HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 ZONE CHANGE 02-006 12-02-02AGENDA REPORT
NO. 2
12-02-02
MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 2, 2002
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF
ZONE CHANGE 02-006- MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
SUMMARY
Zone Change 02-006 is a proposal to add Section 9246 to the Tustin City Code
establishing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations
and amending the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan).
RECOMMENDATION
That the Tustin City Council introduce and have first reading by title only to adopt
Ordinance No. 1257 approving Zone Change 02-006 adding Section 9246 to the Tustin
City Code and amending the Tustin Zoning Map (Attachment 1).
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct impact on the General Fund at this time. The Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin
is a comprehensive planning tool to guide the physical development of the former
military installation and an adjoining 4.1-acre privately owned (Irvine Company) parcel
of land.
BACKGROUND
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, the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
Tustin was closed on July 2, 1999.
Federal law provides the opportunity for the responsible local authority to develop a
reuse plan that will guide the disposal actions of the United States Department of Navy
(DON) at the site. The City of Tustin ("City") was approved by the Department of
Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin. Between
November 1992 and October 1996, the City of Tustin held numerous public meetings,
workshops, weekend workshops and public hearings soliciting broad-based public input
'(9 luauJqoel~V) suo!leln§eJ pue uo!leu§!sep §u~uoz (Uelcl og!oads ~-dS)
Uelcl o§!o~)ds u!lsn_l_
§u!pueLue pus delhi I~u!uoz u!~snj, eql §u!pueuJe '900-~0 e§ueqo euoz e^oJdde I!ounoo
fq!O u!lsn.L eql leql §u!pueuJLuooeJ 81~8g 'ON uo!lnlose~l peldope uo!ss!uJuJoo I~u!uueld
eql '§upeeq eql jo uo!snlouoo eq), 1¥ '(cj lUeLUqOel~¥ se pep!AoJd eJe selnU!LU §u!leeLu
UO!SS!LULUOO §U!UUelcl ~00~; '9~ Jaqo1oo) §u!Jeaq o!lqnd eql le pGA!GO~)J S~,U~)LUUJOO
eql ol sesuodseJ leqJeA pep!^oJd ~eUJOl~V/q!O eql '§u!JeeH o!lqncl eq], jo uo!snlouoo
eql 1V '(~ lueuJqoel~V) 900-~;0 e§ueqo euoz o~ I~u!~oerqo Jellel e pelnq!Jls!p pus
,~uouJ!lsel leqJe^ pep!^oJd (QSrlVS) lo!J~S!EI Iooqos peg!uR euv clues eql §u!~ueseJdeJ
,~euJolle ue 'eu!llesseH p!AeQ 'JIAI '6u!JeeH o!lqnd eql I~u!JnQ '(S lUeLUqOellV) 900-~0
eEiueqo euoz uo §u!Jeeq o!lqnd e plaq UO!SS!LUUJOO 6u!uuelcl eql '~:00~ '@~ Jaqo),oo uo
'~00~ '6 jeqLue),des puc ~;00~ '~:~ Zlnr uo pleq ueeq I~u!^eq sdoqs~po~
~uaoaJ ~sow aq~, q~!M ~,uawnoop Ueld o!j!oeds eq~ uo plaq/~l~,uanbasqns a~a~ ~uawnoop
Uelcl 9g!3ads aq~, uo Z00;~ pue ~00Z u~ sdoqs~pOM uo!ss!wwoo §u!uuelcl snoJawnN
'(g: lUeLUqOe11¥) eU!AJI JO XI!O eql u!ql!M S~)JOe g6 Xle3eLU!xoJdde
qi!M u!lsn/Jo XI!O eql U!q),!M peleOOl eJe Uelcl esne~l eql u~ se JOe L ~g'L/~leleLU!xoJdde
JO e),!s eqj jo A),!JOreLU eq/ 'leoJed peUMO AIejeA!Jd eJOe ~'t e pue AlJedoJd leJepej jo
saJoe ~09~ XI~)JeuJ!xoJdde Jo pes!JdLuoo S! NOa eql/~q p~)AoJdde Ueld asna~! aq/ '8661,
JaqLua),da9 u! NOQ aq~, o), papJeMJOJ SI~M leq), Uelcl asna~ aq~, ol ,,eleJJ:l,, ue u! pagp, uap!
