No obligated source at this time. Dedication and imp.rovements shall be secured as affected properties develop. Nothing conditioned at this time. NOTE: None of the above referenced projects are "committed" improvements without the related supporting development. Enhanced intersections are implemented in pieces and ultimate build-out should require additional funding as revenues allow. The enhanced intersections would be COmpleted; Potential funding sources for enhanced intersections are private development and TSIA fees, grants, etc. The MC, AS traffic study is incorrect .!n assuming that all mitigation and roadway improvements va'Il be built before MC, AS and the MCAS traffic can then'~ the access capacity generated ~y those improvements. Many projects are developing much more slowly than anticipated due to economic 5-22 cont. factors, resulting in a lower level of. traff~, thereby deferring the need for many of the mitigation programs. OTHER YEAR 2005 AND 2(520 ANALYSES COMMENTS: 40. This impact analysis should be placed before the mitigation section to justify the lists of recom?nended improvements. 41.The City of Tustin's share of planned roadway improvements should be identified specifically as related to the MCAS impacts. 42.1n general, the volume/capacity ratios calculated for Santa Ana were lower than expected from previous work conducted for Santa Ana, including TSIA studies. This applies to existing calculations, existing with project, and existing without project, and for both the short and long terms. 43.Additional discrepancies worth investigation are the ICU/LOS comparisons between the analysis scenarios with and without the project. The traffic study indicates that volumes will be reduced for several turning movements at the majority of Santa Aha intersections and that the mid-block level of service will actually improve as a result of adding project traffic. This appears specifically in Santa Ana intersections, and in the majority of study intersections in general. We disagree with these results and feel they are suspect. Based on our previous comments regarding trip distribution forecast and ICU methodology used' in the MCAS study, we request recalculation of all impacted intersections in Santa Aha. The current analyses and (pertaining to Santa Aha)-are not acceptable and would not be used to' determine mitigation measures at Santa Ana intersections. ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS: 45.The report did not provide a means for City Staff to evaluate and assess the individual project impacts upon streets and intersections. A close look at the ICU calculation sheets presented in the aPPendix of the report reveals numbers and values that do not correspond to the amount of' increase in traffic woUld be expected as a result of the project. The calculation sheets show that traffic volume is expected to "decrease" as a result of adding the MCAS traffic to the street.system. For example, when baseline is compared to the various alternatives, traffic decreased noticeably at several intersections'. These are Redh~! &Wamer, Tustin Village & McFadden, SR- 55 SB ramps & Edinger, Redhili & Dyer, Redhill & Alton, Bristol & 'MacArthur, Bristol & Segerstrom, and Bristol & Wa~er. it appears that the model un_loads specific mOVements to provide for anticipated ~/ICAS traffic. This approach and the methodology are not acceptable. It provides for a much better level 5-22 cont. of servi~ (LOS) at intersections where improvements rpay be needed, instead. The methodology used for analyzing mid-block segments does not reflect actual operating conditions per the County of Orange MPAH and per the City of Santa Aha standards, both of which use LOS 'C" for link capacities. As only one example, the calculation sheet in the appendix.indicates a V/C ratio of 0.87 for Edinger Avenue w/o Broadway and e/o Main Skeet. Using the method developed by the writer of this report, no mitigation is needed. However, using MPAH and Santa Ana's standards, 'those segments carry approximately. 49,000 vehicles per day which exceeds the maximum operating capacity for LOS "C" (45,000 VPD). Consequently, improvements are required. Ali mid- block analyses must therefore be developed using MPAH method so that the impacts are not underestimated. 46. Under the baseline conditions in the link analyses, several incorrect roadway lanes are assumed as "existing" Please recheck all. 47. Warner Avenue was assumed to have 6 lanes under not only the baseline but also the 2020 analyses. It is not funded for a widening nor is it anticipated to be at this time. 48.The EIS/EIR also failed to include the extension of Alton Avenue as a viable transportation improvement to mitigation the MCAS impacts. 49.Additional comments for the summary tables are as follows: , Missing Information: · Table 4-5, intersection 79 - Red Hill/Alton is missing from the ICU tables. · Table 4-30 is missing intersection 79 - Red Hill/Alton. · Intersections are missing from mitigation lane and'summary tables yet still included in ICU tables. See Table 4-8, and 4-14; intersection 59 - Hotel Terrace/SR55/Dyer. · Intersections in mitigation lane and summary tables are missing from ICU tables. See Table 4-5, intersection 79 - Red. Hill/Alton, etc. · Other tables i.e. 'summary of intersection mitigation results" or "summary of impacted intersections' are also missing, a comparison for other intersections in the 'project. Confusing Information: Through-out the project all tables for "mitigation lanes for .., impacted intersections' the term 'base' is used to define "intersection lanes without mitigation'. 'Baserme" ICU calc tables should halite bccn' compared instead of 'reuse alternative 1' ICU calc tables. In most cases shown these tables were 5-22 cont. the same w'rth the exception of intersection 77 - Red HiliANamer ('i'ustin/Santa Ana). Tables 4-8,4-18,4-29, & 4-30. Other Errors: · Table 4-5 , intersection 79 - Red Hill/Alton location is identified as an ATMS intersection and therefore discounted by .05 and thus shows no project impact but PM ICU is still .98 (not < .91). · Table 4-30 intersections 77 - Red HillNVamer and 51- Main/MacArthur are showing as "ATMS." Santa Ana disagrees With this reduction being · applied as stated earlier. · If alternatives result in no increase to ICU's, regardless of resulting ICU after mitigation they are just shown as 'non-impacted." This may not actually be true especially in the case where an ICU is still > .91. i.e. Table 4-22 intersection 198 - Bristol/Warner PM ICU = .94. · Table 4-19 intersection 79 - Red Hill/Alton a'nd it's corresponding ICU table identifies lanes as "d "for de-facto right-turns. This is not Santa Aha policy. · Table 4-20 intersection 67 - $R-$5 NB Ramps/Dyer for WB' throu§h lane uses 3 in the miti§ation table but 4 in IGU table. This also occurs in Table 4-31. · .Table 4-22 intersection 79 - Red Hill/Alton results show "ma" ("mitigated to adequate level of service") yet PM ICU reads .97 (>.91) This result should -read "mp' ("project impact mitigated") only. This also occurs in Table 4-33. · PM ICU for intersection 51 -Main/MacAdhur shows as .95 on Table 4-33 and the results show "rap". Yet ICU table cleady indicates ICU = 1.0 which would result in 'nm' ('projeCt jmpact not mitigated"). Similarly, intersection 198 - BristolNVamer is showing AM and PM ICU's as .88 and .88 respectively and "ma" for each in T 4-33 yet ICU tables cleady indicate AM and PM ICU's = .85 and .97 respectively.' This results in 'mp" only (not ma). 5-22 cont. 5-22 cont. 5-22 cont. .F- [-I g- ~m ~: ?' [-'~> ,',~,,',. · - Z; · -. ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z C > ~ ~ = -~ ~ > ~ 5 :z~7 ...... ~: ~ '- 0 0 ~ .I . 0 0 m ~ ~ m ~ ~ m ~~'~ -' 5-22 cont. 5-22 cont. 5-22 cont. 5-22 cont. ,,, ,:,~ ~g ..... =o · · .-' g.o.o.: o ~; -: -r ''1~;-' ' .,~ i o . m.I m: . o . .................... i ' '. *,-:c;~ : ' · ' ' oo:c;c;c; oo ~oo ~ ~o oo _5 ~,-,o :~ ~o ~.~:i2:,~. z 2:2: ....... .: .......... ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e]§§ ~ §§ §§§§ :§' §§§ :§§i§§§§§§ § ~i§§§i§i§ ............................ ~c;,,,;~;~;.~;~ g 0 5-22 cont. 5-22 cont. ,. .., "'- , 2: Z ' "- ~" ) ~' , 0 . - ,., ........ , . . O. . ' ~ c; c;,-- ': ' ' ' o o : o o o o c~ ,-: c; io .c; c; :o  Z ~" Z ZZ ~ . . .o . '"'..... ° ~i :g ,,,oo ,~ ~.~ ,-: .; ~,-:,-: !o=: i,o .,, ~, ,,, o $. :=:o ~, ' ' :g'-:- '. ' ' ......... ~": .~ :. -~: ....... ~,.: ............... ; - - · O0 O0 O~ 000000 :-~ ~c~c~ o c~c~ otc~c~c~c~c~c~ic~,c~ ,c~'c~c~ o,o - ".: · -o lc; FI ~ , ,, , ~,, . .., .., ........... . :. ~:~ r, 5-22 cont. .o f'.ober! L. Richardson CCIdt'~CILMEI,,',BE RS Tnny Esplnozn Brcll Franklin Thorn,'~s E. Lulz P;~l~ich~ ^.' McGulgnn Ted R Mmcno CITY OF SANTA'ANA PLANNIN(; ,8, BUILDING AGENCY 2hi, w. Fmulh $1re~, [M. 19} · P.O. BOX I 9fllrl Snnln Ann. Cnliflnnin 92702 Fnx |71,1l Cl'l' Y Divid N. Rt.~m CITY AT'I'OR;,~E Y joseph W. Ficlchcr CLERK OF THE COUNCIL Innice C. Guy Letter 5 March' 2, 1998 Mr. Dana Ogden City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RE: DRAFT EIR/EIS ON BASE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MARINE CORPS AIR STATION 5-23 Dear Mr. Ogden: -. Thank.you for the opportunity to-review the Draft. EIR/EIS for the Marine Corps Air Station. We appreciate the City of Tustin's community outreach and including Santa Ana in the · planning process. Due to the scale of the proposed project, we have concerns regarding the potential traffic impacts upon Santa Ana. We offer the following comments for your consideration. GENERAL TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION COMMENTS: Staff has been provided the opportunity, to comment on various, circulation-related documents over the past three years (e.g., Phasing Plan,-Community Facilities & Infrastructure Report, Screencheck Traffic Study); however, it was not until the release of the Draft EIR/EIS that an integrated analysis of traffic impacts and i mitigation program was presented. e The Draft EIS/EIR states on page 4.10-33 that cumulative impacts and thus cumulative projects have been addressed within the short-range and long-range project analysis. The City of Santa Ama finds that this methodology prevents the real circulation impact of the project from being aeeuratdy disclosed. Additionally, since the 'project' impacts are inaccurately characterized, the resulting mitigation program is cumulative-based rather' than reflecting the true project-level mitigation. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the direct effects of a project be discussed within the EIR. The City of Santa Aha xequests that the traffic sthdy includes separate impacts and mitigation 5-23 cont. 0 measures for both projects and cumulative impact scenarios as requested in our original correspondence to Ms. Gray of HNTB dated June 4, 1993. Additionally, please indicate what cumulative projects were assumed for the traffic model. The long-range analysis is unrealistic in that i't indicates (pages I-3 and I-4 of Appendix 1) that the model assumes the transportation corridors operating as 'free facilities". This assumption assigns a dispropo.rtionate amount of project traffic to the adjacent corridor instead of local surrounding roadways, again masking the true impact of the project. The project build-out scenario should analyze 'traffic. impacts with 'toll" and "no toll' scenarios for the Foothill/Eastern and San Joaquin Transportation Corridors. 4. Mitigation Measure No. 3 on page 4.. 10-35 of the Draft EIS/EIR states: . · "The' City of Santa Aha and the City of Tustin shall implement necessary roadway improvements for affected' locations within the City of Santa Aha jurisdiction, in accordance with a prior agreement (Transportation System Improvement Authority (TSIA). For other deficient Tustin intersections that are not covered in the TSIA agreement, the City of Tustin will include the improvements fo? these locations as part of future City Capital Improvement Programs, and will participate in these improvements on a fair share basis." We request that the wording of this mitigation measure be strengthened to indicate that the TSIA mitigation list will not be expanded to include the base. The City of Santa Ana has concerng'with the traffic mi'tigation measures in the Draft EIR/EIS that defer disclosing improvements to subsequent studies. We find this to' be supported by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, Subd. (c) (5), which states-a program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities as it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. Further, the CEQA court · case of Sundstrom vs. County of Mendocino (I" Dist. 1988) 202 Cal.App.3d296, found that by deferring the identification of project mitigatiOn, the County had evaded its responsibility to engage in comprehensive environmental review. Our concerns with the deferral of project mitigation are related to several locations including the following intersections: .... .. a. 78. Redhill & Dyer/Barranca; EBR. b. 59. Hotel Terrace/SR-55 & Dyer;, 4'~ EBT, EBR. c. 67. SR-55 NB Ramps & Dyer;, 2'~ NBL. Additionally, regarding intersections 59 and 67 mentioned above, there appears to be an inconsistency on page 4.10-34 of the Draft EISIEI1L These two intersectiOns are listed on the page without referencing that they will be studied at some future date, as stated on page 4.10-48. · 5-23 cont. e e . There is no discussion regarding ICU/LOS after the implementation of the mitigation measures. Please provide -this information for all Santa Aha intersections. On page 4.10-33, in the list of short-range mitigation measures for intersections 59, 61, 63, and 73, it is unclear who will be responsible for the cost of these improvements; and what factor (i.e., issuance of building permits) would trigger the need to construct these improvements. What is the time frame of "long-'range" circulation phasing described in the traffic section? This is specifically important for the review and overall assessment of the document. In a letter to Kathryn Gray dated June 4, 1993, the City of Santa Ana identified certain intersections and ICU analysis methodology to be incorporated into the traffic study. The Draft EISIEIR does not fully reflect the scope of work requested in this letter. For example: · a)' With' respect to the ICU methodology for calcUlation, the City of Santa Aha does not allow for RTOR saturation flow factor of 0.75. The calculation and results, therefore, do not reflect actual intersections' level of service. The City of Santa Ana requested the following criteria: ie II1. 1600 through and right-turn movements. 1500 left-turn movements. ., Signal clearance interval factor = 0.02. No reference was made to RTOR satu~tion flow,factor. b) The intersection of Technology Center and Dyer'was not considered in the analysis. c) The City requested that ICU analyses be conducted for the following scenarios: ie ' II1. iv. ¥. Existing Existing plus entitled. Existing plus entitled plus project by phase of project,development. Existing plus entitled plus project build-out plus cumulative projects Project alternatives plus existing and entitled This request was not considered. Most importantly, our request to phase the mitigation according to specific project phases ap.mare by have ~ ignored. It is unclear why the project was included in its entirety in the analysis while it is recogmized that a project of such magnitude will eventually be implemented utilizing several phases. 3 5-23 cont. Additionally, for scenarios iii, iv, and v above, the City of Santa Ana requested that the traffic study identify feasible project mitigation measures to acceptable levels of service or existing level of service which ever is worse. Again, this request was not considered. 10. In order to reflect more accurate 'assessment of project impact in Santa Ana, the study area should be expan, ded to include the foll0wing: a) Intersections along Edinger west of Grand. b) Intersections along Warner west of Main. c) Intersections along McFadden west of Grand. 11. d) Intersections .along Dyer west of Main. e) Intersections along Main, Standard, and Grand north and south of the project.' In general, evaluation of the appropriate study area is difficult due to the lack of project- spec!tic traffic volume data. 12. A "Year 2000" interim year traffic analysis does not appear to be practical. Little, if anything will be built and occupied on the base at that time. A more realistic interim 'period would be in the ye2r 2010 time frame. 13o The traffic study and related Traffic/Circulation analysis in the EIR/EIS presents the data and findings in a manner which is very difficult to interpret, draw conclusions and compare results, ' -' .. The traffic distribution data does not completely cover the study area, which is already limited. · Short-range future ADT Volumes are not shown.' · Short-range future peak hour volumes are not shown. · Long-range future ADT volumes are not shown. Long-range peak hour volumes are not shown. The study is missing analysis of acc-e~ to freeway on-ramps. SPECIFIC TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION COMMENTS: 5-23 cont. Study Area; 14. Page I-4mThe study must clearly indicate the logic beyond selecting such a' study area as presented in Figure I-2. While the study states that most of the City of Tustin was included in the analysis, areas in Santa Aha closer to the base than those in Tustin were not considered. A traffic study for a project of this magnitude--1600 acresm (generating approximately 225,000 vehic!es per day) should carefully look at the potentially impacted Analysis Sco_ve; .: 15. Page I-3, paragraph 2--The short range is defined as year 2000 and is not consistent with the statement in-the same paragraph stating that the County Growth Management Plan and Congestion Management Program require 5 to 7 years. 16. The long-range assumption is also unrealistic. It assumes that all County transportation corridors would be operating as 'free facilities'. It would-take almost 30 years to accomplish this task. The project build-out scenario should analyze traffic impacts with toil and no toil scenarios. Also, please include when the model assumes said 10rig-range 'plan would .be implemented. 17. Page 1-3, last paragraph--Please clarify the time frame for the long-range analyses. 18. Page 1-4, paragraph 1--It is unclear ho.w the traffic model was used to forecast Santa Ana traffic. The discussion included County of orange, City of Tustin, and City of Irvine with no reference to Santa Ana. 19. Page I-7--The ADT volumes are not related to generally acceptable methodology for mid-block location.' The City follows OCTA MPAH guidelines. Countywide LOS "C" is used for link capacity and LOS 'D' is used for intersections. Regardless of link V/C milos, if a link volume exceeds LOS 'C', widening is required. Please refer to the OCTA MPAI-I and revise your mitigation methodology approach acc°rdingly. .. / 20. Page I-8--The traffic analysis performance criteria for Santa Aaa is not correct with respect to RTOR. This approach does not reflect actual operating conditions at the intersection. 21. Page I-9--The discussion pertaining to ADT link deficiencies is unclear. Additionally, City of Santa Ana staff does not agree With the~/tatement, '...for locations in the Cities of Tusfin and Santa ..gna, an ADT link deficiency is considered theoretical rather than actual ff the intersection at the end of the link OlX~tes at acceptable levels." Please indicate the source of this' assumption. Mitigation measures and recommendations made · 5 5-23 cont. 22. in this study based on this assumption must be corrected and MCAS obligation(s) to mitigate roadway segments in Santa Aha should be identified. Page II-3, paragraph 3--It is unclear why the study ,referred to Phase I as being representative of "no project". Please clarify. · Trio D~ribution: 23. Page II-9-1 l--The table shows a difference in internal trips between total trips and total trip ends.' Additionally, the subsequent discussion indicates that each trip has two ends. This assumption generates a questionable reduction in the project trip generation and an overall underestimation of project traffic impacts. It is almost universally recognized that the 8% (17,000 trips) already accounts for a trip with two ends--one at the origin and one at the destination within the study area. Please clarify. 24. It is unclear how many internal trips are actually considered in the calculation. Figure II- 4 indicates 7% for short range and 15% for long range while the table on page 11-9 indicates 8 % of total trips and I5 % for total ends. Please clarify.. 25.. Page II-'11, paragraph 2--Indicates that the percent of trips interacting with land uses within the study area is 36% and outside the study area is 56 %, for a total of 92 %. The actual distribution percentages presented on Figure 11-4 indicate only 80% of the trips for the short range and 78% for the long range, i.e., 12% to 14 % of the trips are missing. Please clarify whether the remainder of the trips, are being distributed internally within the study area or outside the study are~, AreaWide Travel Pattern: 26. We agree with the reuse area internal trips and trips within the study area presented in the previous section. However, we do not agree with the conclusion that the number of trips within the study area are lower with the project compared to without the project. The change in trip distribution pattern as a result of the introduction of a land use to an area is understood, but those trips will not disappear, just impact other intersections. Please provide clarification. · .Transportation Setting: 27. 'Page HI 6 & '7--WC: ratio and the reSUltant mitigation measures are not per city standards. The WC ratio calculations for mid-block locations are .somewhat meaningless and do not follow the County of Orange and the Orange County Transportation Authority guidelines for link capacities and mitigations. · 5-23 cont. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. It is unclear why Table III-4 on page 22 was included without subsequent analysis and justification of mitigation measures. Page III-43, pa;agraph 3, indicates that the long-range circulation system assumes build- out of the County and cities' Master Plan of Arterial highways. This appears unlikely to happen, as all circulation improvements are subject to uncertain fun.ding. Page III-11 The study did not analyze the CMP intersection of 4'~ St./Irvine Boulevard @ SR- 55 in the City of Santa Aha. 'Because of its close proximity to the. project, this intersection may be significantly impacted. The traffic study used an outdated City of Santa Ana Capital Improvement Program as a basis for assumed improvements. Many of these assumed improvements have been deferred due to the recession and other factors. The City of Santa Aha will be pleased to provide an updated CIP. The City of Santa Ana projects related mitigation improvements are assumed to be implemented when the projects come on line. For example, the .MCAS traffic study assumes that the MacArthur Place development will be built at its original intensity and all associated transportation improvement will be constructed. At this time it appears that the MacArthur Place development will not be built at its original intensity, and the roadway improvements recommended' in the. study will not be constructed as originally programmed. The following are similar examples that should be carefully evaluated and compared to the stu.dy mitigation assumptioni: · Main/MacArthur Intersection. Upgraded to Dual Lefts: Three through and separate right turn lanes all four legs,' Funding source: Private development. ·Funding for imprOvementS are based on build out of Hutton Center and MacArthur Place. These projects are not funded if the development projects do not proceed fully conditioned at this time. · South Grand/Warner: Enhanced intersection ultimately to allow for dual lefts, 3 throughs, and separate fight at all 4 ·legs. Funding source:. No obligated source at this time. Dedications and improvements shall be secured as affected properties develop. One leg of each intersection is conditioned at this time. · · Main and Warner:. . . .. · Enhanced intron ultimately, to allow for dual lefts, 3 throughs, and separate fight on south leg; single left, 3 through, and separate fight on east/west leg; and 3 through, dual left, and separate fight on north leg. Funding source: No obli~ted source at this time. 5-23 cont. Dedications and improvements, shall be secured as affected properties develop. One leg is conditioned at this time. · Grand Avenue Widening: Widen Grand to 3 lanes in each direction with landscaped median. Funding source: No obligated source at this time. Dedications and improvements shall be secured as affected properties develop. Nothing is conditioned at this time. Balance of Near Term Improvements Documented in TustinJSanta Ana JPA Study. No project is fully funded at this time. NOTE: None of the above referenced projects are "committed" improvements' without the related supporting development. Enhanced intersections are implemented incrementally and ultimate build out will require additional funding as revenues allow. Potential funding sources for enhanced intersections are private, development, TSIA fees, grants, MCAS Reuse Plan, etc. 33. The MCAS traffic study assumes that all mitigations and roadway improvements will be built before MCAS, and the MCAS traffic can then utilize the access capacity generated by those improvements. This assumption is unrealistic because many projects are developing more slowly than anticipated due to economic factors, resulting in a lower level of traffic, thereby deferring the need for many of the mitigation programs. 34. The proposed phasing of major roadways and other on- and off-site improvements does not appear to be synchronized with development phasing. 35. The City of Tustin. should contribute its fair share toward the construction of the Alton Bridge over the SR-55 (Costa Mesa Freeway). Lon~o Range 'Impact Analysis: 36. The long-range impact analysis should precede the mitigation section to justify the lists of recommended improvements. 37. The traffic study assumes that certain non-master-planned roadway and intersection improvements will be built, with or without the project. Such assumed improvements should be deleted from the traffic study unless these improvements have funding commitments md/or are pr%m'ammed capital improvements.,. 5-23 cont. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Pages IV-I through IV-16 include all mid-block and link capacity calculations. These calculations and the resulted recommended changes in the number of lanes and mitigation do not follow the County CMP and MPAH guidelines for mid-block improvements. The City of Tustin's share of planned roadway improvements should be identified · specifically as related to the MCA$ impacts. When planning the arterial system, the generally acceptable practice is to use LOS C for link capacities, with LOS D at intersections. A comparison of the values used in this analysis and the values used by the City of Santa Ana and Countywide is presented on Table 1. Applying the County guidelines would significantly change the results and conclusions presented in Table IV-2. It is also anticipated that the number of roadway links that would require mitigation as a result of MCAS will increase. Please also refer to our comments under the Analysis Scope section regarding the methodology used in this analysis. The City of Santa Aha is not aware of any methodology that relates recommended mitigation at a specific link to the adjacent intersections .LOS. The results and recommendations presented in Table IV-3 and Figure IV-3 are not acceptable. In'general, the volume/capacity ratios calculated for Santa Aaa were lower than expected based on previous analysis conducted for Santa Ana, including TSIA studies. This applies to existing calculations, existing with project, and existing without project, and' for both the short and long terms. Additional discrepancies worth invesu~afion are the ICU/LOS comparisons between the analysis scenarios with and without the project. The traffic study indicates that intersection and mid-block level of service will actually improve as a result of adding project traffic. This appears in the 153 study inter~ecfions in general, and specifically in Santa Ana intersections. A close look at Table IV-5, page IV-22, would support this phenomenon. It indicates that of the 153 study intersections, the project would impact only 28 intersections. The majority of the 28 intersections'has nominal impact (i.e. between 2% and 5%). This also appears unrealistic for a project that generates 225,000 vehicles per day The attached Table 2 summarizes Santa Ana intersections ICUs. A close look at the table would indicat~ that ICUs have improved at 22 locations during theAM and PM peak hours as a result of adding traffic associated with the base. This appears .t~~ be unrealistic. Examples of the improved locations are presented below: Main at Warner Main at Dyer Main at Alton Southbound SR-55 Ramps at MacAnhur 5-23 cont. 47. 48. Significant discrepancies also exist if MCAS traffic study results are compared to the resultS from the City of Santa's recent General Plan Circulation Element. Please refer to the "no base .w. en~o comparison" at any of the ten listed intersections. Based on our previous comments regarding trip distribution forecast and ICU methodology used in the MCAS study, we request recalculation of all impacted intersections in Santa Ana. The analysis and conclusions presented from page IV-17 to IV-42 (per~ning to Santa Aha) are not acceptable to determine mitigation measures at Santa Aha intersections. Please identify if the percentage presented in Table IV-6 is to be applied to the fullest to mitigate an intersection to an acceptable LOS or for only a small portion of the mitigation. Use Main/MacArthur as an example. With respect to project alternatives analysis, the analysis follows the same methodology used to evaluate the impacted intersections and link locations. Therefore, the results and recommendations are not acceptable to the City of Santa Ana and we request recalculation using the City of Santa Aha standards. Some observations are noted as follows: .n · Although Alternative 2 is approximately 25,000 vehicles' per day higher than Alternative 1, link volumes tend to decrease. Examples include Grand S/O Warner, Main S/O Edinger, Main S/O Dyer, etc. The same applies for the intdf'section capacity analysis' when ICUs during the critical PM peak hour either remained the same or decreased for Alternative 2 as. compared to Alternative 1. Examples include the intersections of Main/Alton, Grand/Dyer, and Ritchey/Edinger. · Again, this is unrealistic since Alternative 2 generates 25,000 more cars than Alternative I. . Short Range Analysis:. 49. It is unclear why the short-range analysis is placed after the long-range analysis. 50. 