a JaM Uelcl asna~ aq~, ol SUO!S!AaJ Jou!IAI 'NOQ aql o~, up, snl S¥OIAI JOj Uelcl asna~l e
pa~!Luqns 'up, snl SVOIAI JOj V'cl-1 aql se I~up, oe 'AI!O aq~, '9661, Jaqo~,oO Ul 'up, snl SVO~
JOj Ueld asna~ paAoJdde aq), jo uop, oalaS aq), o), Joud SaAp, euJa),le Ueld asna~ j.o JaqLunu
e j.o uop, oaraJ pue uop, eJap!suoo '~,UaLUdOlaAap aq), O~, Pal Xllem, UaAa slJOj.j.a aSaql
· s~,u!eJ~,SUOO pue sap,!unlJoddo 'sanss! ),UaLUdOlaAapaJ aseq jo X),apeA e uo lUaLULUOO pue
~ e§ed
~00~: 'g: JaqLuaoaa
900-~0 e§ueqo auoz
uo3snH 'V Lue!II!M
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
December 2, 2002
Page 3
DISCUSSION
California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt
specific plans by resolution or by ordinance. A Specific Plan is one device for
implementing the goals and policies of the Tustin General Plan. A Specific Plan
contains the development and reuse regulations that will constitute zoning and planning
requirements for the site.
City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 1257 would approve Zone Change 02-006
amending the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City Code as summarized below:
· Amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and Amendment, and,
· Amend the Tustin City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations.
The proposed MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) (the "Specific
Plan" or "Plan") includes detailed planning policies, regulations, implementation
strategies and procedures necessary to guide the reuse and development of the site.
The Specific Plan has been designed to be practical in economic terms and visionary in
its ability to create and respond to future market opportunities. A careful balance
between certainty and flexibility underlies the provisions of the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan is organized into five chapters as follows:
· Chapter 1 -an introduction and description of the Plan.
· Chapter 2 - identifies the intended land uses, community structure, urban design,
infrastructure, and utilities for the Plan.
· Chapter 3 - the development/reuse requirements and design guidelines.
· Chapter 4 - the administration of the Specific Plan and how development/reuse
projects will be processed by the City of Tustin.
· Chapter 5 - Reuse Implementation Strategy.
· Chapter 6 - Appendix (definitions of the terms used in the document), General
Plan consistency analysis, and other background information.
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
December 2, 2002
Page 4
Land use and development regulations contained in the Specific Plan establishes by
land use category the authorized development square footage and dwelling units
permitted, types of use permitted, minimum building site area, maximum building
heights, maximum lot coverage permitted, minimum gross floor area per residential unit,
landscaping requirements, parking standards, signage regulations, etc.
Adoption of the Specific Plan would create the regulatory framework that could, when
development is completed, result in:
· a maximum of 4,049 dwelling units within the City of Tustin;
· Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless;
· an 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;
· a Golf Village area with hotel and ancillary retail uses;
approximately 11.4 million square feet of non-residential uses such as
commercial business, retail, office and light industrial uses, and public and
recreation uses (approximately 2.2 million feet is existing floor area on the base
and 9.2 million square feet is potential new floor area) could be developed;
In addition, both of the National Register of Historic Places listed blimp hangars could
be reused, if financially feasible and based on a detailed agreement that the City and
County of Orange have entered into with the Department of the Navy, federal Advisory
Council and State Office of Historic Preservation. The Specific Plan also proposes
major transportation circulation improvements including the extension of Tustin Ranch
Road south of its current terminus to Von Karman, the extension of Warner Avenue to
Jamboree Road and the installation of an internal looped arterial roadway within the
project area. The amount and phasing of development will be based on the sequence
of infrastructure installation both on-site and off-site. Also, adoption of Zone Change
02-006 would bring the site's current zoning (Public and Institutional) into conformance
with the current Tustin General Plan designation for the site (MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan).