51. Please refer to our previous comments pertaining to intersection capacity, utilization mid- block .analysis, recommended mitigations, and analysis methodology. All of our comments for the long rap. ge are applicable for the shOrt-range analysis herein. The short range generates approximately 2,300 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 3,100 during the evening peak hour. Based on this trip genamfion, a dose look at Table V-2 would indicate that impacts on Santa Aha intersections will be higher than those associated with Main/Alton, Grand/~inger, Grand/Warier, etc. , .Transporlation Impr0vement~; 5-23 cont. 52. This section represents additional discussion regarding the recommended mitigations and analyses conducted in the report. We believe that the f6regoing comments remain valid for this section; however, we reserve the right to review this section once calculations and analyses are revised to the satisfaction of City of Santa Aha staff. Land Use: 53. The proposed land use plan included in the specific plan and project alternatives is generally compatible with adjacent land uses in Santa Aha. We have no issues related to the general plan amendment or land use plan. This concludes our comments on the draft EIR/EIS. We thank.you for your continued willingness to work toward the resolution of transportation and planning issues. Please contact Shahir Gobran at (714) 647-5615 for any specific questions related to our traffic comments. Robyn Upt~e~raff Executive Director RU/MD Attachment George Alva.rea:, Engineering Services Manager Joyce Amerson, Transportation Manager Shahir Gobran; Transportation Analyst Maya DeRosa, Environmental Coordinator 5-2.~ conl. 5-23 C()r~t. Response to Written Comments Received November 28, 2000 At the Planning Commission Public Hearing On General Plan Amendment 00-001 Letter gl dated November 28, 2000 from Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP to Dana Ogdon on FEIS/FEIS 1-1. Comments made are broadly framed, reference CEQA guidelines and the attached correspondence (in letter #s 2 and 3). As additional data is provided, however, in this letter or in the letters attached to this letter, responses will be provided. Limited response to Letter # 3 is provided since nearly all issues therein are unrelated to the FEIS/FEIR. Environmental Justice issues will be addressed in responses following this letter. 1-2. ]>age' 3, paragraph 3. A comment alleges that the FEIS/FEIR grossly underestimates the projections of students generated to SAUSD is flawed. Absent either specifics or expert information in the letter detailing specific inadequacies, staff will address this issue in response to comments on similar, more specific issues raised in letters numbered 2 and 3. The statement that there was no analysis of the number of credit or non-credit students that will be added to the RSCCCD from the project is addressed below. The RSCCCD was provided notice of all s~oping public hearing meetings and also provided copies of all draft and final environmental documents for the project oVer the · last 6 years. At no time during this period or prior to the close of the written comment periods on the Fin---~ FEIS/FEIR on January 24, 2000' did RSCCD respond to or make statements on the public record regarding an impact on its district or the need for analysis to document any impacts of the reuse plan on its District. Unlike local school districts, attendance at a community college does not require occupancy within a district's boundaries. In other words, attendance areas are for revenue collection purposes but district boundaries are fluid and permit attendance across them. Accordingly, since new community college students could attend any community.college in the County, there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts on the RS.~CCD. No expert opinion has been offered by the RSCCD or anyone else on this subject. City staff has contacted the City's environmental consultant on the project, Cotton and Beland and Associates ("CBA"). They confirmed that in their experience, due to the fluid nature of community College district boundaries, there is no universally recognized methodologY for projecting indirect impacts on a community college district. There is a community college site proposed on the MCAS Tustin site that will be an advanced technologY Ixaining facility and proVide a full curriculum Of c0mmunity'college courses. It is expected that students in both the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) and in the RSCCCD in close proxSmity to the MCAS Tustin site will attend the facility closest to their place of residence. This is particularly eVidenced by that fact that there is no restriction that precludes StUdent enrollment across district boundaries for community colleges (this is, of course, quite different fxom the Very limiting attendance boundaries that restrict attendance at K-12 local school districts). On this basis, it was determined that there would'be no significant impact on the RSCCCD and there was no discussion in the FEIS/FEIR. 1-3.. Page 4, paragraphs 4 and 5. A very small portion of the MCAS Tustin facility, 120 acres, is located in the SAUSD and RSCCCD. No housing is proposed in these areas and the closest housing is over 1 1/2 miles away and is separated from the district by the'SR- 55 Freeway. There are no direct housing impacts on SAUSD, unlike TUSD and IUSD. A reasonable range of choices that provide alternate' densities is proposed in the FEIS/FEIR. There is no requirement in CEQA or NEPA to include in a range of alternatives a proposal like the one made in this letter to address a perceived problem that has been evaluated and found not to be a significant impact warranting mitigation. Finally, the FEIS/FEIR provides a summary and reference to additional information as to why certain requests for property not included in the Reuse Plan. RSCCD was part of ah informal coalition of agencies called the Orange County Education Coalition that requested approximately 100 acres to accommodate a jointly operated community college facility in the Learning Village proposed in reuse plan. However new screening under the Base Closure Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 by the LRA was authorized by the Department of Defense. On October 31, 1995, RSCCD submitted a Notice of Interest for approximately 116 acres in the Learning Village. The 116 .acres as shown on the new RSCCD submittal were located within the boundaries of the South Orange County Community College, the only agency with the legal authority under California state law to acquire the site. The Learning Village site for a community college was also only proposed for approximately 100 acres. The property also originally requested by the RSCCD as part of the Orange County Education Coalition was also within SOCCCD boundaries. Other local school districts (those providing public elementary, intermediate or high school facilities) proposed in the reuse plan for receipt of property on the base have direct impacts on school enrollment due to housing that will be developed on the base in their districts. Additionally, these other districts are indirectly impacted by other development on the base. Since there is a definitiYe and stronger methodological support for project direct impacts on school enrollment versus poten~tial indirect impacts, local school sites were only recommended in the reuse plan where direct impacts occurred on a local school district. Other issues raised by SAUSD in paragraph 2 are irrelevant. Letter #2: An attachment to Letter 2 and referenced in Letter #1, letter dated November 28, 2000 from Connor~ Blake & Griffin LLP to William Cassidv, Jr. 2-1..Page I, paragraph 3. This comment is a generalized summary comment. A reSpOnse is provided to specifics raised elsewhere in the letter. During all comment periods on either the draft or Final FEIS/FEII~, SAUSD never raised the environmental .2 justice issue. RSCCD has never commented previously on any environmental document on the project, nor at any public hearing. 2-2. Page 2, paragraph 1. This comment is a generalized summary comment. A response is provided later to specifies raised. 2-3. Page 2, paragraph 5; .Page 3, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Commentor argues that the FEIS/FEIR fails to "adequately analyze--and to attempt to lessen or avoid-- the impacts which the Project will have on the public elementary, intermediate, high school, and community college facilities in the City of Santa Aha." The FEIS/FEIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the indirect impacts on the SAUSD. No significant impact was found. Response L-9-1 to the revised Draft EIS/EIR contained in Volume 2 of the FEIS/FEIR describes the state legislated scheme of school fees and state aid for mitigation impacts on the public school facilities. See Response 1-3 regarding RSCCD. The SAUSD and RSCCD did not respond to these written comments circulated for response on December 23, 1999, in the FEIS/FEIR and the written comment period closed january 24, 2000. See Response 1-2 above. 2-4. See Responses 1-3 and 2-3, above. 2-5. See Response 1-2, above. The SAUSD did not raise environmental justice issues durir~g the statutory review period on either the draft or Final EIS/EIR. On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations (" E.O.") This Executive Order requires each federal agency to identify and address "...as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental affects of its.., activities on minority and low-income populations..." E.O. (§ 1-101). The Executive Order further establishes federal agency responsibilities for federal programs, ensuring that its activities "...do not have the effect of excluding persons (including populations) from participation in, denying persons (including populations) the benefits of, or subjecting persons (including populations) to discrimination under such ... activities, because of their race, color or national origin." E.O. (§ 2-2) The Commentor has objected to 'the adequacy' of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for MCAS-Tustin based on allegations that there was a failure to consider adequately "...whether the direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin would result in disproportionate negative effects on minority populations in the area surrounding MCAS Tustin..." Specifically, "The Commentor alleges a failure of compliance with Executive Order 12898 and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq). In essence, the Commentor asserts that the failure to dispose of federal real property at MCAS-Tustia. by designating a portion of it for use on behalf of his. clients for educational facilities for the two districts constitutes a violation of the Executive Order, a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, a failure to mitigate preexisting educational overcrowding in the areas surrounding MCAS-Tustin and a denial of "... the valuable benefits that are expected to flow from the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin...". Analysis of these objections requires examinatiOn of two factors. First, without regard to the disposal of MCAS-Tustin, what are the conditions with respect to the adequacy and overcrowding of existing educational facilities in the area proximate to Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin? Second, what are the education population impacts of the disposal of MCAS-Tustin and do those impacts create a significant adverse and disproportionate result for minority or low income populations or do they exacerbate such conditions that already exist'? Examination of the data submitted by the Commentor demonstrates that students who live in the Santa Ana Unified School District, and the Rancho San Diego Community College District, are predominantly minority. The Commentor has not asserted that there are low-income populations and for purposes of this analysis, they will not be treated as such. In analyzing whether the census tracts that surround Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin, constitute minority population areas, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that these census tracts are not disproportionately high minority population areas, and therefore, the proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin is not likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority populations. The Commentor takes issue with this conclusion on the grounds that even if the census tract does not demonstrate a disproportionately high minority population area, the impact nonetheless could have a disproportionate negative impact on one or more minority populations. The fundamental flaw with the Commentor's assertion is that it fails to correctly characterize what is a negative impact and what is a disproportionate impact. If the proximate census tract areas were not disproportionate high minority population areas, then the impact of the proposed action would fall equally upon all of the residents of that census tract. The Executive Order does not preclude negative impacts on minority populations. Rather, it requires an assessment of whether such impacts fall disproportionately on minority populations. Stated differently, if a negative impact affects all of the residents of a census tract without regard to their minority status, and the census tract is a majority population as a whole, then the adverse impact is spread equally across the members of that census tract and cannot be said to be disproportionate. The second flaw in the Commentor's analysis concerns what is an impact. Inasmuch as the Environmental Justice Executive Order employs the process of the National Environmental Policy Act, reference to the regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, promulgated by the Council of Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) are appropriate sources for definition. At 40 CFR 1508.8, it is noted that "effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous." The definition of both direct and indirect effects reflects that they axe caused by the action in question. The action ia question in this matter is the disposal of MCAS-Tustin to the local redevelopment authority. That disposal cannot be construed as causing the preexisting concerns which the Comrnentor raises.'~ " The data submitted by the Commentor demonstrates that the adequacy or inadequacy of existing educational facilities in the areas proximate to MCAS-Tustin are not new, have been identified previously, and do not result from the proposed action which the Department of the Navy have under consideration. In essence, what the Commentor seeks on behalf of his clients, is a land transfer which will mitigate preexisting conditions. While such a goal may be worthy, a failure to mitigate a preexisting condition can hardly be construed as an impact under the CEQ regulation cited nor can it be construed as an effect of the activity in question on minority populations as contemplated in the Executive Order. As specifically noted in § 2.2 of the Executive Order, the obligation of the Department of Navy in this matter is to ensure that its activities do not deny the benefits of its programs because of race, color or national origin .The Commentor does not allege nor is it apparent that the decision under consideration has been influenced by race, color or national origin. From the foregoing, the objection raised does not fall within the purview of the Executive Order, does not constitute an impact under the National Environmental Policy Act regulations and is not attributable to race, color or national origin. .. Notwithstanding, the foregoing, there is an issue with respect to whether the proposed transfer of MCAS-Tustin will induce indirect gx:owth in the adjacent areas and whether the cumulative effect of such induced, indirect growth will exacerbate existing adverse impacts such that they would be visited upon minority populations disproportionate .from non-minority populations. The analysis to the Commentor objects, has taken into consideration the issue of induced, indirect growth. In order to make the point, the Commentor speculates on where certain people will live, what their racial composition will be and their level of income. The Commentor takes issue with the updated Household Growth Report which was used for this analysis. That report, by its very nature, is a mere projection. It is a good faith, reasonable effort to project future, indirect growth but it can hardly be considered definitive. Nonetheless, that report indicates that as a result of expected induced growth resulting from the reuse plan, an additional 82 to 509 new students for the Santa Ana Unified School District may be expected. Given the nature of the report, and the assumptions upon which the Commentor's dispUte is based, it is apparent that the data collected and considered in the FEIS/FEIR process was designed to identify.reasonable, foreseeable, si~ificant adverse impacts and that the methodology for collecting that data, the analysis of that data and the conclusions based upon it were reasonable approaches to a complex and somewhat speculative process. Furthermore, it is important to note that the total enrollment of the Santa Ana Unified School District, reported in the California Department of Educational report which the Commentor submitted, is 58,043 students. Using the high end of the range to which the Commentor objects, 509 additional students constitutes an .8% increase in school population. Even if that figure were doubled, (an action for which there is no basis in fact) the impact on the existing school population could hardlY be construed as having a severe or intense effect. The induced student population resulting from the proposed transfer is slight, negligible and does not create or cause an adverse and disproportionate effect on a minority populati°n. To the extent that there is oVercrowding, it already exists. ' In essence, what the Commentor seeks is an allocation of land in order to mitigate preexisting conditions unrelated to the proposed action. The proposed action will not cause or create any significant adverse impact, direct or indirect. The cumulative impacts are negligible at best. A request for mitigation under these circumstances does not fall within the purview of either the National Environmental Policy Act or Executive Order 12898. Most important is the questions of whether the possible new students within the boundary of the Santa Ana Unified School District may be counted against. 2-6. Comments are broad and generalized. Where specific information is provided, a response is provided. 2-7. Page 8, paragraph 5; page 9, top of page. As a point of information generally related to this comment, the "Updated Report..." referenced in the Commentor's letter was provided in response to comments from the SAUSD on the original report entitled "Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS Tustin site in Accordance with the Reuse Plan Upon the Santa Ana Unified School District". Many of the comments now raised are inconsistent with information previously provided by the SAUSD. The Commentor notes that the FEIS/FEIR estimates that 77,400 jobs will be created and, therefore, the school impact estimate contained in the report "the Updated Household Growth Report", is unreasonably low. The 77,400 job figure is overstated by the Commentor. First, the preferred project alternative according to the FEIS/FEIR would only generate 24,852 direct new jobs due to the project. An additional 15,081' indirect or induced jobs may be created as well as up to 37,468 short-term construction jobs. In preparing the "Updated Household Growth Report", a socio-economic demographic expert was hired by the City to analyze information provided early in the planning process in January 1997 by the SAUSD. See Response L9-1 in the FEIS/FEIR. In SAUSD's own report "Analysis of the Impact of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan on the Santa Ana Unified School District", dated July 22, 1996, the only employment figures recommended for use by SAUSD in projecting impact on school enrollment is direct on- site job creation from a project and indirect, induced employment. Short Term construction impacts were not recommended for use by SAUSD's own consultant team nor are they generally used in projections for school enrollment generation. 2-8. t~age 9, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. Since there is no universally accepted method for calculating indirect household growth impacts associated with a project's estimated employment, the "Updated Household Growth Report" presented a range of estimates of impacts based on.two methods. Scenario 1 presents a high impact; Scenario 2, a lower impact to bracket the range of probably impacts. Scenario 1 does not differentiate between employment new to Orange County and employment already in the County. Scenario 2 estimates the percentage of employment new to Orange County based on Dennis Macheski Consul ting's interviews with economists in the region. The estimate of 10% new emplo3maent to Orange County is documented in the report based on interviews with research personnel, brokers with the firm of Grubb and Ellis, and staff economists at the Irvine Company, Economic Development Corporation of Los Angeles and Southem California Association of Governments. On the backfill issue, according to the "Updated Report" the net impact of employment 'already in Orange County and relocating to the MCAS-Tustin site on the SAUSD is considered negligible, since these employees already live somewhere in the region (perhaps some in the SAUSD), and are unlikely to relocate within the SAUSD merely because their employer changes location in the County: However,' Dennis Macheski Consulting did acknowledge that employment new to the County brings with it indirect and induced impacts (a "multiplier impact"). The magnitude of the multiplier impact, estimated and provided in the report, is actually higher than the multiplier impact used by SAUSD in their own report, "Analysis of the Impact of MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan on the Santa Ana 'Unified School District", dated July 22, 1996. Accordingly the FEIS/FEIR using even a more conservative methodology than SAUSD, which is more favorable to SAUSD's argument, found impacts ranging from 80 to 509 students 2-9. See Response 2-7, above. 2-10. See Response 2-8, above for description of the methodology approaches used in the FEIS/FEIR_ The Commentor note that the high-end estimate of 509 students to be generated for SAUSD is grossly understated because neither induced employment nor construction related jobs were considered. See Response 2-7 related to the construction jobs issue. On the issue of induced employment there are two separate methodologies provided by the FEIS/FEIR which use different approaches, both of which are accepted ways of projecting school enrollment. Nothing has been provided by the Commentor to substantiate that the estimates are grossly understated. In fact, the SAUSD's own report referenced in Response 2-8, above, projects only a total district'household impact of 404 students based on a previous direct employment projection for the project of 26,180 (the 1 million square foot decrease in proposed commercial/business square footage by the City reflected in the FES/FEIR resulted in reduced employment of 24,852). In correspondence fi'om the District dated August 9, 1996, SAUSD also identified a net financial impact on the District of approximately $3.8 million over the build-out of the project. On all information the SAUSD and Commentor have p.rovided no specific revisions to their previous report or new information to substantiate why the student estimates in the FEIS/FEIR are understated has been provided. 2:11. The Cornmentor states that projections are low as a result of the assumption that 4% of households would reside within the SAUSD. This figure is based on adopted SCAG data that include the employment impacts of development of MCAS Tustin as well as information validated by the City of Santa Aha. The Commentor incorrectly notes that the employment figm'e that should be used is 77,400. As noted in Comment 2- 7, the Commentor has incorrectly added short-term conslruction jobs, which are not acceptable input in an indirect household analysis. 2-12. See Responses 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-10, and 2-11, above. There is no basis for the Commentor's allegations that the assumptions and conclusions in the FEIS/FEIR are unfounded and underestimated. The Commentor has failed to provide additional technical support for his issues. The FEIS/FEIR analysis was based on work of consultants with expertise in this area. The SAUSD's own analysis completed by Public Economics as noted in responses above, projected figures significantly lower than estimates provided by the FEIS/FEIR. 2-13. See Response L9-1 and L9-2 in Volume 2 of the FEIS/FEIR. 2-14. See Response 2-5 2-15. See Response 1-2, above. Letter # 3- attached to and referenced in Letter 1; dated November 24, 2000 from Connor~ Blake 7 Griffin LLP to William Cassidv, Jr. The majority of this letter is unrelated to physical impacts requir/ng evaluation in the FEIS/FEIR and so will not be responded to as part of the FEIS/FEIR process. However, those items that are related to the potential impacts are discussed below. 3-1. The City needs to reiterate for the public record that it offered SAUSD, at no cost to SAUSD, a 1 O-acre parcel adjacent to its boundary at MCAS Tustin, though not within the Learning Village, and an advance of $3.5 million in SB 50 fees (school impact development fees). This good faith effort, rejected by SAUSD, was made even though no furore housing units at MCAS Tustin will be located within SAUSD boundaries. In addition, the SOCCCD offered to permit up to 1,000 SAUSD students per year to participate in joint programming at the proposed SOCCCD Tustin campus. Neither of these proposals required modification of the Reuse Plan or proposed Navy disposal plan. In fact, state law, and in particular SB 50, would have precluded the City from requiring these conditions as mitigation in the FEIS/FEIR.' The City was prepared to transfer the 10 acres to the SAUSD under a separate transaction outside of the environmental document, as was SOCCCD. Currently, the City is negotiating another proposal with SAUSD. 3-2. See Response 3-1. The City's analysis of indirect school impacts on the SAUSD has been both thorough and technical in nature, based on input from respected population/economic demographers, and educational and environmental consultants. No housing will be constructed on the approximate 122 acres within the SAUSD and no students will be directly generated. The area at the former MCAS Tustin site within the SAUSD is proposed for commercial/business uses which do not include large retail stores, upscale residential projects, or a golf course. The statement that the City clearly recognizes that the commercial development proposed for MCAS Tustin will generate new jobs, which, in mm, will increase the number of medium and low-income families residing in Santa Ana and add hundreds and hundreds of additional students, exaggerates and misrepresents information in the FEIS/FEIS. No housing units will be constructed within SAUSD boundaries at MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/FEIR states only that, based on the assumption that perhaps new employees at the former MCAS Tustin site might seek new housing within the SAUSD, there is the potential for an indirect impact on the SAUSD from the MCAS Tustin project. To bracket the range of probable indirect impacts, the City's experts presented an estimate using two scenarios. Both scenario 1, a highly unlikely worst-case scenario, and scenario 2, the more likely scenario, were prepared for the FEIS/FEIR. Based on the projections under each scenario of household growth, either 509 students might be generated over a 20 year period (scenario 1) or 82 students (scenario 2) over the same period. Based on SAUSD student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential impact to SAUSD would be in grades k-8 with over 50% of this impact in grades K-5 (under either scenario). With an average K-5 elementary school built to accommodate 800 students, the average middle school built to accommodate 1560 students and the average high school built to accommodate 2400 students, neither of the indirect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an entire school site at MCAS Tustin as requested by SAUSD. It should be noted, however, that in any event, the worst-case scenario is greater than even the projection SAUSD provided the City in preparation of the Draft EIRfEIS. Public Economics, a'SAUSD consultant, only projected an indirect impact estimate of 404 new households and 272 students in their report to the SAUSD. 3-3. Please note that the Commentor's representation is inaccurate. In addition to all FEIS/FEIR notices which were sent to the SAUSD and RSCCCD, the City also noticed RSCCCD on August 27, 1998, that the ERRATA was scheduled for consideration by the Tustin City Council on September 8,1998. The RSCCCD did not appear or voice any · oppr~sition to the amendments at that time.' AdditionallY, the Errata was distributed as part of and discussed in the revised Draft FEIS/FEIR in 1999 and in the FEIS/FEIR distributed December 23,1999. No comments were received from the RSCCCD in response to this information. 3-4. See response 3-1 and 3-2, above. 3-5. See Response 3-1 and 3-2, above. 3-6. See Response 2-7, 2-8, 2-10, 2-11, above. , 3-7. See Responses 3-1, 3-5, 3-6, 1-3, 2-7, 2-8,2-10, and 2-11. 3-8. The Commentor argues that both sAUsD and an Orange County Educational Coalition have 'approved public benefit applications with the Federal Department of Education. It is the City's' legal position that the .Department of Education's pre- December, 1995 approval of the SAUSD request for 75 acres is nUll and void and cannot be acted on by the Navy.' This position also applies' t° any Department of Education letter regarding the Educational Coalition. On or about October 6, 1994, Congress passed the Base Closure and Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act of 1994 ("Redevelopment Act"), which was signed by the President on or about October 25, 1994. The Redevelopment Act created, a new, community-based process wherein homeless providers, state and local agencies were expected to work directly with local redevelopment entities such as the City of Tustin for closing military installations. The Redevelopment Act provided that review of applications submitted prior to the effective date of the new legislation be suspended for 60 days. During that time, the City was required to decide whether to continue under the old process or follow the new procedures in the Redevelopment Act. On November 17, 1994, the City requested authority to re-screen property at MCAS Tustin under the Redevelopment Act. Authority was granted on December 15, 1994 and was completed in coordination with the Navy. The 19 member MCAS Tustin Base Closure Task Force reviewed over 30 reuse requests. Public hearings were held on January9, 1996, September 10, 1996 and in October of 1996. Additionally, a workshop was held September 19, 1996. Over the course of these hearings, the City received requests that, if granted, would have committed over 300% of the property. Each request for property was reviewed for completion and measured. against a set of established criteria. The Task Force had to measure each request for property in a manner balancing the community's needs for economic development and other community development. Although both at the hearings and in writings, SAUSD reduced its request to 50 acres, SAUSD and RSCCCD District did not receive a recommendation for transfer of property at MCAS Tustin. Many other agencies were also denied. The City's economic consultants recommended no more than 20-25% of the project be set aside for public benefit conveyances or the economic feasibility of the project would be jeopardized. The Reuse Plan currently allows for nearly one-third -or 518 acres - of MCAS Tustin to be allocated for public uses. These uses are a balance of needs consistent with the criteria applied in the screening process. For example, the plan includes an abused children's shelter, a homeless shelter, transitional housing for the homeless, an animal control facility, flood control and storm drainage facilities, roadway fight-of-way for construction of regionally needed arterial roadway extensions; day care facilities and recreation, in addition to a community college focused on advanced technology and local school sites where direct impacts and housing construction occurs on the MCAS Tustin site. · . It should be noted that in 1996, RSCCCD sent Tustin a letter relinquishing any role at MCAS Tustin and acknowledging SOCCCD as responsible for development of the community college planned at MCAS Tustia. · 3-9. See Response 3-1, above. The SAUSD and RSCCCD proposal is unacceptable. The site is totally within the boundaries of SOCCCD and TUSD and, with minor exceptions not applicable here, state law provisions preclude development of facilities by another district within the SOCCCD and TUSD boundaries. The proposal is largely based on the argument that SAUSD and RSCCCD have a greater need than any other district including SOCCCD. The City has made a reasonable proposal to SAUSD that it 10 believes has a strong relationship to any indirect impacts on the SAUSD. Impacts of MCAS Tustin on RSCCCD have been determined insignificant as noted in Response 1-2, other accommodation offers have been made to SAUSD outside the FEIR/FEIS process (see Response 3-1, above, for a discussion of legal issues). Letter #4- Orange County Professional Firefighters Commission, letter dated November 28, 2000 Association to Planning Although dated November 28, 2000, the Administrative Secretary for the Planning Commission has certified that the attached letter was not received by the City or presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Apparently, after the hearing the letter was left in the hearing room after the meeting of November 28, 2000 had ended. Despite failure to provide information in a timely manner, the Orange County Fire Commentor (OCFA) is the agency responsible for planning adequate fire protection. OCFA has been consulted on potential impacts of MCAS Tustin and it commented on the draft revised EIS/EIR. In responses to its comments, modifications were made to the FEIS/FEIR and OCFA was provided thirty-days to review the responses to its issues. OCFA has provided no additional comments as part of the FEIS/FEIS record. Letter # 5, letter dated November 28, 2000, with attachments from City of Santa Ana 5-1. The definition of committed roadway network includes roadway projects that are in the Capital Improvement Program of a jurisdiction, or are a condition of approval of a specific project, or required mitigation measure of a previous environment document, or in a special fee program. This FEIS/FEIR or other Planing document such as a General Plan considered the aforementioned improvements as "probable future projects". Based upon this definition, the committed roadway network is defined not by current funding criteria, but on whether it is identified or conditioned in some approved document. Since the General Plans of adjacent jurisdictions are approved documents with approved supporting environmental documentation, the roadway networks of the Circulation Element of the Santa Ana General Plan was assumed as committed improvements. 5-2. Traffic volumes throughout the region' and the FEIS/FEIR Study Area are projected to increase in the future. ~ These are projected by demographic data as well as County traffic modeling information. However, the furore condition also includes various improvements to existing 'roadways, construction of new roadways,, changes to land use patterns and more travel mode choices for commuters. The County Traffic Model OCTAM 2.8, utilized for this project, provides.the most recent countywide traffic distribution patterns and demOgraphic information -to forecast traffic distribution throughout the re, on. At some locations within the FEIS/FEIR Study Area, traffic volumes increase while at other locations there is a decrease in traffic volume. Traffic volumes vary throughout this project's .study area based not. only upon the increased traffic volume this project generates, but also upon _the additional roadway capacity created by this project to serve regional and local traffic distribution. 11 5-3. The post-2020 traffic analysis has assumed transportation improvements beyond those in the committed network including the transportation corridors as free facilities. No specific year beyond post-2020 is identified in the analysis since it is assumed that the project alternative would be completed by 2020, and required mitigation for off-site traffic and circulation impacts would be completed. The intent of this analysis is not to devise a complete study area transportation plan for the post-2020 time frame, but rather to provide information on land use and transportation plans that are beyond the year 2020 framework used in the impact analysis. The assumption of toll free facilities sometime in the future is not unrealistic based upon various agreements for development and funding of the transportation corridors. 5-4. The traffic forecasts derived for this project are based upon the County traffic model OCTAM 2.8, which was approved by OCTA for use with this project. The traffic distribution patterns are the same patterns defined by the OCTAM 2.8 model for this region. Based upon these patterns and other associated factors (see 5-2 above) this would explain the traffic volume variations throughout the project study area. 5-5. Roadway improvements and mitigation measures are assumed to be construction based upon the committed roadway network (see definition in 5-1 above). Traffic impacts of this project that are mitigated with roadway improvements are to be implemented per mitigation measures T/C-2 and T/C-3 of the FEIS/FEIR. In some locations MCAS traffic utilizes excess roadway capacity where available, however, the project also constructs new roadways thereby providing excess capacity at some locations for regional traffic. 5-6. The committed roadway network is defined in response 5-1 above. Warner Avenue is included in the committed roadway network since it is shown on the Santa Ana General Plan Circulation Element as a major arterial in the 2010 scenario. According to the Santa Ana General Plan, a major arterial is defined as a six-lane, divided roadway. This classification is consistent with the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. On May 22, 2000, the City of Tustin prepared a special analysis of Warner Avenue fi.om east of Grand Avenue to west of Main Street in Santa Aha as a courtesy to Santa Aha. The conclusions of that analysis, using regionally accepted peak hour analysis, indicates that peak hour data for Warner Avenue does not indicate any segments operating at an unacceptable level of service. Therefore, Warner Avenue between Grand Avenue and Main Street does not require widening for either the 2005 or 2020 scenarios-as a result of the MCAS Reuse Plan. The City of Tustin recognizes the regional significance and circulation benefits provided by Warner.Avenue, and the City is sensitive to the issue that Santa Aha may not have funds or plans to widen Warner Avenue to six lanes. While not a required mitigation issue in the FEIS/FEI~ there are existing and available mechanisms to assist Santa Aha 12 on widening Warner Avenue including use of Transportation System Improvement funds that are collected and distributed by Santa Ana and Tustin. 5-7. Implementation measures are identified in Chapter 7 oi~ the FEIS/FEIR that ensure the completion of roadway improvements to mitigate traffic impacts due to this project. Where Significant traffic impacts are identified, mitigation measures have been identified in Chapter 4 of the FEIS/FEIR to reduce those impacts. Trip thresholds are specifically spelled out and until improvements required at certain thresholds are implemented, development will be stopped. In addition, since implementation of certain mitigation measures would occur at later times as buildout of the project occurs, mitigation measures provide for conditions to be placed on specific development projects or when impacts actually occur under those developments. It is not reasonable to construct all the necessary roadway improvements for full buildout at this point in time. The mitigation measures, which are based on performance standards in the FEIS/FEIR, identify the type of improvement necessary to mitigate traffic impacts and identify ADT thresholds that require specific improvements to be constructed. Implementation would occur' when the mitigation threshold is reached. Development projects would be conditioned to fund that project's share of improvements. 5-8 The City of Santa Ana's correspondence of November 28, 2000 includes an attachment of the City of Santa Ana's January 24, 2000 comments on the Final EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The letter's comments addressed a variety of issues that were formerly responded to in Volume 3 of the Final EIS/EIR, which was provided to the City bf Santa Ana on November 16, 2000. The Comment Index for Volume 3 indicates that the City of Tustin and Department of Navy's response to these comments was provided at Letter Reference "Local 2." Please see specific responses Local 2-1, Local 2-2 and Local 2-3 provided in Volume 3 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter. 5-9 The City of Santa Ana'~ correspondence of November 28, 2000 included an attachment of the City of Santa Ana's August 31, I999 comments on the revised Draft EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The letter's comments addressed a variety of issues that were formerly responded to in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR, which was provided to the City of Santa Aha on December 23, 1999. The Comment Index for Volume 2 indicates that the City of Tustin and Department of Navy's formal response to these comments was provided at Letter Reference "L12." Please see specific responses L12-1 through L12-81 provided in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter.. -. 5-10 The City of Santa Ana's correspondence of November 28, 2000. included an attachment of the City of Santa Ana's March 2, 1998 comments on the initial Draft EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The letter's comments addressed a variety of issues. Per the implementing guidelines:of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), When an entire EIR is re-circulated, the lead agency "need not respond to 'those comments received during the earlier circulation period" (Cal. Code 13 Regs., Title 14, §§ '15088.5(f)(1)), but the lead agency shall "in the revised EIR, or by an attachment to the revised EIR, summarize the revisions made to the previously circulated draft EIR" (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14 {}§ 15088.5(2)(g)). Consistent with state law and implementing regulations, a summary of revisions to the initial Draft 'EIS/EIR was provided in Appendix D of the revised Draft EIS/EIR, which was provided to the City of Santa Ana on July 8, 1999. The March 2, 1998 comment letter was also attached to the City of Santa Ana's August 31, 1999 comment letter on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. As such, the letter was formerly responded to in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR, which was provided to the City of Santa Ana on December 23, 1999. The Comment index for Volume 2 indicates that the response to these comments was also provided at Letter Reference "L 12." Please see the specific responses L 12-82 through L 12-102 provided in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter. 5-11 The City of Santa Ana's correspondence of November 28, 2000 included an attachment of the City of Santa Ana's August 27, 1999 correspondence requesting that the City of Tustin clarify the date by which comments were to be submitted on the revised Draft EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin. The formal written response from the City of Santa Ana was received on August 31, 1999 and is included as comment letter L12, discussed above. The letter was also attached to the City Of Santa Ana's August 31, 1999 comment letter 'On the revised Draft EIS/EIR. As such, the letter was formerly responded to in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR, which was provided to the City of Santa Ana on December 23, 1999. The Comment index for Volume 2 indicates that the response to these comments was also provided at Letter Reference "L13." Please see the specific responses L 13-1 provided in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation of the responses to this letter.. 5-12 The City of Santa Ana's comments in their attached letter of August 31, 1999 (second copy) were addressed in response 5-9, above. 5-13. The letter indicates that Santa Ana has continually disagreed with the EIS/EIR traffic study methodology ant that it underestimates the traffic impacts of the project. The EIS/EIR utilizes methodology that are regionally recognized and supported by OCTA. Santa Aha has provided'no technical support or substantiation that traffic impacts are underestimated. Mitigation Measure T/C-9 includes a provision for substituted improvements as determined by mutual agreement, providing the same levels of improvement and mitigation levels can be achieved. 5-14. The Final EIS/EIR clearly identifies on-site ADT cumulative thresholds when off- site improvements must be completed. See pages 4-198 through 4-202 of the Final EIS/EI1L 5-15. Where a mitigation'measure is not 100% project specific but a project share, the City of Tustin can only require a fair share contribution for a projects responsibility. The agreement required by Mitigation Measure T/C-9 would be negotiated to determine how · fair share contributions will be distributed. Santa )ma may option to require payout of 14 the fair share cost no later that 30-days after Santa Ana notifies the City of Tustin that a contract for construction of an improvement has been awarded. Each fair share improvement cost could also be adjusted to reflect increases or decreases in the cost of construction. 5-16. Warner Avenue improvements between Grand Avenue and Main Street are not required as mitigation for the MCAS Reuse Project. As a courtesy, Tustin prepared a special analysis of Warner Avenue in Santa Ana at the request of Santa Ana staff in May 2000. The conclusions of that analysis, using regionally accepted peak hour analysis, indicates that peak hour data for Warner Avenue west of Main Street to Grand Avenue does not show any segments operating at unacceptable levels of service. Therefore, Warner Avenue between Grand Avenue and Main Street does not require widening for either the 2005 or 2020 scenarios as a result of the MCAS Reuse Plan. Since Warner Avenue is certainly an existing facility that has areawide circulation benefit, one oppommity available would be for both Tustin and Santa Ana to agree to prioritize funding incremental widening utilizing Transportation System Improvement Area Fees. 5-17. Tustin continues to acknowledge in the Final EIS/EIR that certain intersections in the vicinity of Warner Avenue in the study area need improvement and Tustin Mll bear significant costs associated With mitigation. Santa Ana previously agreed tb provide a list of alternative improvements that would achieve similar levels of mitigation. However, the City has not received this list despite numerous discussions with santa Ana staff on this issue. 5-18. The City of Santa Ana's comments in their attached letter of January 24, 2000 were addressed in Volume 3 of the Final EIS/EIR. See Responses Local 2-1, Local 2-2 and Local 2-3 provided in Volume 3 of the Final EIS/EIR for a more detailed explanation. 5-19. The City of Santa Ana's comments in their attached letter of August 31, 1999 'were addressed in Volume 2 of the F. inal EIS/EIR. 5-20. The City of Santa Ana's comments in their attached letter of March 2, 1998 were addressed in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR. 5-21. The City of Santa'Ana's comments in their attached letter of August 27, 1999 were addressed in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR. 5-22. The City of Santa Ana's comments in their attached letter of August 31, 1999 (second copY) were addressed in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EI1L 5-23. The City of Santa Ana's comments in their attached letter, of March 2, 1998 (second copy) were addressed in Volume 2 of the Final EIS/EIR. 15 '-~.. 'Resolutio'n-: No. ~'00-90 certifYing'-Final EIS/EIR for' MCAS TUstin aS adequate p.liance wi and complete and prepared in com- th the requirements of CEQA. RESOLUTION NO. 00-90 ]0 ]3 14 ]5 20 2] 23 24 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF THE FORMER MCAS TUSTIN AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The City Council 'of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: Ao Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin has been determined surplus to the needs of the federal government and has been approved for disposal by the United States Department of the Navy (DON)in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission approved by the President and accepted by Congress in 1991', 1993, and 1995; and B. C. D. The City of Tustin has been approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for preparing a Reuse Plan describing the reuse of the installation and providing recommendations to the DON for disposal of the former base to various public agencies and the homeless. The goal of base disposal and reuse is economic redevelopment and job creation to help replace the economic stimulus previously provided by the military installation. The LRA submitted the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense in October 1996, and an Errata amending the Reuse Plan in September 1998; and .. The City of Tustin intends to implement the Reuse Plan through the approval or adoption'of a General .Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance 'Amendment, adoption of a Specific Plan and other discretionary actions: and Califomia-State law requires each City to adopt a COmprehensive, Iong-term General Plan for its own physical development and for any land outside its boundaries which bears a relationship to its planning activities. The General Plan must be periodically updated to ensure that the Plan accurately reflects City policies, COnforms to State law, .reflects current COurt decisions, and provides an integrated and internally consistent set of goals and policies designed to reflect any changed characteristics.or growth of the COmmunity. The closure of MCAS Tustin and implementation of the Reuse Plan would necessitate amendment of the Tustin General Plan; and .]- l0 l! 14 20 23 24 25 E. The Tustin City Council has received a request to consider proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001 that is intended to amend all General Plan Elements in support of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin; and F. On November 28, 2000, the Tustin Planning Commission held a duly noticed pUblic hearing to provide a further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 3739 'recommending that the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001; and Go Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. et. seq. 2100'0) and the State Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Department of Navy have completed the following actions in preparing the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR): . On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. .2. on July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments on the NOP for the EIS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. e On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR was reieased for 60-day public review and comment (SCH No. 94071005). The Document assessed the significant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and Irvine, California and the subsequent reuse of those properties and other adjacent properties. 4. On February 5, 1998,~ a Public Hearing was held on the initial Draft EIS/EIR. 5. On July 8, 1'999, a revised Draft EIS/EIR was released for 45-day public review and comment. The comment period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. 6. On August 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. -2.- ]0 ]! ]3 ]4 17 20 2] 23 24 25 H. 7. On .December 23, 1999, the FEIS/FEIR was released for 30-day public review and comment. The comment period on the FEIS/FEIR was closed on January 24, 2000. The FEIS/FEIR provides the required written responses .to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and NEPA Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Section 1503.4. 8. On November 17, 2000, Final Response to Comments on the FEIS/FEIR was released. 9. Prior to apProving the proposed action, the City Council must certify that . the FEIS/FEIR is complete and adequate; and The FEIS/FEIR was prepared to analyze a proposed project addressing the potential environmental effects of the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and a wide range of project alternatives. In general, the FEIS/FEIR evaluates, the proposed project (Alternative I-LRA Reuse Plan), two other build-out alternatives (Alternative 2-Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High Residential and Alternative 3-Arterial Loop Pattem/Reserve Area/Low Residential) and two no project/no development alternatives (No Action Alternative and Disposal of Navy Property Alternative). For background purposes, Alternatives 1,2 and 3 are briefly summarized as follows: Alternative 1 - LRA Reuse Plan - Alternative 1 is the alternative submitted by the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to the DON and HUD and the one that the City of Tustin believes would best meet the community objectives of the reuse planning process. This alternative would result in 4,601 dwelling units (4,049 dwelling units in the .City of Tustin) and 11,406,975 square feet of commercial/industrial/recreational square footage; Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Golf Village with hotel and ancillary retail uses; an Urban Regional Park developed around the northern blimp hangar; a large Community Core developed with mixed uses including reuse of the southerly blimp hangar if financially feasible; and specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village campus. Alternative 2- Arterial Grid Pattern/No Core/High ReSidential- This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing. housing and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine and nearby communities. This altemative would result in 6,205 dwelling units and 9,214,583 square feet of commercial and business uses, Village Mixed-Uses, and Public Institutional/Commercial functions. A large Cultural Center would be developed under this al.temative, and the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated., if financiallY feasible. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished under this altemative. -3- l0 14 17 20 2] 24 25 J. Alternative 3- Arterial Loop Pattern/Reserve Area/Low Residential- This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing employment and cultural opportunities for residents of Tustin, Irvine and nearby communities. This alternative would result in 4,340 dwelling units and 10,916,575 square feet of commercial, commercial business, Village Mixed-Use and' other business-related uses. A large Cultural Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and Would incorporate the northern blimp hangar, if financially feasible. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished, A 179-acre Reserve Area would include residential, commercial/business, and institutional uses in large-scale development; and : In accordance with Section 15132 of the State Guidelines, and the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the FEIS/FEIR consists of' 1. The initial Draft EIS/EIR, revised Draft EIS/EIR, and Final EIS/EIR including Comments and Responses on the revised Draft EIS/EIR and ali appendices and technical reports thereto; 2. Comments and Responses on the Final EIS/EIR; 3. Redevelopment Agency staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 28, 2000; 4. Minutes of the City of Tustin Planning Commission, dated November 28, 2000; 5. Redevelopment Agency staff report to the City Council dated December 18, 2000 including the letters submitted to the Planning Commission and the City of Tustin's written responses, and all other attachments; 6. Minutes of the Tustin City Council, dated December 18, 2000; and Section Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091 of the State Guidelines require that the City Council make one or m°re of the following findings prior to aPproving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been prepared identifying one or more significant effects of the project, together With a statement of facts in support of each finding: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the Significant effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations are within the.responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Sl~)ecific economic, legal, social, technological .or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the. mitigation measures or altematives identified in the EIR; and , . ]0 ]! !2 ]3 !4 !7 20 2] 22 24 25 III. K, State Guidelines Section 15093(a) requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and Le State Guidelines Section 15093(b) requires that, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in an Ell:{, but are not at least substantially mitigated, the City Council must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the FEIS/FEIR or other information in the record. Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is incorporated here by reference and provided as Exhibit A; and A Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the FEIS/FEIR has been drafted to meet the requirements of Section. 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. The Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program, which is incorporated here by reference and provided as Exhibit B provides a checklist of mitigation measures and implementation measures identified in the FEIS/FEIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin to ease the process of monitoring the progress of each measure. The following information is identified for each measure listed in the checklist: · The text of the measure is provided which contains the criteria for 'mitigation, either in the form: of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken as mitigation. · The timing of the implementation of the mitigation measures in the table are listed by environmental impact area in the same order as they are listed in the FEIS/FEIR. · The table lists the appropriate responsible or supervising party or agency to perform or enforce the mitigation measure or implementation measure. · Each mitigation and implementation measure is listed by environmental impact area in the same order as they are listed in the FEIS/FEIR; and The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby find and certify that the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS Tustin, in its entirety, is adequate and complete and prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, NEPA, and the~ state Guidelines; and The City Council hereby finds that the unavoidable significant environmental effects identified in the FEIS/FEIR have been substantially lessened in their sevedty by the imposition of the proposed mitigation measures. The City Council also finds that the remaining unavoidable significant environmental effects are outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the Community Reuse Plan, as set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit A. The City Council adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and -5- l0 14 l? 18 20 2! 22 24 25 IV. The City Council hereby finds that changes have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that' will mitigate or avoid the potentially significant adverse effects identified in the FEIS/FEIR as specifically itemized in Exhibit B, Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. All mitigation measures contained in the FEIS/FEIR are adopted and shall be incorporated as conditions of approval at subsequent discretionary actions at the appropriate level of project implementation. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 18t" day of December 2000. JEFFERY M. THOMAS, Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No..00-90 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on 'December 18, 2000, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK ' ccresos\00-90.doc Exhibit A to Resolution 00-90 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Final EIS/EIR Resolution No. 00-90 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report For the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin SCH No. 94071005 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Date Adopted by TusfJn' December 18, 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF MCAS TUSTIN - Section Page Ie II. III. IV. Vo VI. FINAL EIS/EIR FOR THE PROJECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Contents of the Record Location of Administrative Record PURPOSE OF FINDINGS EFFECT OF FINDINGS FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Aesthetics Cultural and Paleontological Resources Agricultural Resources Traffic/Circulation Air Quality Cumulative Impacts FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT Land Use Aesthetics Cultural and Paleontological Resources Biolo~cal Resources Traffic/Circulation Noise 4 4 4 6 6 10 14 18 18 19 19 21 22 23 Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tusfin EIS/EIR SCH No. 94071005 Section PaRe VII. VIII. IX. FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES Utilities Public Services FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Introduction Reasonable Range of Alternatives . Summary of Comparison of Alternatives Project Objectives LRA Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1) Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4: No Action Alternative STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Summary of Overriding Considerations Adoption of Overriding Considerations 25 25 27 31 31 31 40 34 43 43 44 45 47 47 49 TABLES Table Page Table 1 Table 2 Summary Comparison of Land Development and - Buildout Characteristics of Alternatives Key Differentiating Factors Between Alternatives 32 Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR SCH No. 9407100> ' FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING THE PROJECT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091 as amended January 1, 1999, the City of Tustin (City) upon review of the Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR), including the comments and responses therein, and based on all' the information and evidence in the records, hereby makes the Findings set forth herein: I.. FINAL EIS/EIR FOR THE PROJECT The FEIS/EIR for the project consists .of two volumes ehtitled "Final Volume 1 December, 1999 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin" and "Final Volume 2 December, 1999 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin". In accordance with the requirements of CEQA, an Initial Studv/Notice of Preparation (NOD to prepare a joint EIS/EIR was distributed on June 30, 1994 to regulatory agencies, local jurisdictions, elected officials, and public service providers, among others for a 30-day comment period. On March 9, 1995, a supplement to the NOP was sent for a 30-day comments period to all previously notified parties to inform them of the City of Tustin's intent to also utilize the joint EIS/EIR for its applications to pursue a LAMBRA designation with the California Trade and Commence Agency. As part of the EIS/EIR scoping process, the City of Tustin and the Marine Corps held a public meeting on July 20, 1994 designed to inform the public about disposal and reuse alternatives and to solicit public participation and comments. The Marine Corps also held a public meeting in April 1997 regarding the blimp hangars pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to describe the Section 106 process and the role of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as it relates to the reuse plan and to receive public comments. The initial Draft EIS/EIR was made available for a 45-day Public review period on January 16, 1998. Comments received on the initial Draft EIS/EIR indicated the need to expand the traffic/circulation study, and to provide supplementary analysis for the issues of regional ~mvth, schools, biology, water quality, air quality, utilities, noise, public services, and hazardous materials. A revised Draft EIS/EIR was made available for a 45-day public review period on July 8, 1999. The review period for the Draft EIS/EIR ended on August 23, 1999. The Final EIS/EIR was made available for a 30-day review period beginning on December 23 and ending on January 24, 2000. The FEIS/EIR includes extensive analysis of potential environmental impacts under both CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). These findings pertain only to the requirements of CEQA pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. In some cases, the differences between CEQA and NEPA lead to different conclusions, as presented in the DEIS/EIR and FEIS/EIR. NEPA analyses in the DEIS/EIR and FEIS/EIR that do not apply to CEQA are not discussed herein, nor are impacts that are significant under NEPA but less than significant under CEQA. The FEIS/EIR identifies mitigation measures to avoid significant environmental impacts of the project or reduce them to less than significant levels. Miti~tion measures are also identified for environmental impacts of the project that are significant and unavoidable even though mitigation is applied. The FEIS/EIR also identifies implementation measures where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin E1S/EIR I SCH No. 9407 ! 