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
December 2, 2002
Page 5
A more detailed description of the Reuse Plan's Neighborhood areas is provided in the
October 28, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
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 CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section
15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Department of Navy completed a Final Joint
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). On January
16, 2001, the Tustin City Council certified the Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse
of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (the Program EIS/EIR). A Notice of
Determination was filed on January 23, 2001. Proposed Zone Change 02-006 which
includes a Zoning Map Amendment and Amendment to the Tustin City Code was
evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. No additional environmental
analysis or action is required prior to City action on the proposed project.
ANALYSIS
California Government Code Section 65451 requires the following of a Specific Plan:
(a) A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all
of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including
open space, within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the
land uses described in the plan,
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and
standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural
resources, where applicable.
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
December 2, 2002
Page 6
(4) A program of implementation measures including regulations,
programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary .to
carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific
plan to the general plan.
In addition, California Government Code Section 65454 states: "No Specific Plan may
be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the
general plan."
The City Council is requested to find that the proposed MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (with
corrected minor typographical errors as identified in "MC^S Tustin Specific Plan
Corrections", Exhibit "C" of Ordinance 1257) meets all of the aforementioned
Government Code requirements and introduce and have first reading by title only to
adopt Ordinance No. 1257 approving Zone Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning
Map to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and amending the
Tustin City Code to establish the MC^S Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific
Plan) zoning regulations.
1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse
Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin
City Code be amended prior to implementing actions that will result in the
economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes.
2. That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02-006, an amendment of the
Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MC^S Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and an amendment to the Tustin City Code to
establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning
regulations in accordance with Section 65451 of the California Government
Code.
3. That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will result in the
systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and will serve as an
effective guide for the orderly growth and development of compatible uses of the
subject property in a manner that will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent
to the former MCAS Tustin property.
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
December 2, 2002
Page 7
4. Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been
considered.
5. That Zone Change 02-006 and establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan.
6. Administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is thoroughly integrated into the
City's development processing system.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
D i re c~o~~u~ Development
Chri'sbne A. shi:'v- -~ ""~-'n~l'leto~
Assistant City Manager
Dana Ogdon
Program Manager
Attachments: Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Ordinance 1257 Approving Zone Change 02-006, an
amendment to the Tustin Zoning Map to reclassify certain
properties from their existing Public And Institutional (P&I)
District zoning designation to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) in order to establish
consistency with General Plan Amendment 00-001, and
the addition of Section 9246 to the Tustin City Code
related to the establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations.
MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries.
October 28, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning Commission
on Zone Change 02-006.
Letter submitted to the Planning Commission on October
28, 2002 by Connor, Blake & Griffin.
Minutes from the October 28, 2002 Planning Commission
Meeting.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3848 recommending
City Council approval of Zone Change 02-006.
S:\CDD\PCREPOR'lSmcaszonechange02-oo~.doc
Attachment 1
Ordinance No. 1257
ORDINANCE NO. 1257
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE
CHANGE 02-006, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
TUSTIN ZONING MAP TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM THEIR EXISTING PUBLIC
AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) DISTRICT ZONING
DESIGNATION TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 00-001, AND THE ADDITION OF
SECTION 9246 TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN) ZONING REGULATIONS.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows;
A.
The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially
closed on July 2, 1999 as a result of recommendations by the
Federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission.
S.
The City of Tustin approved a Reuse Plan in October 1996, that was
subsequently amended by an Errata in September 1998, and which
provides for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin and an
approximate 4.1-acre immediately adjacent parcel currently owned
by The Irvine Company.
C.
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution
00-90 that certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and
Reuse of MCAS Tustin, and adopted Resolution 00-91 that adopted
General Plan Amendment 00-001 establishing a MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan general plan land use designation for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
D,
The Tustin Zoning Map currently identifies the zoning for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 2
as Public and Institutional (P&I). Adoption of a zoning designation
consistent with the approved Reuse Plan and General Plan
Amendment 00-001 is now required.
E.
The City of Tustin has prepared the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and
proposed Zoning Map change to ensure the orderly development
and improvement of the former MCAS Tustin and immediately
adjacent private property consistent with the general plan
objectives, policies, programs for development of the former MCAS
Tustin and an approximate 4.1-acre adjacent parcel currently
owned by The Irvine Company.