005 FINDP;GS OF FAC'[ A';D 5;7ATEMEN'[ O[ C)VERRID1NG CON%IDERATIONS II. THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD CONTENTS OF THE RECORD The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings and the actions taken by City in certifying the FEIS/EIR and approving the project: 1. The FEIS/EIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference in the FEIS/EIR . All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the meetings, workshops and public hearings at which the Draft EIS/EIR (DEIS/EIR) or FEIS/EIR was considered by the City. 3. All testimony, documentary evidence, and correspondence of the Base Closure Task Force in which the DEIS/EIR or FEIS/EIR was considered. 4. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of meetings and other documents relied upon or prepared by City staffand consultants relating to the project. 5. Any other documents specified by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e). LOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD The City is the custodian of the administrative record, including all CEQA documents and the other back~ound documents and materials, which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which City Council decisions to certify the FEIS/EIR and approve the project are based. The administrative record is located at the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency at the City. of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 2 SCH No. 9407100> FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'fATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS III. PURPOSE OF FINDINGS The FEIS/EIR, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), evaluates the significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the project. Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the public agency approving or carrying out the project shall make written findings for each significant impact identified in the EIR. These findings include one of the following: 1. Changes or alteratiOns have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as defined in the EIS/EIR. . . Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility a. ndjurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or' project alternatives identified in the final EIR. These findings accomplish the following: 1. They address the significant environmental effects identified in the EIS/EIR for the approved project. 2. They incorporate all mitigation measures associated with these significant impacts identified in the FEIS/EIR. 3. They indicate whether a significant effect is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures to a less-than-significant level, 0r remain significant and unavoidable, either because there are no ' feasible mitigation measures or because, even with implementation of mitigation measures, a significant impact will occur. : The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the FEIS/EIR and other substantial evidence in the record of prOceedings. Each of the effects that remain potentially significant and unavoidable is considered acceptable by the City based on a determination that the benefits of the project outweigh the risks of the potentially significant environmental effect, as set forth in Section IX. Statement of Overriding Considerations. IV. INCORPORATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES INTO PROJECT DESIGN The mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR as feasible and within the City's responsibility and jurisdiction to implement are hereby incorporated into the design of the Disposal and Reuse projects as required by CEQA. The City shall implement these measures during project implementation. Where the FEIS/EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, the City finds that these other public agencies have adopted the measures, have agreed to adopt the measures, or can and should adopt them. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin El.WEIR 3 SCH No. 9407100~ FINDINGS (')F FACT AND ST/.,TEMEN'I OF OVERRIDING C'O,~'~%IDERATIO.~;S V. FINDINGS IMPACTS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE The FEIS/EIR indicates that the project would result in significant unavoidable impacts within six environmental impact issue areas. As described below in the findings for each of these impacts, there are either no feasible mitigation measures or the feasible mitigation measures would only partially mitigate the impact and the residual effect would remain significant. As set forth in Section IX. Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City finds that these impacts are acceptable in light of the projecfs benefits. AESTHETICS (FEIS/EIR SECTION 4.5 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) . IMPA CT: VISUAL IMPA CT Impact: The loss of both hangars would be a significant unavoidable visual impact. Mitigation Mitigation measures to retain both blimp hangars if economically feasible are included in Section 4.6 (Cultural and Paleontological Resources) of the FEIS/EIR and are discussed in Section V. of these findings. If not economically feasible, one or both of the hangars may be demolished to accommodate development. Ii'one hangar is demolished, impact would be less than significant. However, if both hangars are demolished, impact on aesthetics due to the change in views would be significant and unavoidable. Within this context, no mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to less than significant. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council also finds that there are no feasible mitigation measure that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technologiaal, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.6 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA C T: Impact: HISTORIC RESO UR CES IMPA CT All of the two discontinuous historic districts would be eliminated. The intent is to retain both hangars, if financially feasible, but one or both 'of the blimp hangars could be eliminated. ' The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set fOrth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with the elimination of the historic districts and potentially one or both blimp hangars. However, the residual effect will remain significant. Hist-1 Historic American Building Survey (HABS)- DON will complete the appropriate recordation for hangars 28 and 29 and the discontiguous historic district prior to conveyance of any property within the discontiguous historic district and shall ensure that copies of the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 4 SCH No. 9407 i 005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION,S recordation are.made available to SHPO, the City of Tustin, and any local or other archive facilities designated by SHPO. Hist-2 Hist-3 Hist-4 Curation -within 30 days of the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), DON will donate copies of plans and architectural drawings and other archival materials and records, as available, concerning the layout and the buildings and structures that made up the original Navy lighter'than-air blimp facility to a local curation facility. The City of Tustin or its designee will also be provided with copies of these materials. , As specified in the MOA, a substantive effort will be made to determine whether there is an economically viable adaptive use of Hangar 28 and Hangar 29. o If the marketing effort identifies an economically viable adaptive use of either of the complexes, that complex will be encumbered bY a historic preservation covenant. In the case of the Hangar 28 complex, these measures shall balance the needs of the adaptive use and the needs for effective operation of the Federal Lands to Parks or Historic Monument programs. Hist-5 IfNPS and/or SHPO determine that., despite a marketing effort that complies with the terms of the MOA or as agreed to by the City of Tustin/County of Orange, NPS, and/or SHPO, an economically viable adaptive use of the Hangar 28 complex was not identified, NPS and/or SHPO shall promptly advise DON and notify the City of Tustin/County of Orange that the following measures are required. Written HistOry - The City of Tustin/County of Orange .shall prepare an illustrated history report on 'MCAS TUSTIN, with emphasis on the initial construction of the Air Station and its World War II Navy lighter-than-air operations. bo Exhibit - The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare a professional-quality illustrated interpretive exhibit with emphasis on the initial construction of the air station and its World War II Navy lighter-than-air operations.' Interpretive Video - The City of Tustin/County of Orange shall prepare a professional-quality .documentary video and shall undertake a one-time distribution and outreach program for the documentary video. DON, the California State Historic Pi'eservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), the City of Tustin, and the County of Orange have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding cultural resources and the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin, which is included as Appendix H of the FEIS/EIIL The MOA specifies how the parties · will implement the mitigation measures above and binds the parties to implement the measures. ._ Findings . ,. Based onthe FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that the measures listed above will reduce the impact, but there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the impact to a less-than- Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONS;IDERATION% significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, have been adopted by the appropriate agency with approval of an MOA. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. · AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.8 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPACT: AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACT Impact: Existing farmland would no longer be cultiv.ated. Project development will result in the conversion of approximately 682 acres of Prime Farmland and 20 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance for a total of 702 acres of Farmland to non-agricultural use. Mitigation No miti~,ation measures exist to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Potential alternative miti_~ati~)n measures to reduce this impact were considered in the FEIS/EIR, but rejected as infeasible. Mitigation measures considered were: a) purchase of off-site agricultural farmland (infeasible due to cost between $210.6 and $421.2 million or 10 to 20 times greater than the City's annual general fund budget); b) purchase and improvement of non-agricultural farmland (infeasible because cost of doing so would exceed cost of buying agricultural farmland); c) protecting existing farmland using agricultural easements (infeasible due to cost of $105 to $210 million), transfer of development rights (infeasible because City has no power to establish program outside its jurisdiction, and does not have and is not contemplating such a program), right-to-farm ordinances (infeasible because neither the City nor the County has adopted such an ordinance, and City's General Plan does not identify agriculture as a long-term use), and/or Williamson Act applied to land elsewhere in county (infeasible since only short-term protection for existing agricultural land would be provided, and program is voluntary, preventing City or County from requiring land owners to enroll). Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that.will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION (SECTION 4.12 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: LONG-TERM TRAFFIC/CIR CULA TION IMPACTS A T THE INTERSECTIONS OF TUSTIN RANCH ROAD AND WALNUT AVENUE, AND JAMBOREE ROAD AND BARRANCA PARKtVA Y Impact: There would be decreased levels of service at certain intersections and road segments. With feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020).' Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR $CH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Mitigation The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buiidout (year 2020). However, the residual effect will remain significant. T/C-2 The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall ensure that the arterial intersection improvements required in 2005 and 2020 and as indicated in Tables 4.12-7 and 4.12-9 of the FEIS/EIR are implemented for their respective jurisdictions according to the cumulative ADT thresholds identified in each table and according to the fair share basis noted. The ADT threshold represents the traffic volume which would result in an impact and the fair share percentage reflects the percent of the traffic impact resulting from the reuse generated traffic. In some cases, reuse traffic would generate 100 percent of the impact, thereby assuming full financial responsibility for the identified improvements. In other cases, reuse traffic would generate only a fraction of the traffic impacting the intersection and financial responsibility would correspond. T/C-3 The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall contribute, on a fair share basis, to improvements to freeway ramp intersections as listed in Table 4.12-8 of the FEIS/EIR. The method of implementing the improvements, e.g., restriping, ramp widening, shall be based on special design studies, in association with Caltrans. T/C-4 The City of Tustin and the City of h'vine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine), shall ensure that all on-site circulation system improvements for the reuse plan area assumed in the 2005 and 2020 traffic analysis and as shown in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR are implemented according to the cumulative ADT thresholds identified in the table. Under this Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall monitor all new development within the site, accounting for the cumulative ADT generated by development projects. As each ADT threshold is reached, the roadway improvements listed in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR shall be constructed before any additional projects within the reuse plan area would be approved. -.' T/C-5 T/C-6 Prior to approval of a site development permit or vesting tract, except for financing or conveyance purposes, for all land use designation areas in Alternative 1 with the exception of the Learning Village, Community Park, and Regional Par/c, a project developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin and City oflrvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan area within Irvine) which assigns improvements required in the EIS/EIR to the development site and which' requires participation in a fair share mechanism to design and construct requim~l on-site and arterial improvements consistent with the ADT generation thresholds shown in Tables 4.12-7, 4.12-8, 4.12-9, and 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR.~ · . The City of Tustin and the City of h'vine, as applicable (for that portiOn of the reuse plan area in Irvine), will monitor new development within the reuse plan area, accounting for the Table references in the mitigation measures have been cha~ged bom Final FEI$/EIR to match the · correct table 'numbers in the FEIS/EIR. Disposal and Rcusc of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 7 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS, QF ~:ACT AND STATEMEN'I (7)t' f?VERP. IDIN(i C(;,'.;.MDERATI(')N~ T/C-7 T/C-8 T/C-9 cumulative ADTs generated by development projects within the reuse plan area. As each cumulative ADT threshold shown in Table 4.12-102 of the FEIS/EIR is reached, the roadway improvements listed shall be constructed before any additional projects within the reuse plan area are approved. The City of Tustin shall adopt a trip budget for individual portions of the reuse plan area to assist in the monitoring of cumulative ADTs and the amount and intensity of permitted non-residential uses as evaluated in the EIS/EIR. Alternative improvements that provide an equivalent level of mitigation in 2005 or 2020 to what is identified in Tables 4.12-7, 4.12-8, and 4.12-9 of the FEIS/EIR may be identified in consultation between the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, and the impacted jurisdiction. The City of Tustin shall enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate the effects of the proposed alternative are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. In order to properly coordinate the timing and improvements in the adjacent jurisdictions, the City of Tustin shall hold a scoping-like meeting with the respective jurisdictions. The purpose of said scoping-like meeting shall be to iden.tify the concerns of the respective jurisdictions prior to the initiation of the fair share study. The purpose of the study would be to fully identify, with each jurisdiction, the scope and costs of feasible improvements (as determined by the respective jurisdiction). The improvements would be acceptable to each jurisdiction toward fulfilling the timing and cost of the transportation improvement obligations'as required to mitigate transportation impacts in each jurisdiction. The funding for the improvements to be incorporated into the agreement would be utilized by the respective agency to improve the capacity of the impacted intersections/links or be used for substituted improvements, as determined by mutual agreement.. , Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction would be allowed ten (10) working days to review the technical report prior to being provided with a copy of the proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have ten (10) working days to review and comment as to its concurrence with the improvement programs contained in the agreement. The comments of each jurisdiction would be considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's 'responsibility for fair share funding of the improvements in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully addressed. Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR presents the Phasing Plan for th~ on-site circulation system. The Phasing Plan is based upon traffic circulation impact and mitigation analyses contained in the Traffic Report (Final Appendix F). Under this Phasing Plan, the City of Tustin shall monitor all new development within the Specific Plan, accounting for the cumulative ADT generated by development projects. As each ADT threshold is reached, the roadway Table references in the mitigation measures have been .changed from FinaI FEIS/EIR to match the correct table numbers in the FEIS/EIIL ~ Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 8 SCH No. 9407100:5 · FINDINGS OF FACT AND SI'ATEMEN'f OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS improvements listed in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR shall be constructed before any additional projects within the Specific Plan would be approved. IA-2 IA-3 Table 7-3 of the FEIS/EIR presents the Trip Budget which summarizes the square footage of non-residential uses allocated to each neighborhood by Planning Area and the associated ADT. (Residential uses are shown for information only, they are not part of the budget.) Pursuant to Section 3.2.4 of the Specific Plan, the City of Tustin shall implement the trip budget by neighborhood to control the amount and intensity of non-residential uses. Trip Budget transfers between neighborhoods shall also be implemented as directed in subsection 3.2.4 of the Specific Plan. Prior to the approval, of (1) a Planning Area Concept Plan pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Specific Plan, (2) a site development permit, or (3) a vesting tentative map for new square footage (not for financing or conveyance purposes), a project developer shall provide traffic information consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan, this EIS/EIR and the requirements of the City of Tustin Traffic Engineer. The traffic information shall (a) identify and assign traffic circulation mitigation measures required in the EIS/EIR pursuant to the Phasing Plan described in Table 4.12-10 of the FEI S/EIR; (b) evaluate the effects of either the delay of any previously committed circulation improvements or the construction of currently unanticipated circulation improvements; and (c) utilize the circulation system and capacity assumptions within the EIS/EIR and any additional circulation improvements completed by affected jurisdictions for the applicable timeframe of analysis. Prior to the issuance of building permits for new development within planning areas requiring a concept plan, a project developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin to (a) design and construct roadway improvements consistent with the ADT generation Phasing Plan described in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR and (b) address the impact of and specify the responsibility for any previously committed circulation improvements assumed in the EIS/EIR which have not been constructed. If a subsequent traffic Phasing Plan demonstrates that certain circulation improvements should be included in a different phase of Specific Plan development (accelerated or delayed) or that a circulation improvement can be substituted, the mitigation Phasing Plan in Table 4.12-10 of the FEIS/EIR may be amended, subject to approval of the City of Tustin and any other affected jurisdictions, provided that the same level of traffic mitigation and traffic capacity would be provided. . IA-6 The City of Tustin will enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate the effects of the Specific Plan are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. ~ In order to properly coordinate the timing and funding of fair share obligation of Specific Plan improvements in the adjacent jurisdictions, the City of Tustin shall hold a scoping-like meeting with the respective jurisdictions. The purpose of said scoping-like meeting shall be to identify the concerns of the respective jurisdictions prior to the initiation of the fair "share study: The purpose of the study would be to fully identify, with each jurisdiction, the scope and costs of feasible improvements (as determined by the respective jurisdiction). The improvements would be acceptable to each jurisdiction toward fulfilling the timing and Disposal and Reuse of MC,aS Tustin EIS/EIR 9 SCH No. 9407 ! 005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF f~vERRIDIN('; CONSIDERATIc)Nq, cost of the transportation improvement obligations of the Specific Plan as required to mitigate transportation impacts in each jurisdiction, as listed above. The funding for the improvements to be incorporated into the agreement would be utilized by the respective agency to improve the capacity ofthe impacted intersections/links or be used for substituted improvements~ as determined by mutual agreement. Prior to execution of the agreement, each jurisdiction would be allowed ten working days to review the technical report prior to being provided with a copy of the proposed agreement. Each jurisdiction would then have ten working days to review and comment as to its concurrence with the improvement programs contained in the agreement. The comments of each jurisdiction would be considered to ensure that the City of Tustin's responsibility for fair share funding of the improvements in each jurisdiction as stated above is fully addressed. IA-7 Each Specific Plan project wOuld contain, to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin and/or City of Irvine, as applicable, a pedestrian circulation Component showing pedestrian access to regional hik. ing trails, parks, schools, shopping areas, bus stops, and/or other public facilities. Mitieation measure T/C-9 requires the City of Tustin to enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate traffic effects are constructed pursuant to improvement programs established by the respective jurisdiction. For improvements identified within the jurisdiction of other agencies, those agencies can and should adopt them. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that the measures listed above will reduce the impact, but there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted by them. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. AIR QUALITY (SECTION 4.13 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPACT: Impact: AIR Q UALITY IMPA CTS FROM CONSTRUCTION Peak reduced emissions of suspended particulates (PM~0),"reactive organic compounds (ROC), and oxides of nitrogen (NO~) due to construction activities would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of signifiCance during some or all phases of the project. Mitigation '" .'. The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with air.. quality impac.ts from construction. However, the residual effect will.remain significant. .. ~ · SCH No. 94071005 Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 10 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AQ-I If determined feasible and aPpropriate on a project-by-project basis, the City of Tustin and the City oflrvine, as applicable, shall require individual development projects to implement one or more of the following control measures, if not already required by the SCAQMD under Rule 403: Apply water twice daily, or chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, to all unpaved parking or 'staging areas or unpaved road surfaces at all actively disturbed sites. Develop a construction traffic management plan that.includes, but is not limited to, rerouting construction trucks off congested streets, consolidating truck deliveries, and providing dedicated turn lanes 'for movement of construction trucks and equipment onsite and offsite. Use electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel or gasoline powered generators. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive 'for four days or more). Replace ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders according to manufacturers' specifications, to exposed piles of gravel, sand, or dirt. Cover all macks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, and maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and top of the trailer). Sweep'streets at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent roads (use water 'sweepers with reclaimed water when feasible). Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash offtrucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. AQ-2 Unless determined by the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, to be infeasible on a project-bY-project basis due to unique project characteristics, each city shall require individual development projects to use low VOC architectural coatings for all interior and exterior painting operations. · Mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 require the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, to require projects to implement measures to reduce emissiOns of criteria pollutants during construction if determined feasible and appropriate. on a pr°jeer-by-project b .as. isi The City oflrvine can and should adopt these mitigation measures. · .. · Findings _ Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and Unavoidable. The city Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, can and should be adopted 'by the City of Irvine. Specific economic, legal, Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR I 1 SCH No. 9407 ! 005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT (~F OVERRIDIN("} CO';glDERATION.~ social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as' more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, IMPA CT: AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM MOBILE (VEHICULAR) AND STATIONARY SOURCES Impact: Long-term operation emissions from mobile (vehicular) and stationary sources would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, NOx, and ROC. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and Will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will reduce potential impacts associated with long-term air quality impacts from mobile (vehicular) and stationary sources. However, the residual effect will remain significant. AQ-3 Prior to the issuance of development permits ~'or new non-residential projects with 100 or more employees, and expanded projects where additional square footage would result in a total of 100 or more employees, the City of Tustin and the City oflrvine, as applicable, shall impose a mix of TDM measures which, upon estimation, would result in an average vehicle ridership of at least 1.5, for each development with characteristics that would be reasonably conducive to successful implementation of such TDM measures. These TDM measures may include one or more of the following, as determined appropriate and feasible by each city on a case-by-case basis: - Establish preferential parking for carpool vehicles. - Provide bicycle parking facilities. - Provide shower and locker facilities. - Provide carpool and vanpool loading areas. - Incorporate bus stop improvements into facility design. - Implement shuttles to shopping, eating, recreation, and/or parking and transit facilities. - Construct remote parking facilities. - Provide pedestrian circulation linkages. - Construct pedestrian grade separations. - Establish carpool and vanpool programs. - Provide cash allowances, passes, and other public transit and purchase incentives. - Establish parking fees for single occupancy vehicles. -- Provide parking subsidies for rideshare'vehicles.' - Institute a computerized commuter rideshare matching system. - Provide a guaranteed fide-home program for ridesharing. , - Establish alternative work week, flex-time, and compressed work week schedules. - Establish telecommuting or work-at-home progrmns. - Provide additional vacation and compensatory leave incentives. - Provide on-site lunch rooms/cafeterias and commercial 'services such as banks, restaurants, and small retail. .. . ..~ - Provide on-site day care facilities. . - Establish an employee transportation coordinatOr(s). Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 12 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AQ-4 If not required under each individual development's TDM plan, the City of Tustin and the City of lrvine, as applicable, shall implement the following measures, as determined appropriate or feasible by each city on a case-by-case basis: - Reschedule truck deliveries and pickups for off-peak hours. - Implement lunch shuttle service from a worksite(s) to food establishments. - Implement compressed work week schedules where weekly work hours are compressed into fewer than five days, such as 9/80, 4/40, or 3/36. - Provide on-site child care and after-school facilities or contribute to off-site developments within walking distance. - Provide on-site employee services such as cafeterias, banks, etc. - Implement a pricing structure for single-occupancy employee parking, and/or provide discounts to ridesharers. - Construct off-site pedestrian facility improvements such as overpasses and wider sidewalks. - Include retail services within or adjacent to residential subdivisions. - Provide shuttles to major rail transit centers or multi-modal stations. - Contribute to regional transit systems (e.g., right-of-way, capital improvements, etc.). - Synchronize traffic lights on streets impacted by development. - Construct, contribute, or dedicate land for the provision of off-site bicycle trails linking the facility to designated bicycle commuting routes. - Include residential units within a commercial development. - Provide off-site bicycle facility, improvements, such as bicycle trails linking the facility to designated bicycle commuting routes, or on-site improvements, such as bicycle paths. - Include bicycle parking facilities such as bicycle lockers. - Include showers for bicycling and pedestrian employees' use. - Construct on-site pedestrian facility improvements, such as building access which is physically separated from street and parking lot traffic, and walk paths. :~ Mitigation measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 require the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable, to require projects to implement measures to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants during long-term operation if determinrd feasible and appropriate on a case-by-case basis. The City of Irvine can and should adopt these mitigation measures. Finding Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and Unavoidable. The City Council further finds that the measures listed above will reduce the impact, but there are no feasible mitigation measures-that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other Considerations justify' approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 13 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND S~ATEMI:N'F OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IMPA CT: INCONSISTENCY WITH SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN (SCAB) AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (A QMP) Impact: The proposed project has not been included in the modeling assumptions of the 1994 or 1997 AQMPs, and is therefore inconsistent with the AQMP. Mitigation No feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to less than significant. SCAQMD will need to include the proposed project in the 2000 AQMP, such that the proposed project will be consistent with future AQMPs. However, the project will not be consistent with the existing AQMP, which cannot be amended to include the project at this time. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS (CHAPTER 5.0 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: CUMULATIVE AESTHETIC IMPA CT Impact: Reuse ofMCAS Tustin and the possible resultant loss of both blimp hangars, in c. onjunction with other development in Orange County (in particular, reuse of the former MCAS El Toro), would result in a si~ificant change in the visual setting of the area. Mitigation Mitigation measures to retain both blimp hangars if economically feasible are included in Section 4.6 (Cultural and Paleontological Resource,s) of the FEIS/EIR and are discussed in Section V. of these findings. If not economically feasible, one or both of the hangars may be demolished to accommodate development. If one hangar is demolished, impact would be less than significant. However, if both hangars are demolished, impact on aesthetics due to the change in views would be significant and unavoidable. Within this context, no mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to less than . significant. Hence, the proposed project in conjunction with other development in Orange County, and in particular the disposal and reuse of the former MCAS El Toro, would contribute to significant cumulative visual impacts. DoN, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), the City of Tustin, and the County of Orange have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the blimp hangars, which is included as' Appendix H of the FEIS/EIR. The MOA specifies how the parties will implement the mitigation measures and binds the parties to implement the measures. Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin EIS/EIR - SCH No. 9407100> FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, have been adopted by the appropriate agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPACT: CUMULATIVE CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL IMPACTS Impact: The project would result in irreversibly eliminating most of the two discontiguous eligible historic districts and could result in the demolition of one or both blimp hangars, depending on whether reuse is financially feasible. These actions would contribute to a cumulative loss of World War II United States military development, which is increasingly being demolished due to military base closings. Mitigation Mitigation for historic resources included in the FEIS/EIR and in Section V. of these findings will reduce impacts to the degree feasible. However, the residual effect will remain significant. DoN, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic PreservatiOn, the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), the City of Tustin, and the County of Orange have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding cultural and paleontological resources and the disposal and reuse ofMCAS Tustin, which is included as Appendix H of the FEIS/EIR. The MOA specifies how the parties will implement the mitigation measures above and binds the parties to implement the measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that this impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the reSpOnsibilitY` and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, have been adopted by the appropriate agency~ SPecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPACT:' Impact: CUMULATIVE AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS ~ ' · The proposed project would result ih Conversion of approXimately 702 acres of " Farmland. While this conversion is typical in Orange County, the cumulative impact would be significant because this Farmland and other agricultural land being converted in Orange County.represents some of the last remaining agricultural land in the CoUnty. · , . . . · Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 15 SCH No. 9407100:> FINDING.t, OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIf'INS Mitigation No mitigation measures exist to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures to reduce this impact at the project level were considered in the FEIS/EIR, but rejected as infeasible. Mitigation measures considered were: a) purchase of off-site agricultural farmland (infeasible due to cost between $210.6 and $421.2 million or 10 to 20 times greater than the City's annual general fund budget); b) purchase and improvement of non-agricultural farmland (infeasible because cost of doing so would exceed cost of buying agricultural farmland); c) protecting existing farmland using agricultural easements (infeasible due to cost orS105 to $210 million), transfer of development rights (infeasible because City has no power to establish program outside its jurisdiction, and does not have and is not contemplating such a program), right-to-farm ordinances (infeasible because neither the City nor the County has adopted such an ordinance, and City's General Plan does not iaentify'agriculture as a long-term use), and/or Williamson Act applied to land elsewhere in county (infeasible since only short-term protection for existing agricultural land would be provided, and program is voluntary, preventing City or County from requiring land owners to enroll). Impact will be significant, irreversible, and unavoidable. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City. Council, the City Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-si~ificant level. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPA CT: CUMULATIVE TRANSPOR TA TION/CIR CULA TION IMPACTS Impact: The analysis of project-level impacts in the FEIS/EIR consider the project's contribution. to cumulative impacts. While most impacts can be. mitigated to less-than-significant levels, si~ificant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020) Mitigation Mitigation for transportation/circulation impacts included in the FEIS/EIR and in Section V. of these findings will reduce impacts tO the degree feasible. However, the residual effect at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut'Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020) will remain significant. · · Mitigation measure T/C-9 requires the City of Tustin to enter int° agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate traffic effects are constructed pursuant to improvement pro_m'ams established by the respective jurisdiction. For improvements identified within the jurisdiction of other agencies, those agencies can and should adopt them. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The City Council further finds that there are no feasible SCH No. 9407100> Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 16 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility' and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, have been adopted by the appropriate agency, or can and should be adopted. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. IMPA CT: CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Impact: The project, when considered with projected growth in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), will contribute to significant air quality impacts. Mitigation Mitigation for air quality impacts included in the FEIS/EIR and in Section V. of these Findings will reduce impacts to the degree feasible. However, the residual effect will remain significant. Mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 require the City of Tustin and the City. of Irvine, as applicable, to require projects to implement measures to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants if determined feasible and appropriate on a project-by-project basis. The City of Irvine can and should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that the impact is significant and unavoidable. The. City Council further finds that there are no feasible mitigation measures that will reduce this impact to a less-than-si~ificant level. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin, can and should be adopted by the appropriate agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations justify approval of the project notwithstanding this impact as more fully described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 17 SCH No. 94071005 FINDING.% OF FACT AND .C, TATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CO'-~5, IDERATION% VI. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS REDUCED TO LESS- THAN-SIGNIFICANT LEVELS BY MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The FEIS/EIR identifies significant impacts that are reduced to a less-than-s~gmficant level by the inclusion in the project approval of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR. It is hereby determined that these significant environmental impacts of the project will be avoided or substantially lessened by the inclusion of the identified mitigation measures. LAND USE (SECTION 4.11 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPACT: LAND USE Impact: Land use categories would not be consistent with the City of Tustin General Plan, the Tustin zoning ordinance, the City oflrvine General Plan, and the Irvine zoning ordinance. Planned development may have compatibility impacts between land uses. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impact to less-than-significant levels. LU-1 The City of Tustin shall amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be consistent with planned land uses. Any zoning ordinance shall include site design measures such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to ensure high quality development and compatibility between land uses. The goal is to assure that the overall appearance of development on the site is at least similar in quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other adjacent cities. LU-2 The City oflrvine shall amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be consistent with planned land uses. Any zoning ordinance shall include site design measures such as buffering, landscaping, screening, and setbacks, to ensure high quality development and compatibility between land uses. The goal is to assure that the overall appearance of development on the site is at least similar in quality to other master planned areas in Tustin and other adjacent cities. · . Mitigation measure LU-2 requires the City of Irvine to amend its General Plan and zoning ordinance to be consistent with planned land uses. The City of Irvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects t° less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibilit3' and jurisdiction of an agency or. agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 18 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AESTHETICS (SECTION 4.5 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: VISUAL Impact: There is the potential for visual impacts if landscaping and urban design do not fully address aesthetic considerations; i.e., do not maintain view corridors, provide screening, or incorporate landscaping. Mitigation Measures The following implementation measures are herebY adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These implementation measures will mitigate the iml~acts to less-than-significant levels. Vis-1 In conjunction with any zoning ordinance amendments to implement the reuse plan in Tustin or Irvine, an urban design plan shall be adopted to provide for distinct and cohesive architectural and landscape design, features and treatments, as well as harmony with adjacent landscaping. The urban design plan shall have the following elements: · landscaping concept and master signage plan; · design review and approval process; · limits on development intensity for each specific land use; · limits on height of structures and lot coverage; · minimum site building setbacks; · minimum on-site landscaping requirements; · buffering requirements, including berms, masonry walls, and landscaping; · lighting regulations, including regulations ensuring that exterior li~ting does not negatively impact surrounding property; · screening regulations for mechanical equipment and outside storage; and · site signage requirements, including sign'permit approval. Mitigation measure Vis-1 requires the City of Irvine to implement an urban design plan. The City of Irvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the.City of Tustin can and should be adopted. CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.5 AND CHAPTER 7.0 . OF THE FEIS/EIK) ' . , IMPA CT: Impact: Grading in the four-acre parcel that has not been surveyed may result in impacts to $CH No. 94071005 Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 19 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATt.~MENI' OI- OVERRIDING archaeological resources, if they are present. Grading in the reuse plan area may uncover buried archaeological resources. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impacts to less-than-significant levels. Arch-1 Arch-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the four-acre parcel currently outside the boundaries of the Air Station along Harvard Avenue shall be surveyed to determine the presence/absence of archaeological resources prior to grading. o Prior to issuance of grading permits, the cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each require applicants of individual development projects to retain, as appropriate, a county-certified archaeologist. If buried resources are found during grading within the reuse plan area, a qualified archaeologist would need to assess the site significance and perform the appropriate mitigation. The Native American view point shall be considered during this process. This could include testing or data recOvery. Native American consultation shall also be initiated during this process. Mitigation measure Arch-2 requires the City of Irvine to require applicants of individual development projects to retain, as appropriate, a county-certified archaeologist prior to issuance of grading permits. The City of Irvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City. Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. IMPACT: PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: Earthwork activities may destroy geological deposits within which unique paleontological resources are buried. ,. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impact to less-than'significant levels. Palco-1 The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall each require applicantS, of individual development projects to comply with the requirements established in a PRMP prepared for the site, which details the methods to be used for surveillance of construction grading, assessing finds, and actions to be taken in the event that unique paleontological resources are , discovered during construction. SCH No. 9407100> Disposal and Reuse o1' MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 20 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Palco-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, project applicants shall provide written evidence to each city, that a county-certified paleontologist has been retained to conduct salvage excavation of unique paleontological resources if they are found. Mitigation measures Paleo-I and Palco-2 require the City of lrvine to require applicants of individual development projects to comply with the requirements established in a PRMP prepared for the site. The City of Irvine can. and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin:City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (SECTION 4.7 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact: Approximately 12.8 acres of jurisdictional waters would be indirectly impacted by channel improvements by OCFCD. Another 16.2 acres of jurisdictional waters, of which 2.4 acres are classified as vegetated or seasonal wetlands, would be directly impacted by reuse. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impacts to less-than-significant levels. Bio-1 Bio-2 The project proponents of any development affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or vegetated wetlands shall obtain Section 404, Section 1601, and other permits as necessary,: A replacement ratio for affected wetland resources shall be determined in consultation with regulatory agencies as part of the permitting process. The actions proposed on Peters Canyon Channel shall be mitigated by the OCFCD who is the project proponent for flood control improvements. Based on consultations with CDFG, City of Tustin, or project proponent as applicable, an off-site relocation site for southwestern pond turtles captured on site shall be identified that is as close to the reuse plan area as possible, and that is sustainable in perpetuity. (No appropriate habitat in the City of Tustin is available for relocation.) Potential relocation sites include but are not limited to an old pond (currently thought dry) located in upper Shady Canyon within the Orange County Nature Preserve that coUld be improved or restored to serve as a relocation site; or San Joaquin Marsh, which is managed by UC Irvine, Irvine Ranch, and the Orange County Water District. Some property, owners and public agencies may be adverse to the relocati~)n Of species of special concern onto their property or jurisdiction, and it would be speculative to identify actual sites prior to completion of consultation with CDFG and with-p°t~ntial property owners and/or appropriate public agencies. Disposal and Reuse of MC.aS Tustin EIS/EIR 21 SCH No. 9407 ! 005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMFNT ¢')F OVERRIDING ('ON.$1DERATIC)bLg Bio-3 Permits from the CDFG shall be obtained for live-capture of the turtles and for transporting them to the relocation site. Bio-4 An agreement shall be negotiated with the CDFG, City of Tustin, project proponent, or other agency or organization as appropriate, for contribution of funds to improve, restore, or create the relocation site as turtle habitat. Mitigation measure Bio-I requires that project proponents of any development affecting jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and~OCFCD replace affected wetland resources at a ratio determined in consultation with regulatory agencies as part of the permitting process. Mitigation measures Bio-2 through Bio-4 require that CDFG, the City of Tustin, project proponent, or oiher appropriate agency or organization enter into an agreement to improve, restore, or create a relocation site for turtle habitat and that permits shall be obtained for live-capture of turtles. OCFCD, CDFG, and other appropriate agencies can and' should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that chances or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIR, by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION (SECTIONS 4.12 AND 7.2.12 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA C T: SHORT-TERM TRA FFIC/CIR CULA TION IMPACTS FROM CONSTRUCTION Impact: There would be potential short-term delay and road closures during construction. There would be decreased levels of service at certain intersections and road segments. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impacts to less-than-significant levels. T/C-1 In conjunction with the approval of a site development permit, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as applicable (for that portion of the reuse plan within Irvine), shall require each 'developer to provide traffic oPerations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. The plans shall address roadv,"ay and lane closures, truck hours and routes,'and notification procedures for planned short-term or interim changes in traffic patterns. The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, as appli6able, shall ensure that the plan would minimize anticipated delays at major intersections2 Prior to approval, the City of Tustin Or the City of Irvine, as applicable shall review the proposed traffic control and operations plans with any affected jurisdiction. Mitigation measUre T/C-1 requires the City oflrvine to require each developer to provide traffic operations and control plans that would minimize the traffic impacts of proposed construction activity. SCH No. 9407100:. Disposal and Reuse of MC.aS Tustin EIS/EIR 22 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of Irvine can and should adopt this mitigation measure. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EIIL by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. IMPA CT: Impact: LONG- TERM TRA FFIC/CIR CULA TION IMPACTS A number of intersections would be significantly impacted at buildout of the project. Most of these impacts can be miti~ted to a level of less than significant. However, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full build0ut (year 2020). These unmitigable impacts are discussed in Section V. of these findings. All other impacts would be less than si~ificant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures for long-term traffic/circulation impacts listed in Section V. of these findings are herebY, adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impacts to less-than-si~ificant levels, except at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year 2020). Mitigation measure T/C-9 requires the City of Tustin to enter into agreements with Caltrans and the cities of Santa Ana and Irvine to ensure that the off-site roadway improvements needed to mitigate traffic effects are constructed pursuant to improvement pro_re'ams established by the respective jurisdiction. For improvements identified within the jurisdiction of other agencies, those agencies have agreed to adopt the measures, or can and should adopt them. Findings Based on' the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EI1L by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. NOISE (SECTION 4.14 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) IMPA CT: LONG- TEIU~I NOISE IMPACTS FR OM OPEI~t TION impact: The proposed extension of Tustin Ranch Road could expose existing residences to noise levels ~eater than 65 dB(A) CNEL. Some existing residential units within the reuse area may experience noise levels _ureater than 65 dB(A) CNEL. With reuse and future development, noise levels at residential and park locations adjacent-to Warner Avenue may exceed 65 dB(A) CNEL. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 23 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS, OF FACT AND .%TATE~v ..... f OF OVERRIDING £'ON.qlDERATION.~ Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP. These measures will mitigate the impact to less-than-significant levels. N-I N-2 Prior to reuse of any existing residential units within the reuse area for civilian use, the City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, and where necessary and feasible, shall require the installation of noise attenuation barriers, insulation, or similar devices to ensure that interior and exterior noise levels at these residential units do not exceed applicable noise standards. During design of the grade-separated intersection of Tustin Ranch Road at Edinger Avenue, the City of Tustin shall evaluate potential noise impacts on surroundirig properties to the northeast of Edinger Avenue and shall incorporate into the design of this intersection noise attenuation measures determined appropriate and feasible by the City of Tustin, in order to ensure that these surrounding properties do not experience noise levels that exceed City of Tustin noise standards. N-3 For new development within the reuse area, the City of Tustin and City of Irvine, as applicable, shall ensure that interior and exterior noise levels do not exceed those prescribed by state requirements and local city ordinances and general plans. Plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity shall be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits being issued to accommodate reuse. . N~4 Prior to the connection of Warner Avenue to the North Loop Road or the South Loop Road, the City of Tustin shall conduct an acoustical study to assess reuse traffic noise impacts to existing sensitive receptors adjacent to Warner Avenue, between Harvard Avenue and Culver Drive. If mitigation of reuse traffic noise impacts is required, the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine shall enter into an agreement that defines required mitigation and which allocates the cost of mitigation between the City of Tustin and the City of Irvine on a fair share basis. Mitigation measures N-1 through N4 require the City of Irvine to take steps to reduce potential noise impacts. The City of Irvine can and should adopt these mitigation measures. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project that will avoid the significant effects as identified in the FEIS/EI1L by reducing potential effects to less-than-significant levels. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of an agency or agencies other than the City. of Tustin, can and should be adopted. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 24 SCH No. 9407100~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS VII. FINDINGS CONCERNING LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES The FEIS/EIR identifies implementation measures to ensure that adequate utilities and public services and facilities are provided concurrently with development within the reuse plan area. Implementation measures are to be required where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. For these purPoses, both implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified and are equally enforceable. It is hereby determined that these implementation measures will ensure that utilities and public services and facilities are provided when needed. UTILITIES (SECTION 4.3 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/EIR) NEED: PRO VISION OF UTILITIES CONCURRENT WITH DEMAND Need: To support proposed development in the reuse plan area, backbone utility systems must be provided concurrent with demand. . Implementation Measures The following implementation measures are hereby adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP: (a) The City of Tustin or City oflrvine, as appropriate, shall ensure that infrastructure is constructed in phases as triggered by identified thresholds in Table 4.3-1 of the FEIS/EIR. The Phasing Plan provides an organizational framework to facilitate development of the reuse plan area in tandem with infrastructure necessary to support the planned development. This framework reflects the fact that each component of the infrastructure has its own threshold for accommodating additional development toward build-out of the reuse plan area. The triggering mechanisms that identify timing of key infrastructure provisions are summarized in. Table 4.3~1 of the FEIS/EIR. (b) (c) (d) Prior to a final map recordation (except for financing and reconveyance purPoses), the- development applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin and City of Irvine and any appropriate regional utility agencies, districts, and providers, as applicable, to dedicate all easement, rights-of-way, or other land determined necessary to construct adequate utility infrastructure and facilities to serve the project as determined by the city, agency, district, or other providers.'"' Prior to any final map recordation (except for financing and conveyance purposes), the development applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the cities of Tustin and/or Irvine, as applicable, to participate on a pro-rated basis in construction of capital improvements necessary to provide adequate utility facilities. 