F.
The Tustin City Code does not currently include provisions
establishing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan zoning regulations and
requirements and therefore must be amended to provide sufficient
and clear guidance regarding development consistent with the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designation within the Tustin General
Plan.
Go
Section 65850 of the Government Code allows the City to adopt
ordinances that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land;
the intensity of land use; and off-street parking and loading.
Ho
This Code Amendment is necessary to protect the health, welfare,
safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the citizens of Tustin
and the community vision for the City by providing permanent
regulations for the former MCAS Tustin site.
The Planning Commission, at a public hearing that was duly
noticed, called, and held on Zone Change 02-006 on October 28,
2002, approved Resolution No. 3848 recommending that the City
Council adopt Zone Change 02-006.
J.
A public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held by the Tustin
City Council on Zone Change 02-006 on December 2, 2002.
K.
Proposed Zone Change 02-006 which includes a Zoning Map
Amendment and Amendment to the Tustin City Code was
evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. NO additional
environmental analysis or action is required prior to City action on
the proposed project.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 02-006 which
approves the following specific actions:
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 3
.
.
Amend the Tustin zoning map to reclassify the Tustin portion of the former
MCAS Tustin and an adjacent 4.1-acre parcel currently owned by The
Irvine Company from Public and Institutional to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Amend Article 9 of the Tustin City Code to add Section 9246 to the Tustin
Municipal Code to read as follows:
9246 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan)
a. Purpose
The purpose of the MCAS TuStin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific
Plan) is to establish zoning regulations to guide the orderly development
and improvement in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for
that portion of the city which is designated as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
on the official zoning map of the city. The preparation and adoption of a
specific plan is authorized by Chapter 3, Article 8 of the State of California
Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.).
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan replaces the usual development
standards otherwise applicable to most property within the City of Tustin.
b. Adoption of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
There is adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the text of which is set
forth in the document entitled "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" attached to this
ordinance as Exhibit B, as corrected by changes identified as "MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan Corrections" and provided as Exhibit C, which are
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
c. Applicability
The SP-1 Specific Plan District is established by this chapter. The
provisions of this section shall apply to all property shown on the official
zoning map within the SP-1 Specific Plan District. The regulations set
forth in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan shall apply to the SP-1 Specific
Plan District only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Tustin
General Plan.
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 4
d. Permitted Uses and Development Standards
All property within the SP-1 District shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with all policies, requirements, regulations and provisions set
forth the in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
e. Zoning Adoption or Change
The SP-1 District zoning shall be adopted or changed by the same
procedure prescribed within the Tustin City Code for zoning district
amendments and consistent with State of California Planning and Zoning
Law. An amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan may be processed
as described within Section 4.2.7 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Amendments to the MC^S Tustin Specific Plan may be adopted by
ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the
Tustin City Council.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY
All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish
the purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only
to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional
as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall
continue to be fully effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the 2nd day of December, 2002.
JEFFERY M.THOMAS
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 5
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1257
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members
of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing
Ordinance No. 1257 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of
the Tustin City Council, held on the 2naday of December, 2002 and was given its
second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the 2nd day of December, 2002 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Mcas~'ncasreuseplan\ordinance 1257.doc
Exhibit A
Tustin Zoning Map Amendment
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
(SP-1 Specific Plan)
0 a3
0
Exhibit B
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
(Copy on File with Tustin City Clerk)
Exhibit C
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Corrections
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
The neighborhoods of the plan are intended to establish a community
structure for the Plan and provide the basis for the range of land uses,
intensity of development, urban design characteristics, and development
regulations specified in Chapter 3.
The Land Use Plan contains eight (8) neighborhoods as shown on Figure
2-2. A statistical summary of the land uses contained in each
Neighborhood is shown on Table 2-2.