'Prior to the issuance of permits for any public improvements or development project, a development applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin and City oflrvine, as applicable, information from IRWD which outlines required facilities necessary to provide adequate potable water and reclaimed a~ter service to the development. SCH No. 9407100:, Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 25 FINDINGS, OF FACT AND 57ATEM .... I 0F OVERRIDING C'ON.qlDERATIC)N.q (e) (0 (g) (h) (i) (J) (lc) Prior to the issuance of the certificates of use and occupancy, the project developer shall ensure that fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire flow requirements. Prior to the issuance of permits for any public improvements or development project, a development applicant shall submit to the City of Tustin and City oflrvine, as applicable, information from IRWD, OCSD, or the City of Tustin which outlines required facilities necessary to provide adequate sanitary sewage service to the development. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or apt3roval of any subdivision map (except for financing and reconveyance purposes), whichever occurs first, for development within the 100-year flood plain, grading and drainage systems shall be designed by the project developer such that all building pads would be safe from inundation from runoff from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year storm, to the satisfaction of the City of Tustin Building Division or the Irvine Public Works Department, as applicable. Grading permits or subdivision maps generated for financing and reconveyance purposes are exempt. Prior to construction of regional flood control facilities, appropriate state and federal approvals, including agreements and permits, shall be obtained. These include but are not limited to Regional Water Quality Control Board permits, including NPDES permits; Section 404 permits from the USACOE, and Section 1601 or 1603 agreements from the CDFG in a manner meeting the approval of the City of Tustin and the Irvine Public Works Department, as applicable. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or approval of any subdivision map (except for financing and conveyance purposes), for any development that is either partially or completely located within the 100-year flood plain of the Flood Insurance Rate Map, the development applicant shall submit all required documentation to the FEMA and demonstrate that the application for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision for changes to the 100-Year flood plain is satisfied in a manner meeting the approval of each respective city, as applicable. Prior to the approval of any applicable subdivision map (except for financing and conveyance purposes), the developer-applicant shall design and construct local drainage systems for conveyance of the 10-year runoff. If the facility is in a local sump, it shall be designed to convey the 25-year runoff. Prior to any grading for any new development, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Tustin, City of Irvine, and/or OCFCD, as applicable: (1) A drainage study including diversions (i.e., off-site areas that drain onto and/or through the project site), with justification and appropriate mitigation for any proposed diversion; Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 26 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS (2) A drainage study evidencing that proposed drainage patterns would not result in increased 100-year peak discharges within and downstream of the project limits, and would not worsen existing drainage conditions at storm drains, culverts, and other street crossings including regional flood control facilities. The study shall also propose appropriate mitigation for any increased runoff causing a worseping condition of any existing facilities within or downstream of project limits. Implementation of appropriate interim or ultimate flood control infrastructure construction must be included. (3) Detailed drainage studies indicating how, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water/'etarding, building pads are made safe from runoff inundation which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. (1) Prior to approval of any subdivision map (except for financing or conveyance purposes), an a~eement will be executed with the OCFCD that provides for the identification and contribution of a project-specific fair share contribution toward the construction of ultimate flood control facilities needed to accommodate build-out of the affected project. Interim flood control facilities may be considered for approval provided such facilities meet OCFCD requirements. Nothing shall preclude the City of Tustin from transferring the obligation onto other project developers within the project area. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that these implementation measures have been incorporated into the project. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Irvine or other agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES (SECTION 4.4 AND CHAPTER 7.0 OF THE FEIS/Em) NEED: PR 0 VISION OF PUBLIC SER VICES AND FA ClLITIES CONCURRENT WITH DEMAND - ,. .. Need: To support proposed development~in the reuse plan area, public services and facilities must be provided concurrent .with demand. Implementation Measures . The following implementation measures are hereby.adopted and will be implemented as set forth in the MMRP: _ General (m) The City of Tustin and the City of Irvine, each within its respective jurisdiction, shall · ensure that adequate fire protection, police protection, and par~ and recreation facilities Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 27 SCH No. 9407 ! 005 · FINDINGS OF FACT AND S~'ATEMENT OF OVERRIDING C'r)'-:MDERATI (including bikeways/trails) needed to adequately serve the reuse plan area shall be provided as necessary. To eliminate any negative impact the project could have on each community's general fund, financing mechanisms including but not limited to developer fees, assessment district financing, and/or tax increment financing (in the event that a redevelopment project area is created for the site), shall be developed and used as determined appropriate by each City. Specifically; (1) Applicants for private development projects shall be required to enter into an agreement with City of Tustin or the City of Irvine, as applicable, to establish a fair-share mechanism to provide needed fire and police protection services and parks and recreation facilities (inclUding bikeways) through the use of fee schedules, assessment district financir~g, Community Facility District financing, or other mechanisms as determined appropriate by each respective city. (2) Recipients of property through public conveyance process shall be required to mitigate any impacts of their public uses of property on public services and facilities. (n) The cities of Tustin and Irvine shall jointly consult and coordinate with the OCPFRD/Harbors, Beaches and Parks, Program Management and Coordination Division, in preparation of trail designs for the Peters Canyon and Barranca trails within the reuse plan area. Improvements for each of these trails would be installed upon completion of flood control channel improvements and approval of their joint use by the OCPFRD. Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Services (o) (p) (q) Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit issuance for development (eXcept for financing and reconveyances purposes), the project developer could be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Tustin or City oflrvindOCFA, as applicable, to address impacts of the project on fire services. Such agreement could include participation for fire protection, personnel and equipment necessary, to serve the project and eliminate any negative impacts on fire protection services. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall work closely with the OCFA to ensure that adequate fire protection measures are implemented in the project. Prior to issuance of building permits for phased prOjects, the project developer shall submit a construction phasing plan to the OCFA demonstrating that emergency vehicle access is adequate. (r) Prior to the iSsuance of building permits, the project developer shall submit a fire hydrant location-plan for the review and approval of the Fire Chief and ensure that fire hydrants capable of flows in amounts approved by the OCFA are in place and operational to meet fire flow requirements. ., Police Protection · (s) Prior to issuance of building permits, the project developer shall work closely with the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 28 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS respective Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project. Schools Prior to the issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the project developer shall submit to the respective City proof of payment of appropriate school fees adopted by the applicable school district. Parks and Recreation (u) (v) (w) Prior to the first final map recordation (except: for financing and reconveyance purposes) or building permit issuance for development within the City of Tustin portion of the site, the project developer shall be required to provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of Tustin Park Code. Prior to the first final map recordation or building permit issuance within the City of Irvine portion of the site, the project developer shall be required to provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and standards of the City of Irvine Park Code. Prior to the first concept plan for tentative tract map in the City of Tustin, the project developer shall file a petition for the creation of a landscape maintenance district for the project area with the City of Tustin. The district shall include public neighborhood parks, landscape improvements, and specific trails (Barranca only), the medians in arterials, or other eligible items mutually agreed to by the petitioner and the City of Tustin. In the event that a district is not established prior to issuance of the first building permit, maintenance of items mentioned above shall be the responsibility of a community association. (x) "Prior to approval of any subdivision map (except for financing or conveyance purposes), an agreement will be executed with the following agencies for the associated trail improvements: ao County of Orange Harbors, Beaches - identification of a project-specific fair share contribution toward the installation of necessary regional bikeway trail improvements within Peters Canyon Channel, to be installed in conjunction with the County of Orange's other channel improvements; bo C'ity of Tustin -the identification of a project-specific fair share contribution toward the installation of Class II bicycle trails through the project site. For the area of the site northeast oflrvine Center Drive, a separate agreement would be required to ensure the provision ora bikeway right-of-way easement, and design and construction of a bike trial along the SCRKA/OCTA rail tracks from Harvard Avenue westerly to the Peters Canyon Channel. In addition, project developers of the areas of the site'southeast of the Peters Canyon Channel would need to accommodate access to both the Peters Canyon Trail and the trail adjacent to the SCKRA/OCTA tracks in any project site design including dedication of any necessary recreational trail easements; SCH No. 94071005 Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 29 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STA'[EMENT OF OVERRIDING CONMDERATI(')N.c, City of Tustin - the identification of a project-specific fair-share contribution toward installation of Class I bikeway trail improvements northerly of Barranca Parkway after completion of the Barranca Channel improvements. For proposed developments adjacent to Barranca Channel, separate agreements would be required to ensure the establishment of a bikeway right-of-way easement between Jamboree Road and Red Hill Avenue. Findings Based on the FEIS/EIR and the entire record before the Tustin City Council, the City Council finds that these implementation measures have been incorporated into the project. The City Council further finds that those measures listed above which are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Irvine or other agency or agencies other than the City of Tustin can and should be adopted. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 30 SCH No. 9407100> FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS VIII. FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091, the City of Tustin (City) upon review of the FEIS/EIR, including the comments and responses therein, and based on all the information and evidence in the records, hereby makes the findings set herein: CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project..." (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a)). Ifa project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects ora proposed project, the decision maker shall not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make the alternatives infeasible. The findin~ with respect to alternatives to the project identified in the EIR are described in this section. REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES The EIS/EIR analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives, including the DON Disposal Alternative, the LRA Reuse Alternative (described in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 1, for which these findings address), two other alternatives (described in the FEIS/EIR as Alternatives 2 and 3), and the No Action Alternative (described in the FEIS/EIR as Alternative 4). The alternatives presented in the FEIS/EIR were developed based on applicable laws and from extensive public and other public agency input during the reuse planning process (as described in Chapter 2.0 of the FEIS/EIR). These alternatives focused on different progxammatic objectives identified .by the City, DON, the City's Base Closure Task Force, the public, and other Public agencies. Key differences between the three reuse alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The City, as required by federal laws, undertook extensive public outreach to homeless service providers to ~olicit and consider conveyance requests, as discussed in Section 2.2.2 of the FEIS/EIR. Also, a number of additional alternatives for the'site were Considered but rejected, as discussed in Section 2.3 of the FEIS/EIR. .The DON Disposal Alternative anal3zes the direct environmental effects of DON's disposal of MCAS Tustin, without consideration of the reuse options, pursuant to DON NEPA guidelines. Since this disposal action is necessary for the three reuse alternatives, it is inherent to each reuse alternative, and is not considered fUrther in these findings. ' . ~ · The No Action Alternative evaluated in the FEIS/EIR is in compliance with NEPA. N© Action may be defined as the continuation of an existing plan, policy, or procedure, or as failure to implement an action. CEQA also requires a No Project Alternative.' The No Action Alternative and the No Project Alternative. are equivalent in the context of the analysis in the FEIS/EIR, and are considered together as the 'qqo Action Alternative" in the FEIS/EI1L The reuse alternatives considered in the FEIS/EIR (Alternatives 1, 2, 3) are anal.v'zed in equal level of detail. Table I summarizes the three reuse alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2, and 3) considered in the FEIS/EIR, and Table 2 summarize the key differences between the three reuse alternatives. SCH No. 94071005 Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 31 FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'fATEMENT OI' ¢)VERRIDING CONS, IDERATIONS Table 1 Summary Comparison of Land Development and Buiidout Characteristics of Alternatives Residential (number of dwelling units [DU]) Low Density Residential (1-7 DU/Acre) 1,421em) 1,729 1,460 Medium Density Residential (8-15 DU/Acre) 1,701°) 2,132 1,865 (2) Medium to High Density Residential (16-25 DU/Acre) 1,479(3) High Density Residential (16-25 DU/Acre) 2,344(4) 1,015 (4) Total Dwelling Units .4,601 6,205 4,340 Commercial/Institutional/Recreational (square footage) Transitional/Emergency Housing 133,294 0 0 Commercial/Business 4,305,251 5,623,867 5,142,528 Commercial 713,412 1,258,884 1,219,593 Commercial/Recreation 0 437,560 437,560 Village Services 315,592 0 0 Village Mixed-Use 0 929,420 712,467 Community Core 3,630,726 0 0 Reserve Area 0 0 1,702,464 Golf Village (includes hotel) 280,526 0 0 Hotel 0 339,768 283,140 Learning Village 1,412,651 0 0 Institutional/Commercial 0 351,268 467,037 Cultural Center 0 570,636 557,568 Community Park 40,531 312,543 394,218 Urban Regional Park 574,992 0 0 Total Square Feet of Building Floor Area 11,406,975 9,214,585 10,916,575 Area (acreage)(s) and Percentage of Development Residential 445 (28%) 558 (35%) 368 (23%) Commercial/Business 738 (46%) 739 (46%) 915 (57%) Institutional/Recreational 238 (15%) 131 (8%) 139 (8%) Roadways/Drainage 186 (12%) 178 (11%) 184 (11%) Total Acreage 1,606 1,606 1,606 Approximate On-site Population 12,514 16,408 11,986 Approximate Employment~s) 77,401 67,723 66,454 Approximate Average Daily Vehicle Trips 215,093 268,130 294,887 (m) Includes dwelling units in Golf Village. (:) Includes dwelling units in Reserve Area. . (3) Includes dwelling units in Community Core, residential density consistent with Irvine General Plan Category. (4) Includes dwelling units in Village l~xed-Use, residential density consistent with Tustin General Plan Category. (s) Rounded to the nearest acre. (s). Includes direct, indirect/induced, and construction. Note: .All acreage figures are estimates only. Figures in the text and the tables are included for discussion purposes. More detailed numbers (tenth of an acre) are provided in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan (City of Tustin 1996b) and Errata (City.of Tustin 1998) SCH No. 9407100:, Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 32 FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'rATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Table 2 Key Differentiating Factors Between Alternativest3) Issue I Unit I Alternative I I Alternative 2 I Alternative 3 sooo co o ,,c Housing ] DU I 4'6°I I 6'2°51 4,340 Employment Construction (Direct) Jobs' 37,468 35.208 33,100 Direct (Project) Jobs 24,852 2 !,380 22,080 lndirecfflnduced Jobs 15,081 ! 1,137 11,274 (nun-construction) Total Jobs 77,401 67,723 66,454, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Aesthetics Impacts to Prominent Blimp Hangars If both features retained, no l Loss of one feature, not Loss of one feature, not Visual Features significant impact. Loss of significant; loss of both significant; loss ofboth one feature, not significant; features significant and features significant and loss of both features unavoidable. !unavoidable. significant and unavoidable. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Impacts to Historic Blimp Hangars Retain both hangars, no ~Loss of one hangar. Loss of one hangar, Buildings significant impact. Loss of significant and significant and one hangar, significant and unavoidable. Loss of both unavoidable. Loss of unavoidable. Loss ofboth hangars significant and both hangars significant hangars significant and unavoidable, and unavoidable. unavoidable. Public Services and Facilities Reduce Existing 107 ac. Acres Created 85 56 51 Parkland Deficit % of Need 79 521 48 Indirect Impacts to No. of Students 82/509 67/437 i 68/452 SAUSD(' Generated Traffic/Circulation Number of. Significant, Year 2005 0! 0 0 Unmitigable Intersections Number of Significant, Year 2020 2 5 4 Unmifigable Intersections Air Qualityn~ CO poUnds/day- 13,333 17,855 18,271 ROC - · PoUnds/day ., 867 1.252 1,303 " 3,116 .3.891 3,940 NOx pOunds/day i PM,, Pounds/day (54) (35) (34) SOx i poUncLs/daY 241 · 295 296 DU = Dwelling Units ' c, Figures represent iow/high estimates based on two methods of estimating indirect/induced jobs generated in SAUSD. al At buildout, operations emissions, net from baseline, including mitigation measures. All but PM~u would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. o~ Information regarding air quality, traffic/circulation, and cultural and paleontological resources presented in this table, derived from Table 2-15 ofthe FEIS/EIR, has been altered to match the body text ofthe FEIS/EIIL _ Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin E1S/EIR 33 SCH No. 94071005 FACT AND .c,'I'ATEMEN1 (')F OVERRIDING C'ON.qlDERATIONS PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin are: (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) Offset the negative socioeconomic effects caused by the Base Realignment And Closure Act; Reuse these properties under an economically viable and balanced reuse plan; Provide housing and employment opportunities; Solve existing community circulation and recreation parkland deficiencies; and Generate sufficient revenue (property tax, sales tax or others) to support the investment in infrastructure reqUired to improve the site for civilian purposes. . ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED DEIS/EIR Chapter 2.0 (Alternatives Considered) describes the project and other alternatives to the project considered during development of the project (see Table 1). DEIS/EIR Chapters 4.0 and 7.0 and DEIS/EIR Table ES-3 compares the potential environmental impacts of the project and the alternatives, including the DON Disposal Alternative and the No Action Alternative. With the exception of the DON Disposal Alternative and the No Action Alternative, these alternatives would result in significant impacts in the same environmental impact issue areas as the project, as described in Section V. of these findings, primarily due to the scope of the disposal and reuse ofMCAS Tustin. However, the degree of impact for the project and each alternative in some cases differs, as described later in this Section VIII. Except for the significant unavoidable impacts that are common to each alternative, the impacts associated with each alternative can be reduced to less than si~ificant with mitigation (as described in Section 4.0 of the DEIS/EIR). Thus, the alternatives are not clearlY distinguished by the number or type of significant impact they generate, but by the de~ee of impact they generate. Compared to the project (described in the FEIS/EIR as the LRA Reuse Alternative or Alternative 1 ), the alternatives do result in more or less of some of the impacts. Table 1 provides a brief summary of the key characteristics of the three reuse alternatives, including the project (which is described in the FEIS/EIR as the LRA Reuse Alternative or Alternative 1). A more detailed description of the alternatives is included below. LRA REUSE ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 1) The project considered ia these findings is Alternative 1 of the EIS/EIR, the LRA Reuse Alternative.' This alternative proposes a variety of housing, employment, recreation, educational, and community support uses designed to complement the existing urban character of the surrounding'area and strengthen the economic base of Tustin and nearby cities. The development of this alternative would result in the most building space, parkland, and educational uses. Among the three' action alternatives, °nly this alternatiVe would result in: Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Regional park developed around the northern blimp. hangar (which would be reused if financially feasible); a large Community Core developed with mixed uses; and specialiZed educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village campus (see descriptions below). ~ This alternative would permit reuse of some of the existing military structures and..facilities, including recreational facilities such as baseball, softball, volleyball, football, and soccer fields plus basketball and Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 34 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CO~;$1DERATIONS tennis courts. In addition, the two blimp hangars,-which contain 660,416 square feet of floor area, would be adaptively used if financially feasible. The northern blimp hangar could Support regional recreational activities in the form of special events center, sports center, museum, and historical aircraft restorations. The southern hangar could be used for film production, warehouse facilities, or light industrial uses permitted by the plan. Including the hangars, approximately 1.8 million square feet of structures, plus ],537 housing units, could be reused under this alternative. Key components of the land use plan under this alternative include the following: Residential (LDR, MI)R, MHDR) Residential development with 4,601 units are proposed in the northern and southeastern portions of the reuse plan area, adjacent to existing neighborhoods in a variety of housing types at varying densities. This could include rehabilitation or redevelopment of the existing 1,537 attached military family housing units, if economically feasible. An 8-acre neighborhood park is also proposed. Transitional/Emergency Housing (T/EH) Existing military barracks housing would be reused as a 192-bed Transitional/Emergency Housing facility · for the homeless. Commercial/Business (CB) Commercial/Business use (high-tech research and development, professional office, retail, and other specialized employment/merchandising uses) would be concentrated in the southwestern portion of the reuse plan area On approximately 265 acres of land. Commercial (C) A regionally oriented commercial district (approximately 55 acres) would be developed within the southern portion of the reuse plan area. The commercial district includes the approximately 17-acre Army Reserve Center parcel, which would be designated as Commercial. Village Services (VS) Local commercial retail and service uses would be provided on 21 acres just northwest of the Tustin Ranch Road extension adjacent to new and existing residential uses. Community Core (CC) The central portion of the reuse plan area would be a Community Core (approximately 225 acres), offering the opportunity to maintain flexibility for future large-scale, mixed-use development to offset high infrastructure and demolition costs. The Community Core would develop as a later or final phase because of the need to remove existing runways and complete hazardous materials cleanup. Opportunities for Residential, and Commercial/Business and Industrial uses in either separate or integrated projects would · exist in this area, along with institutional uses, such as a 40-acre high school. Up to 891 residential units could be built in the Community Core. The southem blimp hangar within this area could be preserved, if financially feasible. Golf Village (GV) · The Golf Village, to be located in the eastern portion of the reuse plan area, would im:lude a 500-room hotel and ancillary commercial retail support services (i.e., restaurants, shops, etc.) in conjunction with the hotel, an 18-hole golf course, and residential development. Other uses would include two neighborhood parks and an elementary school. ' SCH No. 94071005 Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 35 .. FINDINGS OF [AC'T AND .$3'A_.__TEMf'L~ .... ; ¢~VEP~RIDI,'~G £.O,~MDERATIO:,~F, Learning Village (LV) The 128-acre Learning Village, adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the site, would provide a specialized educational environment with a variety of public-serving uses in a campus setting in the western portion of the reuse plan area, and would also include an elementary school. The majority of existing buildings and facilities within the Learning Village area could be reused. Community Park (CP) Located between the Learning Village and residential areas in the northen portion of the reuse plan area, this approximately 24-acre park would provide both a buffer and a link between the activities of both areas. Urban Regional Park (RP) unctions, including open space conservation, historic preservation, recreation, The Urban Regional Park (approximately 85 acres), located in the north-central portion of the reuse plan area, would serve a number off . . .' - --:---~ ~,~ :,,~,~ etive t~roerams, and supporting uses. The community recreation programs, training, eaucauvna, a,,u, ..... vr r .. northern blimp hangar is expected to be preserved for adaptive use, if financially feasible. Circulation A street network would be created to serve the reuse plan area and would create through connections that would partially address regional circulation issues. This system (see Figure 2-1 of the FEIS/EIR) would be . oriented around Valencia South Loop Road, which would extend from Valencia Avenue on the northwest, Moffett Avenue on the east, Warner Avenue on the southeast, and Armstrong Avenue on both the west and the north. Armstrong Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, and Warner Avenue would also be extended through the site. Other streets in the reuse plan area would connect to the arterial street network and be oriented to efficiently serve on-site neighborhoods and districts. Development Phasing Future development based on this alternative would occur incrementally over a 20+ year time frame. The level of development within any given phase would be tied to the availability of the infrastructure necessary to support such development. Table 2-8 of the FEIS/EIR shows the approximate anticipated timing of development. AL TERNA TIVE 2 This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing housing and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. . ~ The development of this alternative (see Table 1) would result in the most housing, the least non-residential floor area, the smallest amount of parkland, and would not contain a Community Core land use designation. A large Cultural Center would be developed under this alternative, and the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated, if financially feasible. This alternative would permit reuse of some existing military structures and facilities. The northern blimp hangar could be reused to support regional cultural activities in the form ora special events center, museum, or other permitted uses. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished under this alternative. Key components of the land use plan under this alternative include the following:, Residential (LDR, MDR, HDR) A total of 6,205 residential units would be located in the southeast (adjacent to existing neighborhoods), in SCH No. 94071005 Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 36 FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'I'ATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS the east, in the northeast, and in the central portion of the reuse plan area, including both reuse of existing military housing and construction of new housing. Two eight-acre neighborhood parks and four schools serving the residents would be developed with the residential development. Commercial/Business (CB) High-tech, research and development, professional office, retail, and specialized employment and merchandising uses would be concentrated on approximately 310 acres in the southwestern portion of the reuse plan area, adjacent to similar existing urban development. Commercial (C) · Commercial activities consisting of regionally oriented retail and service commercial uses would be located in the southern portion of the reuse plan area (approximately:78 acres), adjacent to similar existing urban development, and adjacent to the Hotel and Golf Course (described below). This includes the approximately 17-acre Army Reserve Center parcel, which would be developed as Commercial if DOD disposes of the property in the future. Commercial/Recreation (CR) A Commercial/Recreation site (approximately 23 acres) would be created west of the intersection of Armstrong Avenue and Warner Avenue and could be developed as an entertainment park, sports facility, and/or other such attraction. Village Mixed-Use (PI-CB'(Village)) A mix of uses, consisting of Public Institutional and Commercial/Business (approximately 310 acres) and Residential uses (1,035 dwelling units), would be provided in the northwesterly portion of the reuse plan area near the Cultural Center and the Community Park, and near commercial, industrial, and residential districts. The majority of existing military structures and facilities identified for possible reuse are located within this area and would be incorporated into the Village Mixed-Use development. Hotel (H) A SOO-room hotel and associated commercial uses would be developed in the eastern portion of the reuse plan area (approximately 12 acres) adjacent t° the Golf Course and Commercial areas. Golf Course (G) A 177-acre, 18-hole golf course encircling low density residential development would be developed in the northeastern portion of the reuse plan area. Public Institutional/CommerCial (PI/C) A Public Institutional/Commercial district (approximately 28 acres) would be created on the eastern edge of the reuse plan area, no{thwest of the future extension of Tustin Ranch Road. ' Park (PI (park)) Located betWeen the Village Mixed-u~earea, the Cultural Center, and Residential areas in the northern portion of the reuse plan area, this approximately 47-acre park would provide both a buffer and a link betWeen the activities of these areas.. Cultural Center (PI (Cultural)) A Cultural Center (possibly containing a'rnuseum amusement-type rides and/or facilities, interpretive centers, and other similar uses) encompassing 56 acres would be. located in the center of the northern portion of the reuse plan area. If financially feasible, the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated into the center · Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/E1R 37 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'[A'rEIv,,. ,. ~',F ()VERRIDiNG C'ON%IDERATIONS through adaptive use. Circulation A street network would be created to serve the reuse plan area and would create through connections that would partially address regional circulation issues (see Figure 2-2 of the FEIS/EIR). This system would be designed in a grid pattern to maximize network efficiency for both local traffic and through traffic. Other streets in the reuse plan area would connect to the arterial grid street network and be oriented to efficiently serve on-site neighborhoods and districts. Development Phasing Future development under Alternative 2 would occur incrementally over a 20+ year time frame. The level of development within any given phase would be tied to the availability of the infrastructure necessary to support such development..Table 2-11 of the FEIS/EIR shows the approximate anticipated timing of development. AL TERNA TIVE 3 Alternative 3 proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing employment and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. The development of this alternative (see Table 1) would result in the least housing and the most commercial development. A large Cultural Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and would incorporate the northern blimp hangar, if financially feasible. This alternative alSo would include a small, 179-acre mixed-use Reserve Area similar to the Community Core, in Alternatives 1 and 2 and the largest Golf Course (187 acres) of the three reuse alternatives. This alternative could include reuse of some existing military structures and facilities. The northern blimp hangar could be adaptively reused for activities related to the Cultural Center. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished. Key components of the land use plan under this alternative include the following: Residential (LDR, MDR) A total of 4,340 residential units (including both reuse of existing military housing and a variety of new housing ~,pes and densities) would be developed in the southeastern portion of the reuse plan area, adjacent to existino, q housing areas; in two pockets surrounded by the golf course; and in the northeastern portion of the site. t~esidential units would also be developed in the Reserve Area and in the Village Mixed-Use area. Two eight-acre nei~borhood parks and two schools would be developed in conjunction with the residential' development. Commercial/Business (CB) Commercial/Business uses would be concentrated in the western portion of the reuse plan area, adjacent to similar existing urban development. Commercial (C) Commercial activities(regionally oriented retail and service commercial uses) would be concentrated in the southwestern and southeastern portions of the reuse plan area, adjacent to similar existing urban development. ~. Disposal and Re'use of MC,aS Tustin EIS/EIR 38 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CON.~IDERATIONS ·Com mercial/Recreation (CR) A 23-acre Commercial/Recreation site (theme park, sports facility, or similar attraction) would be created at the western corner of Armstrong Avenue and Warner Avenue. Village Mixed Use (PI/CB) A mix of uses consisting of Public Institutional and Commercial/Business and Residential uses (1,015 dwelling units) would be provided in the northwesterly portion of the reuse plan area adjacent to the Cultural Center, Community Park, and Commercial and Residential districts. Reserve Area The central portion of the site is proposed for, a 179-acre Reserve Area offering the opportunity to maintain flexibility for future large-scale, mixed-use development to offset high infrastructure and demolition costs. The Reserve Area is expected to develop later because of the need to remove existing runways and complete hazardous materials cleanup. Opportunities for both Residential and Commercial/Business uses in either separate or integrated projects would exist in this area, along with Institutional uses if desired. Hotel (H) A 500-room hotel and associated commercial uses would be developed in the eastern portion of the reuse plan area, adjacent to the golf course. Golf Course (G) An 187-acre, 18-hole eolf course encircling low and medium density residential development would be located adjacent to the~hotel in the southeastern portion of the reuse plan area. Public Institutional/Commercial (PI/C) A mixed-use Public Institutional/Commercial area would be created on the northeastern edge of the reuse plan area, including institutional and commercial uses serving surrounding residential areas. Park (Pi (Park)) A 51-acre Community Park would be developed in the northern portion of the site at the intersection of Valencia Avenue and Armstrong Avenue between the'Village Mixed-Use area, the Cultural Center, the Reserve Area, and Residential areas. The park would incorporate existing facilities and contain picnic areas, community center building, multi-purpose rooms, and supporting uses. Cultural Center (Pi (Cultural)) A Cultural Center encompassing 51 acres would be located in the center of the northern portion of the site between the Community Park, Vill~e Mixed-Use, and the Reserve Area. If financially feasible, the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated into the Cultural Center through adaptive use as a special events center (for sports events, cultural events, large concerts, conferences, conventions, etc.), a sports center, a museum, restaurants, picnic areas, a video arcade, or an historic collections facility. The Cultural Center could contain a museum, amusement-type rides and/or facilities, interpretive centers, and other similar uses. Circulation A street netWork in a central loop pattern would be created to serve the reuse plan area and would create through connections that would partially address regional circulation issues (see Figure 2-3 of the FEIS/EIR). Existing streets within the reuse plan area would connect to the arterial street network and be oriented to efficiently serve on-site neighborhoods and districts. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 39 SCH No. 94071005 FINDI,~,;GS; Ot'- FACI" ANT) .q'~ AT[iN. Development Phasing Future development based on Alternative 3 would occur incrementally over a 20+ year time frame. The level of development within any given phase would be tied to the availability of the'infrastructure necessary to support such development. Table 2-14 of the FEIS/EIR shows the approximate anticipated timing of development. The future market demand forecasted for uses in the reuse plan area and the complexity and timing of environmental cleanup efforts would be the primhry factors influencing this schedule. AL TERNA TIVE 4: NO A CTION AL TERNA TIVE The No Action Alternative evaluated in the EIS/EIR is in compliance with NEPA (40 C.F.R. {} 1502.14(d)). No Action may be defined as the continuation of an existing plan, policy, or procedure, or as failure to implement an action. In any case, the No Action Alternative provides a benchmark to compare the magnitude of the environmental effects of the various alternatives. CEQA also requires a No Project Alternative (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, § 15126.6(e) (1998)). The No Action Alternative and the No Project Alternative are equivalent in the context of this analysis, and will be considered together as the "No Action Alternative" in this document. Under the No Action Alternative, the Marine Corps would retain ownership of approximately 1,585 acres of surplus real property. Except for the existing agricultural and building leases, all buildings would remain vacant and all other facilities would remain in place but would be unused. The Marine Corps property would remain under caretaker status as discussed in Chapter 1 of the FEIS/EIR. The area would be fenced off, the unleased buildings would be boarded up, and a military security and maintenance staff of approximately ten persons would be present. The grounds, infrastructure, and buildings would be maintained and repaired as necessary, to prevent deterioration. Site environmental cleanup would continue and be completed. No new construction would occur under this alternative except as allowed by existing lease authorization. Approximately 17 acres of property, would be transferred to the Army Reserve. SUMMARY OF COMPARISON BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES Table 2 summarizes the key differentiating factors between the three reuse alternatives. As shown, in some instances, very little or no environmental impact was projected to occur; in other instances, significant, unmitigable impacts were anticipated. The comparative analysis was structured to focus on key differentiating factors -- instances where the severity of an impact would be appreciably different among the alternatives. In doing so, it was determined that in several environmental issue areas the impacts were either very minor, or were in essence similar for all three reuse alternatives. These issues included: · Land Use · Utilities · Biological Resources · A~icultural Resources · Soils and Geology · Water Resources · Hazardous Wastes, Materials Substances and Noise Cumulative Impacts Short-term Use and Long-term Productivity Growth-inducing Impacts Environmental Justice . Environmental Health and Safety Risks to Children Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 40 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'rATEMEN'r OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS In as much as these issues did not contribute to the process of comparing and differentiating between alternatives,' they were eliminated from the comparative analysis. However, through the process of elimination described in Section 2.5.1 of the EIS/EIR, the analysis was able to focus on key differentiating impacts from the following issue areas: · Socioeconomics · Aesthetics · Public Facilities and Services · Cultural and Paleontological Resources · Traffic/CircUlation · Air Quality It should be noted that, even within these six key issue areas, the focus was on only those specific impacts that served to distinguish among the three reuse alternatives. Following the guidance provided in the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (Cal. Code Re~., Title 14, {} 15126.6(d) (1998)), a matrix (Table 2) was developed to display and compare specific discriminating impacts for each of the alternatives. As discussed below, there would be benefits associated with Socioeconomics and Public Facilities and Services (parkland only); the other issue areas are discussed in terms of adverse impacts. SOCIOECONOMICS Employment is considered a socioeconomic benefit as opposed to an environmental impact and because housing has been identified as a purpose of reuse by the City, provision of housing is regarded as a benefit as well. Alternative 2 would generate the most housing units, with more than 1,500 units than Alternative 1. Alternative 1 would eenerate 77,401 total jobs consisting of construction jobs, direct jobs in the reuse plan area and indirect/induced jobs (excluding construction). This number is almost 10,000 higher than the next closest alternative (Alternative 2). Given that the primary City goal is. to create a reuse that would generate jobs and revenue to allow for other important goals (housing, parkland etc.), the alternative which best maximizes socioeconomic benefits would be Alternative 1. AESTHETICS · Possible distingUishin~ impacts to aesthetics are related t°the blimp hangars which are prominent visual features. Under Alternative 1, one or both of the hangars may be retained if financially feasible. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the southern blimp hangar would be eliminated and the northern hangar would be retained, if feasible. While there would be a noticeable visual contrast with the loss of one hangar, the remaining hangar would continue to serve as a landmark and the visual impact would be less than significant. The loss of both hangars, however, would result in significant, unmitigable Visual impacts. Therefore, from a visual perspective Alternative 1 may be preferred if at least one of the hangars is retained and if both hangars are eliminated under the other, twO alternatives. It should be noted that the financial feasibility of retaining the hangars is uncertain, even under Alternative 1, and the impacts may be identical under each. · CULTURAL' AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES AS with aesthetics, the key factors under this topic are the historic hangars because the eligible discontiguous historic districts would be eliminated Under all three alternatives. Under Alternative 1, both hangars may be retained if financially feasible. This Would 'avoid impacts to these historic features. Under Alternatives 2 and 3 ~he southern hangar,~would be eliminated which isa significant and unmitigable impact. If both hangars were to be eliminate~ there would be a greater relative impact. Therefore, Alternative I may have least relative impact to historic resourceS, but only if both hangars were to be retained. It is possible that it wouldnot be financially feaSiblet° retain either of the hangars under this alternative. If this is the case, there would be irreversible significant impacts to the hangars under each of the alternatives. Disposal and Reuse of MC/kS Tustin EIS/EIR 41 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS c,}F ['ACT AND S'iATEMt!NT PUBLIC SER VICES AND FACILITIES There are two items of distinction under this issue: parkland and the indirect impact of students generated in the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). The City has identified an existing 107-acre parkland deficit in the City of Tustin. Ail three reuse alternatives would generate parkland, both a large-scale regional-serving park and several smaller neighborhood and community parks. The community and neighborhood parks would generally serve the population associated with the reuse plan area. For comparison purposes, this analysis focuses on the more regional component only. Alternative I would . create the largest urban regional park (85 acres) and Alternative 3 would have the smallest (51 acres). While all three alternatives would contribute a substantial amount (over 45 percent) to reduce the existing parkland deficit, Alternative 1 would involve the greatest percentage (almost 80 percent). All three alternatives could indirectly induce students into the over-capacity SAUSD because employment could result in some new families locating within the district boundaries. There is no single method to calculate the amount of induced growth in the district, so a'Iow and high range is provided in this analysis. The greatest number of students indirectly generated would be Under Alternative 1. Given the wide range of possible fiscal impacts and funding services, should a funding deficit occur, it is anticipated that the SAUSD would not be negatively financially impacted under even Alternative 1. The need for new facilities is not confirmed and there is no facility design or location to be analyzed for physical impact in this document. The determination of physical impacts, and mitigation as appropriate, would be the responsibility of the SAUSD. TRA FFIC/CIR CULA TION Traffic would be generated under all three alternatives that would impact the surrounding circulation system. Various mitigation measures are recommended at specific intersections to increase the flow of traffic and reduce or eliminate identified impacts. Even with mitigation, some intersections under all three alternatives would operate below acceptable levels of service. The greatest number of intersections considered unmitigable would be under Alternative 2, with five unmitigable intersections in 2020. Alternative 3 would result in unmitigable impacts at four study intersections in 2020. Alternative 1 would have the least relative traffic impact because it would have two significant unmitigable impacts at the build-out conditions. buildout operations air emissions under all three alternatives would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds,, for all analyzed pollutants except PM 10. The relative emission rates in pounds/day illustrate that Alternative 1 would have the lowest net emissions and therefore the least impact. SUMMARY OF COMPARISON Alternative 1 would result in the greatest number of jobs and greatest amount of parkland, which are two of the purposes of the reuse project. Further, it would have the least relative impact to aesthetics, traffic/circulation, and air quality. Financial feasibility may preclude the retention of either blimp hangar; however, under Alternative 1, the land use plan' provides for incorporation of both features while under Alternatives 2 and 3 only the northern h~gar is incorporated. While it may indirectly generate the greatest number of students to the SAUSD, the eventual impact to the district is uncertain at this time. On balance, Alternative I would result in the least overall adverse environmental impact and is therefore identified as the environmentally superior reuse alternative. : Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin E1S/EIR 42 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS O~F FAL--~ AND STAT_~ENT OF OVE?.P. IDING CONS1DE?~ATION~ FINDINGS REGA~~G ALTERNATIVES LRA REUSE ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 1) The project considered in these findings is Alternative 1 of the EIS/EIIL the LRA Reuse Alternative. This alternative proposes a variety of housing, employment, recreation, educational, and community support use. s designed to complement the existing urban character of the surrounding area and strengthen the economic base of Tustin and nearby cities. The development of this alternative would result in the most building space, parkland, and educatiohal uses.-Among the three action alternatives, only this alternative would result in: Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless; a Regional Park developed around the northern blimp hangar (which would be reused if financially feasible); a large Community Core developed with mixed uses; and specialized educational; social service, and law enforcement facilities within a Learning Village campus. , This alternative would permit reuse of some of the existing military structures and facilities, including recreational facilities such as baseball, softball, volleyball, football, and soccer fields plus basketball and tennis courts. In addition, the two blimp hangars, which contain 660,416 square feet of floor area, would be adaptively used if financially feasible. The northern blimp hangar could support regional recreational activities in the form of special events center, sports center, museum, and historical aircraft restorations. The southern hangar could be used for film production, warehouse facilities, or li~t industrial uses permitted by the plan. Including the hangars, approximately 1.8 million square feet of structures, plus 1,537 housing units, could be reused under this alternative. AL TERNA TIVE 2 This alternative proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing housing and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. The development of this alternative (see Table 1) would result in the most housin~ the least non-residential floor area, the smallest amount of parkland, and would not contain a Community Core land use designation. A large Cultural Center would be developed under this alternative, and the northern blimp hangar would be incorporated, if financially feasible. This alternative would permit reuse 6f some existing military structures and facilities. The northern blimp hangar could be reused to suppOrt regional cultural activities in the form of a special events center, museum, or other permitted uses. The southern blimp hangar would be demolished .under this alternative. Findings .. -: , , The City Council finds }hat Alternative 2 is infeasible within the meaning of PRC {} 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental or other considerations. Alternative 2 would create additional significant environmental impacts and' Would not meet the project objectives to the degree .of : Alternative 1' 1. 'As discussed on page 2-40 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 would result in 9,678 fewer jobs than Alternative 1 (see Table 2)' ". ' 2., As discussed on page 2-42 of the FEIS/EIIL Alternative 2 could resultin the removal of both blimp Disposal and Reuse of M~tin E1S/EIR 43 SCH No. 94071005 .. FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'[ATEME,NI Ot' OVERRIDING hangars, unlike Alternative 1, which would retain both blimp hangars if financially feasible (see Table 2). , As discussed on page 2-42 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 would not result in reducing the City's parkland deficit to the degree as Alternative 1 (see Table 2). o e As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 would.result in significant unavoidable impacts at more intersections than Alternative 1 in both 2005 and 2020 (see Table 2). As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 2 woUld result in greater emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), suspended particulate matter (PM10), and oxides of nitrogen than Alternative l:(see Table 2). AL TERNA TIVE 3 Alternative 3 proposes a variety of urban uses with a focus on enhancing employment and cultural opportunities for the residents of Tustin, Irvine, and nearby communities. The development of this alternative (see Table 1) would result in the least housing and the most commercial development. A large Cultural Center on 87 acres would be developed under this alternative and would incorporate-the northern blimp hangar, if financially feasible. This alternative also would include a small, 179-acre mixed-use Reserve Area similar to the Community Core, in Alternatives 1 and 2 and the largest Golf Course (187 acres) of the three reuse alternatives. This alternative could include reuse of some existing military structures and facilities. The northern blimp hangar could be adaptively reused for activities related to the Cultural Center. The southern blimp hangar would be dem61ished. Findings The City Council finds that Alternative 3 is infeasible within the meaning of PRC {} 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental or other considerations. Alternative 3 would create additional significant environmental impacts and would not meet the project objectives to the degree of AlternatiVe 1' 1. As disCUssed on page-2-42 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would result in 10,947 fewer jobs than Alternative 1 (see Table 2). 2. As shown on page 2-41 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would result in 261 fewer housing units than Alternative 1 (see Table 2). 3. As discussed on page 2-42 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 could result. in the removal of both blimp hangars, unlike Alternative 1, which would retain both blimp hangars iffinancNlly feasible (see Table 2). 4. As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would not result in reducing the City's parkland deficit to the degree as Alternative 1 (see Table 2). 5. As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIK, Alternative 3 would result in significant unavoidable Disposal and Reuse of MC/kS Tustin E1S/EIR 44 SCH No. 9407 i 005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS o impacts at more intersections than Alternative I in 2020 (see Table 2). . As discussed on page 2-43 of the FEIS/EIR, Alternative 3 would result in greater emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROC), oxides of nitrogen (NO~), suspended paniculate matter' (PM10), and oxides of nitrogen than Alternative I (see Table 2). AL TERNA TIkE 4: NO A CTION AL TERNA TIVE · Under the No Action Alternative, the Marine Corps would retain ownership of approximately 1,585 acres of surplus real property. Except for the existing agricultural and building leases, ali buildings would remain vacant and all other facilities would remain in place but would be unused. The Marine Corps property would remain under caretaker status as discussed in Chapter I of the FEIS/EIR. The area would be fenced off, the unleased buildings would be boarded up, and a military security and maintenance staffof approximately ten persons would be present. The grounds, infrastructure, and buildings would be maintained and repaired as necessary to prevent deterioration. Site environmental cleanup would continue and be completed. No new construction would occur under this alternative except as allowed by existing lease authorization. Approximately 17 acres of property would be transferred to the Army Reserve. Findings The Ci~' Council finds that Alternative 4 is infeasible within the meaning ofPRC § 21081(a) (3), due to economic, legal, social, technological, environmental or other considerations. Alternative 4 would create additional significant environmental impacts and would not meet the project objectives to the degree of Alternative 1' · 1. As discussed on page 4-30 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would result in continued land use incompatibility between MCAS Tustin and surrounding areas. · 2. As discussed on page 4-30 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not address economic development needs and thus would not meet the federal objectives stated in Public Law 103-160, concerning public need and revitalization of closed military installations. 3. As discussed on page 4-30 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative w~uld not meet the principles of the "Report of the California Military Base Reuse Task force to Governor Pete Wilson: A Strategic Response to Base Reuse Opportunities, January 1994," in that no reuse would take place and no new jobs would be generated. 4. As discussed on page 4-31 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not provide additional hotming opportunities. Specifically, the No Action Alternative would provide 4,601 fewer dwelling units than Alternative 1. 5. As discussed on page 4-31 of the FEIS/EIR, the No Action Alternative would not provide additional employment opportunities. Specifically, the No Action Alternative would provide 77,401 fewer direct, indirect/induced, and construction jobs than Alternative 1. · 6. As discussed on page 4-31 of the FEIS/EItL the No Action Alternative would not offset the neganve socioeconomic effects caused by the Base Realignment and Cl6sure Act. 7. As discussed on page 4-79 of the FEIS/EIIL the No Action Alternative would preclude the beneficial SCH No. 940710-~ Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 45 FINI)INGS OF ~:^("r AND STATF. MEN'I . 9, '10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. effect associated with development of parkland, which is a purpose and need of the reuse plan. 'As discussed on page 4-92 of the FEIS/EIR, reduced staffing and inactivity would effect the character of the site in that once busy neighborhoods and buildings would be under-utilized. There is also the potential for reduced maintenance to effect the visual quality of the site, aboveground utilities would remain, and the beneficial impact due to reducing urban clutter under Alternative I would not be realized. As discussed on page 4-101 of the FEIS/EIR, the potential for further deterioration through aging would persist. As discussed on page 4-108 of the FEIS/EIR, proposed improvements to Peters Canyon Channel in the · vicinity of the reuse plan area are separate from the proposed action; such improvements and associated mitigable impacts on biological resources could occur if OCFCD pursued the project independently. As discussed on page 4-128 of the FEIS/EIR, agricultural production on the leased land would continue to affect water quality with runoff containing pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other common chemicals used for.agriculture. As discussed on page 4-137 of the FEIS/EIR, hazardous wastes, substances, and materials cleanup efforts would not be accelerated pursuant to the President's fast-track cleanup directive. As discussed on page 4-204 of the FEIS/EIR, implementation of the No Action Alternative would prevent the extension of Tustin Ranch Road/Von Karman Avenue, Valencia Avenue/Moffett Avenue, and Warner Avenue through the reuse plan area, which would contribute to the elimination of existing circulation deficiencies, which is a purpose of the reuse plan. As discussed on page 4-204 of the FEIS/EIR, the continued closure of the reuse plan area would eliminate opportunities for .improved transit service with direct routing of bus lines across the reuse plan area. Additional circulation improvements will be required to accommodate full buildout of local General plans. As discussed on page 4-205 of the FEIS/EIR, development associated with reuse, or additions to the City °fTustin and City of Irvine Capital Improvement programs, as applicable, would be required to extend arterial roadways throu~ the reuse plan area to avoid traffic circulation impacts. Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 46 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IX. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS SUMMARY OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a decision-maker, in this case the Tustin City Council, to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the Tustin City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects through approval of a project, it must state its specific reasons for so doing in writing. Such reasons are included in the "statement of overriding considerations." Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines establishes the followin, g requirements for a statement of overriding considerations: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable envirg, nmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects, which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. The City of Tustin (hereafter referred to as "City") adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations i'egarding the remaining unavoidable impacts identified within the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. In adopting Resolution , the Tustin City Council acknowledges that it has weighed the benefits of the identified LRA Reuse Alternative (know as Alternative 1 in the FEIS/EIR) against the adverse significant impacts that have not been avoided or substantially lessened to less-than-significant levels through mitigation, The Tustin City Council hereby determines that the benefits of the LRA Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1) outweigh the unmitigated adverse impacts and the project should be approved. The Tustin City. Council finds that to the extent that the identified significant adverse impacts have not been avoided or substantially lessened, there are specific economic, legal, social, technological or Other considerations which support approval of the project. : . SIGNIFICANT UNA VOIDABLE IMPACT$ Unavoidable or potentially unavoidable significant environmental effects of the project identified in the Final EIR/EIS and Findings of Significant Impacts include the following: Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 47 SCH No. 94071005 FINDINGS, or l:AC'r AND .%'rA'l'li: ..... The loss of both hangars would be a significant unmitigable visual impact. All ofthe two discontinuous historic districts would be eliminated. The intent is to retain both hangars, if financially feasible, but one or both of the blimp hangars could be eliminated. Existing farmland would no longer be cultivated. Project development will result in the conversion of approximately 682 acres of Prime Farmland and 20 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance for a total of 702 acres of Farmland to non-agricultural use. There would be decreased levels of service at certain intersections and road segments. With feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full o buildout (year 2020). Peak reduced emissions of suspended particulates (PM~o), reactive organic compounds (ROC), and oxides of nitrog.en (NOx) due to construction activities would exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance during some or all phases of the project. Long-term operation emissions from mobile (vehicular) and stationary sources would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, NOx, and ROC. The proposed project has not been included in the modeling assumptions of the 1994 or 1997 AQMPs, and is therefore inconsistent with the AQMP. Reuse ofMCAS Tustin and the possible resultant loss of both blimp hangars, in conjunction with other development in Orange County (in particular, reuse of the former MCAS El Toro), would result in a significant change in the visual setting of the area. The project would result in irreversibly eliminating most of the two discontiguous eligible historic districts and could result in the demolition of one or both blimp hangars, depending on whether reuse is financially feasible. These actions would contribute to a cumulative loss of World War II United States military development, which is increasingly being demolished due to military base closings. The proposed project would result in conversion of approximately 702 acres of Farmland. While this conversion is t3?ical in Orange County, the cumulative impact would be significant because this Farmland and other agricultural land being converted in Orange County represents some of the last remaining agricultural land in the County. The analysis of project-level impacts in the FEIS/EIR consider the project's contribution to cumulative impacts. While most impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, significant traffic impacts would remain at the intersections of Tustin Ranch Road and Walnut Avenue, and Jamboree Road and Barranca Parkway under full buildout (year.2020). r The project, when considered with projected growth in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), will contribute to significant air quality impacts. · -- Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 48 SCH No. 9407100.5 FINDINGS OF FACT AND S'rATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ADOPTION OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City specifically adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations and finds that: a) as part of the approval provisions, the LRA Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1) has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible; b) other mitigation measures to mitigate the effects associated with the project are within the jurisdiction of other public agencies, and, c) the remaining unavoidable impacts of the project are acceptable in light of the environmental, economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations set forth herein, 'because the benefits of the project outweigh the significant and adverse impacts. The City finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the LRA Re'use Alternative (Alternative 1 ) outweigh its significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the LRA Reuse Alternative (Alternative 1). These matters are supported by substantial evidence in the record. FINDINGS OF 0 VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The adoption of the project (identified in the FEIS/EIR as the LRA Reuse Alternative, or Alternative I will enable the City of Tustin to offset the negative socioeconomic effects caused by the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC) and the resultant closure of MCAS Tustin to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. Specifically, the project will provide the greatest number of jobs. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to reuse the reuse plan area under an economically viable and balanced reuse plan to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to provide a substantial amount of both employment and housing opportunities. Specifically, the project will provide 77,40i jobs, the greatest number of jobs of the alternatives, as well as provide over 4,600 housing units. The City finds that the benefits of reuse ofMCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to solve existing community circulation and recreation parkland deficiencies to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. The project will result in approximately 85 acres of parkland, the greatest amount of parkland of the alternatives. The project will connect local and regional thoroughfares and will result in significant unavoidable impacts at two intersections, the least of the reuse alternatives considered. Thus, the project will provide the greatest amount of parkland and least number ofunmitigable traffic impacts. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will enable the City of Tustin to generate' sufficient revenue (property tax, sales tax or others) to support the investment in infrastructure required to improve the site for civilian purposes to the greatest degree of the alternatives considered. The city finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. The adoption of the project will reiult in the least overall relative environmental impact of the alternatives considered. Specifically, the project will result in the least relative impact to aesthetics, traffic/circulation, and air quality. Moreover, the project could provide for incorporation of both blimp hangars, while · · SCH No. 94071005 Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 49 Alternatives 2 and 3 would retain only the northern blimp hangar, iffinancially feasible. The City finds that the benefits of reuse of MCAS Tustin override the significant impacts associated with the project. L:\cnv\700$ 731 \finding.wpd Disposal and ReuSe of MCAS Tustin EIS/EIR 50 SCH No. 9407100> Exhibit B to Resolution 00-90 Mitigation Monitoring Report for Final EIS/EIR "Resolution No. 00-90.. Mitigation Monitoring and- Program for Reporting Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report For the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin. SCH No. 94071005 City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Date Adopted by Tustin: December 18, 2000' This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6. Its purpose is to provide for accomplishment of mitigation measures required by the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the disposal and reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iustin (State ClearinghouseNumber 94071005), located in the City oflustin and the City of Irvine, in the County of Orange (see Figure 1). The City of Tustin has adopted the mitigation measures included in the Final EIS/EIR in order to mitigate or avoid significant impactS on the environment. Prior to approval of any discretionary approval in Irvine, Irvine will adopt the measures. This program has been designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. ' Mitigation measures and implementation measures identified in the Final EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse of MCAS Tustin have been incorporated into a checklist.' Each mitigation measure and implementation measure is listed separately on the checklist with appropriate spaces for monitoring the pro~ess of implementation of each measure. Implementation measures are required where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. For these purposes, both implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and are equally enforceable. The following information is identified for each measure listed in the checklist: The timing of implementation of the mitigation measure or implementation measure. The appropriate agency to enforce the mitigation measure or implementation measure. The mitigation measures and implementation measures in the table are listed by environmental impact area in the same order as they are listed in the Final EIS/EIR. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Management The disposal and reuse ofMCAS Tustin is a long-term pro_retain tl~at includes a number of mitigation measures. Some of these measures are applicable at the individual development project level, and others are applicable t° the overall program or plan. In order to coordinate implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, a regular review of the progress of the program is required. . Annual Review 6f Mitigation' Monitoring and Reporting Program 'The overall management of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro,am will be managed by the City of Tustin, as applicable to the City's jurisdiction. The City will undertake an annual review of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro~m'am as applicable to Tustin ahd prepare a brief profess memorandum based on that review. The City of Irvine will prepare a similar EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Rcntse of MCAS Tm'tin 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MCAS TUSTIN ~,OUNDARY REUSE PLAN AREA BOUNDARY CITY OF SANTAANA CITY OF IRVINE SANTA ANA Nortl't . No Scale Figure 1' Reuse Plan Area EIS/E1R for the Disposal a.d Reuse of MC,4S Ttestin3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program memorandum. The memoranda from each City should be transmitted to each respective agency's City Council for acceptance after completion. The reviewer, the Community Development Director or designee, will check each mitigation measure in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to determine whether or ,not that implementation measure is complete. If the mitigation measure has been completed ~'or'the pr.oj ect, the reviewer'shOuld line through the mitigation measure on the'form, initial and date the line indicating that the mitigation measure has been completed. · · · · . For measures that require a report, program, or plan, the reviewer should determine if that report, pro~marn, or plan is due based on the progress of implementing the program to' daiS. If th'4 report, program, or plan is timely, th~t~ fact should be reported in the review memorandum to the head of each agency. If no such program is necessary at this time, the memorandum should so state. · For measures that are ongoing meaSures, the memoi'aridum should, report whether these'measures · are actively being pursued, .and if not, what action is appropriate,. If the measures are no longer appropriate or iiecessary because the environmenial effect is no longer an issue, then that fact should be reported in the review memorandum, and the discontinuation of the mitigation measure recommended. If measures are not being implemented adequately, recommendations should be made to improve the application of the mitigation measure.- For measures that apply at the project level, the memorandum should report whether or not such measures are being actively applied to individual projects. Ifthe measures are no longer appropriate or necessary because the environmental effect is no longer an issue, then that fact should be reported in the review memorandum, and the discontinuation of the mitigation measure recommended. If measures are not being implemented adequately, recommendations should be made to improve the . application of the mitigation measure.. ~ ...... · Implementation Of Progra m-Level ~klitigation Measures . . Program-level mitigation measures are measures that do not apply to individual development projects, but which apply at the Overall program level. They are-implemented through the regular actions of the City of Tustin Community DeveloPment Department, City of Irvine C~)mmunity Development Department, or'other applicable departments within both cities' discretionary project review. These measures are revieWed and monitored through .the. annual program review discussed above. ' ' · . . · Implementation of ProjeCt-Level Mitigation'Measures - '- " Project-level mitigation measures are monitored through the appropriate City's (Tustin or Irvine). planning review process and discretionary project review. When a development project within the Reuse Plan Area is submitted for planning review to each City, each respective planning reviewer will have a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Checklist inclUding all pages that contain measures · applicable to that project. Before approving plans, the planning reviewer will ensure that all mitigation measures are incorporated into'building plans, site plans, public improvements plans, etc. EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 4 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ' (i.e, those that are not project-design mitigation measures). Project-Design Mitigation.Me. asures A project-design mitigation measure is a measure that needs to' be incorporated'into the project design as part of any project approval; for example, traffic improVements or exterior lighting plans. Such measures may be normally shown on the buildihg plans, site plus, Public improvement plans, specifications, or other project documents. The mitigation mOnitoring checklist will be used to check off those mitigation measures required. If a mitigation measure is not shown on the appropriate plan sheets, plans will b~ 'sent back for ificorPorat'ion of those'mitigation measures or approved equivalents. Plans will not be approved until each mitigation meas..ute is incorporated into the project design. ' ' " ' ......... . ; . ; ', .: ~ ' After plans are approved, and before any component of design is approved as complete by the appropriate City in its inspection, the project proponents will submit proof that each mitigation measure shown on the plans has' been installed or incorporated into the constructed project. Verification of compliance will then be noted on the monitoring checklist and signed off, completing the process for this category of mitigation measure. The monitoring program for measures to be incorporated into project design is the same program that is currently used to verify compliance with applicable City codes in design and construction. No additional staffing is. required, eXcept that. training may be appropriate to alert inspectors to the new requirements and the use of the monitoi'ing checklist. In case of some specific unique or unusual mitigation measures, it may be appropriate or nece.ssary to contract with consultants for inspection or verification'of mitigation measures. Construction Mitigation Measures Construction mitigation measures are measures deSigned to reduce the impacts of construction, and in general are required t° be maintained in operation continually during, construction. Monitoring will be verified by building"Public'Works; or grading inspectors as appropriate during their regular visits to the sites during construction, and reported to the Public Works Director or designee. Reporting of compliance with mitigation measures should be required at least monthly, with reports of violations made immediately to the appropriate'department. · . OperationM Mitigation Measures · Operational mitigation measures are intended to verify the implementation ofmitigationmeasures that will continue after the prOjeCt is occupied and in operation. These mitigation measures should be verified on an annual basis, and if problems are' noted, reinsPected on a more.regular basis until the measure is operating effectively. Monitoring of such measures may be certified by the applicants/operators with verification bythe applicable City. In that event, each applicable City shall exercise its independent judgement in verifying compliance. EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures Versus Implementation Measures The Final EIS/EIR for the disposal and reuse ofMCAS Tustin identifies both mitigation measures and implementation measures. Implementation measures are to be required where environmental impacts are less than significant, but to support proposed development within the reuse plan area concurrent with demand, additional measures are required. For these Purposes, both implementation measures and mitigation measures are identified in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and equally are enforceable.. Availability of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting prOgram · The completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. cheCklist will be retained in each program and project file and will be available for public inspection on proper request. Monitoring Program Fees For major projects for which the mitigation monitoring effort is substantial, it may be appropriate to charge mitigation monitoring fees to support the actual costs of project-level mitigation monitoring. In such cases, the appropriate City will charge and collect from the project proponent a fee in the amount of the anticipated actual cost to the City for monitoring all mitigation measures, including consultant services and costs of administration, for a project aS described in this program. A deposit may be required by the City to be applied toward this fee, if established by City resolution or ordinance. Any unused portion of the deposit will be refunded. In the case of a project where the applicant will not be associated with the pr. oject after cOnstruction, the City will charge the anticipated cost of operation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for an appropriate period in advance. Sanctions/Penalties The applicable City may levy sanctions or penalties established bY resolution or ordinance for violations of conditions listed in the monitoring program. These.sanctions and penalties may include: .. . 2. 3. 4. 5., 6. Civil penalties/frees according to City codes. "Stop work" orders. ' Revocation of permits. Holding issuance of Certificate of Occupancy until completion of work. Forfeiture of performance bonds. Agency implementation of measures with appropriate charges to the applicant based on Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program agreements.. EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCdS Tustin 6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Dispute Resolution In the event of a disagreement between the City and project applicants/operators regarding the monitoring program, including manner of payment, penalties for noncompliance, and financial security arrangements, the following procedure, or other.appropriate procedure as provided for in the applicable Tustin or Irvine Municipal Code, or CEQA Guidelines, will be followed: - 1. The applicable City's representative will attempt to reso!ve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, the applicable City's representative will prepare a report documenting the source 'of the dispute and the City's position. o 2. The applicable City's representative will take the report before the Community Development Director, who will determine the resolution of the disagreement. 3. .The decision ofthe Community Development Director may be appealed to the City Council on payment of the City's standard fee for appeal. The decision of the City Council shall determine the outcome of the appeal. ! EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progran, .o. C., 0 r,j~ o (/3 ~ ~'~ 0 ~ ~ 0 - = ~ ,_ ._ =~ o-- ~ ~- 0 ,-" ,- ~: 0 . -- ~ ~ ~ .... ~- 0 ~. 0 C:" '-- ~ r- ~ 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,, o I I - I I I I I I I I . · ill ~ --_ --- , -_-- - ~:l/l ' ',-' Ill ~=l~ ~_ -.-- ~ ~ -'- - T~ II I'~ ~ ~ ~ "~ stl~l - Attachment 7 Resolution No. 00-91 Approving General Plan Amendment 00-001 RESOLUTION NO. 00-91 ]0 ]! ]7 20 2! .22 23 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 00-001, AMENDING THE TUSTIN GENERAL PLAN FOR THE REUSE AND DISPOSAL OF THE FORMER MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS) TUSTIN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin has been determined sUrplus to the needs of the federal govemment and has been approved for disposal by the United States Department of the Navy (DON) in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission approved by the President and accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and, B. The City of Tustin has been approved by the Department of Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for preparing a Reuse Plan describing the reuse of the installation and providing recommendations to the DON for disposal of the former base to various public agencies and the homeless. The goal' of base disposal and reuse is economic redevelopment and job creation to'help replace the economic stimulus previously provided by the military installation. The LRA submitted the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense in October 1996, and an Errata amending the Reuse Plan in September 1998; and, C. The City of Tustin intends to implement the Reuse Plan through the approval or adoption of a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Ordinance Amendment, adoption of a Specific Plan and other discretionary'actions: and, D. Califomia State law requires each City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for its own physical development and for any land outside its boundaries which beam a relationship to its planning activities. The General Plan must be periodically updated to ensure that the Plan accurately reflects City policies, conforms to State law,' reflects current court decisions, and provides an integrated and intemally consistent set of goals and policies designed to reflect any changed characteristics or growth of the community. The closure of MCAS Tustin and implementation of the Reuse Plan would necessitate amendment of the Tustir~ General Plan; and, l0 14 l? 20 24 E. The Tustin City Council has received a request to consider General Plan Amendment 00-001 that is intended to amend the following General Plan Elements in support'of the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin: · The Land Use Element which designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land; and 2. The Housing Element which consists of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing; and . The Circulation Element which consists of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan; and . The Conservation/Open Space/Recreation Element which describes goals and policies for. the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, sOils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources; and, describing goals and policies.to secure open space for preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation and for the public health and safety; and . The Public Safety Element which describes goals and policies for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface, rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction and other seismic hazards, and other geologic hazards; flooding; and wiidland and urban fires; and Se The Noise Element which identifies and appraises noise problems in the community; and . The Growth Management Element which describes goals and policies to ensure that growth and development is based upon the City's ability to provide an adequate traffic circulation system; it guides Tustin's participation in interjurisdictional planning efforts and establishes a goal that the provision of jobs and housing be balanced; and -2.- . l0 14 20 2! ?-2 23 24 25 F. On March 16, 2000 the California Department of Housing and Community .Development certified that they had reviewed and approved the Housing Element revisions proposed in this action, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b); and G. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. et. seq. 21000).and the State Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Department of Navy have completed the following actions in preparing the Environmental .Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS./EIR): 1. On June 30, 1994, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a joint EIS/EIR and Initial Study was released and published for public review and comment. , On July 20, 1994, a Scoping meeting was held to solicit public participation and comments on the NOP for the EIS/EIR for reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. . On January 16, 1998, an initial Draft EIS/EIR was released for 60-day public review and comment (SCH No. 94071005).' The Document assessed the significant environmental impact, mitigation measures, and altematives associated with the Disposal and Reuse of. MCAS Tustin, located in Tustin and Irvine, California and th'e subsequent reuse of those properties and other adjacent properties. 4. On FebrUary 5, 1998, a Public Hearing was held on the initial Draft EIS/EIR. , On July 8, 1999, a revised Draft EIS/EIR was released for 45-day public review and comment. The comment period on the revised Draft EIS/EIR closed on August 23, 1999. 6. On August 11, 1999, a Public Hearing was held on the revised Draft EIS/EIR. ¸7. On December 23, 1999, a Final EIS/EIR (FEIS/FEIR) was released for 30- day public review and comment. The comment period on the FEIS/FEIR was closed on January 24, 2000. The FEIS/FEIR provides the required written responses to each comment on the draft EIS/EIR pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. and NEPA Council on Environmental Quality Regulations Section 1503.4. -:3- ]0 ]3 ]4 ]7 ]8 8. On November 17, 2000, Final Response to Comments on the FEIS/FEIR was released. ,, Prior to approving the proposed action, the City Council must certify that the FEIS/FEIR is complete and adequate and that all impacts, mitigation measures and project alternatives identified in the FEIS/FEIR have been reviewed and considered, mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed project that eliminate or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts identified in the FEIS/FEIR and it is determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable have been balanced against the benefits of the project and against the project alternatives and those benefits have been found to be overriding on each significant impact identified in the FEIS/FEIR. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations supporting such findings are comprehensively listed in Exhibit A of City Council Resolution No. 00-90 which is incorporated herein by reference; and all mitigation measures contained in the 'FEIS/FEIR Mitigation Monitor Reporting Program for the FEIS/FEIR were also adopted as Exhibit B of City Council Resolution No. 00-90 and will be incorporated as conditions of approval of subsequent discretionary actions at the appropriate level of project implementation. · H. On November 28, 2000, the Tustin Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing to provide, a further opportunity for the general public to comment on and respond to the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 3739-recommending that. the Tustin City Council approve General Plan Amendment 00-001; and On December 18, 2000, the Tustin City Council has received, reviewed and considered the proposed General Plan Amendment 00-001, held a Public Hearing on the matter and considered the testimony, evidence and comments made at the public hearing, and the FEiS/FEIR and has made the following Findings: 20 23 24 1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin General Plan be amended prior to the adoption of implementing actions that'will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes. 2. That the City of Tustin has prepared General Plan Amendment 00-001 in accordance with' Section 65302 of the Califomia Government Code to address changes associated with planning for the reuse of MCAS Tustin. ?-5 3. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00- 001 will result in a General Plan that will serve as an effective guide for the 10 II. orderly grOwth and development, preservation and conservation of open- space land natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the subjects addressed in the General Plan. 4. That approval of the revisions proposed for General Plan Amendment 00- 001 will result in the General Plan, its elements and parts thereof being integrated, internally consistent and 'compatible. 5. That the proposed General Plan Amendment' 00-001 has been found to be in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. The Tustin City Council does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 00-001, amending the Tustin General Plan as identified in "Exhibit A" attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 18t~ day of December 2000. 12 JEFFERY M. THOMAS, Mayor 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, Califomia, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 00-91 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on December 18, 2000, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER CITY CLERK cc:reso\00~91 -5- Exhibit A General Plan Amendment 00-001