A. Neighborhood A- Learning Village
Neighborhood A is located along the western edge of the site,
bordered by Red Hill Avenue on the west, Armstrong Avenue on the
east, Warner Avenue on the south, and an existing business center on
the north. The Learning Village will be an important anchor for the
community with a range of public-serving uses within a walkable
campus setting. By virtue of its uses and operation, the Learning
Village will be linked to many other uses and activities within the
Plan area. Its primary functions are to provide education, training,
and specific social service functions identified in Section 2.3.5,
Public Benefit Conveyance Uses. Primary access to Neighborhood A
will be from a proposed North Loop Road (extension of Valencia
Avenue eastward) and Armstrong Avenue. Secondary access will be
provided by Warner Avenue.
B. Neighborhood B - Village Housing
Neighborhood B is located in the northwestern quadrant of the site,
bordered by Edinger Avenue on the north, Tustin Ranch Road on the
east, the proposed North Loop Road on the south (extension of
Valencia Avenue), and Armstrong Avenue on the west. Through reuse
or new development of a range of housing types, Neighborhood B is
expected to offer basic, affordable housing within the Plan area. The
housing will be complemented by commercial village services that
will meet the daily shopping needs of residents, employees and
visitors to the site. The neighborhood will also have a supporting
function as a transition or buffer area between existing residential
neighborhoods north of Edinger Avenue and the Learning Village and
Community ~Core uses. Primary access to Neighborhood B will be
from North Loop Road. Secondary access will be provided by
Armstrong Avenue and the West Connector Road. The Neighborhood
map (Figure 2-2), also identifies a shaded area within Neighborhood
B that represents a conceptual design area for the future Tustin Ranch
Road interchange.
City of Tustin
Page 2-12
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
F. Homeless Service Providers
The Base Closure Task Force in the development of the Reuse Plan
for MCAS Tustin and related Homeless Assistance Submission
detailed a strategy for accommodating homeless needs at the former
base in both Tustin and Irvine. The Base Closure Task Force
unanimously recommended (including the Task Force representative
from the City of Irvine) the provision of certain family transitional
housing. The Reuse Plan identified fourteen (14) units within the
City of Irvine (Parcel 37) and thirty six (36) units with the City of
Tustin (Parcels 34 and 35) and recommended that the Department of
the Navy either: 1) convey the units to the City and then the City
would negotiate the sale of the units and subsequent leasing within
Tustin's jurisdictional limits to the Salvation Army (24 family units),
the Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter (6 family units) and Dove
Housing (6 family units) and in Irvine's jurisdictional limits to
Families Forward (14 family units); or 2) in the event that the
Department of the Navy did not approve conveyance to the City, it
was the desire that the Department of the Navy make a direct transfer
of the units to the homeless providers.
Unfortunately, the Department of the Navy rejected a portion of the
Economic Development Conveyance Application for MCAS Tustin
in particular the proposal to acquire the property on parcels 35 and 37
(which contain housing units). The Department of the Navy working
with the General Services Administration has decided to sell the two
parcels through an auction process. With this decision the
Department of the Navy has also decided not to convey units directly
to a homeless service provider. The decision also precludes Tustin
from being able to specifically acquire and convey the 14 units
within the City of Irvine directly to Families Forward. (In the case of
units in Tustin, provisions in the Reuse Plan permitted homeless
accommodation to be distributed on Parcels 34 or 35. The City has
acquired Parcel 34).
As a result of the Department of the Navy's decision on the 14 units
in Irvine, the City of Tustin does not have the authority over the
property, either as a property owner or as a project-reviewing agency
able to condition a future development proposal, to ensure the
provision of the recommended 14-units to Families Forward. It is
within the Department of the Navy's or the City of Irvine's sole
control and authority to make such commitments. The Department of
the Navy has also taken the position that it is Irvine's responsibility
to implement the Reuse Plan within its jurisdiction. Provisions of the
Reuse Plan contained in geefoa Chapter 3 as reviewed_and
recommended by the City of Irvine and as evaluated in the
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 2-57
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
IRWD has expressed interest in giving up ownership of existing well
properties on the northwest side of the site at Red Hill Avenue in exchange
for new well sites near the site's southern border. We!! ::.tea are
~; ..... ~ Q c ...... ~ ....... ~,, ^""~ Well sites will need to be
negotiated between IRWD and the development. The exchange would
provide an opporttmity to develop these sites and integrate the new sites
into the planned business areas. The new well sites will be used during
peak periods to provide reclaimed water.
City of Tustin
Page 2-92
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
2.17 URBAN DESIGN PLAN
The MCAS Tustin site is a property of regional significance and is one of
the largest remaining underdeveloped sites in central Orange County. The
Plan encourages a mixed community of cutting edge technologies,
research and job centers, which are integrated with learning, living and
recreational uses. The purpose of the urban design concept is to achieve
aesthetic integration of uses within the site and with surrounding uses in
the adjacent communities. The focus is to integrate anticipated land uses
with existing facilities, and provide for architectural, landscape,
streetscape, and site design enhancements to improve the character of the
site. The urban design concept also further delineates, in the form of
standards and design guidance, the "sense of place" expressed in the
Vision for the Plan (Section 1.45).
The following broad design objectives are established for the Plan:
To achieve architectural design of the highest quality for both new
development and rehabilitation of existing structures. This includes
achieving compatibility in design of infill development and creating
building forms that compliment surrounding uses.
To reinforce internal relationships between uses through streetscape
design, pedestrian and bikeway linkages, and site planning
techniques.
To create a strong visual identity through design of community
entries, landscape design along roadways, signage, and placement of
views.
· To provide usable exterior spaces within developments.
To preserve existing trees and significant vegetation where feasible
and integrate into landscape design.
The urban design concept has been structured in levels of concepts,
standards, and guidelines. When these levels are overlaid, a
comprehensive design for the Plan emerges. General design intent is
defined in the following sections on community structure, landscape
design, and site development. Specific standards and site specific
guidelines are found in Chapter 3, under each of the 22 Planning Areas.
2.17.1 Community Structure Concept
MCAS Tustin's history of single use, well defined borders, framed by
existing local and regional arterials lend to establishing a strong identity
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 2-117
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
B. Streetscape Design - Plan Roadways
All Plan roadways shall be landscaped in accordance with the
following landscape details (Figures 2-20 through 2-2g_8). Figure 2-
19 provides a Key Map that locates each streetscape segment
described below. Streetscapes shall be designed as one common
landscape based on the themes developed for each roadway
classification.
Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue Streetscape "A"
(Figure 2-20). A special streetscape design should be provided
for the entry segments of Tustin Ranch Road and Warner
Avenue into the Plan area. The purpose is to draw motorists
into the site and focus views on the formal community entry
points. It is envisioned to have a formal placement of the plant
material, in order to create an arrival sequence leading to the
primary community entryways. This is proposed to be achieved
by an upright formal planting scheme (60% evergreen, 40%
deciduous).
Tustin Ranch Road Streetscape "B" (Figure 2-21). Along the
segment of road between the North and South Loop Road, the
planting concept should be informal, and should draw upon the
golf course edge and landscaped parkways to enhance the open
space effect. The planting for the median and parkway is
envisioned to be lush and informal design. Careful attention
will be needed along the parkway to obtain the desired goal of
dense planting but also creme view windows into the adjacent
parcels. The planting ratios are 60% evergreen, 40% deciduous.
Warner Streetscape "B" (Figure 2-22). Warner is similar to
Tustin Ranch Road. The planting type, mixture, and density is
the same.
City of Tustin
Page 2-126
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
E
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/ReuSe Regulations
Ee
Fe
6. Landscaping
a) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
b) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.5.2 17 of this Specific Plan.
7. An internal pedestrian/multi-use trail through the park shall be
developed and coordinated with access to the elementary
school site to west and residential development to the east.
8. A comer triangular-shaped setback of 60 feet, measured from
the intersection of the curb lines at North Loop Road and
Armstrong Avenue shall be provided for a secondary
community intersection treatment (see Section 2.17 for
landscape guidelines). If this setback conflicts with existing
ballfields that the City wishes to retain, then a reduced or
modified community intersection treatment may be provided
subject to the determination of the City.
9. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
10. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development or Reuse Requirements
1. Existing structures shall be brought into conformance with the
Uniform Building Code as amended by the City, State of
Cali£omia Title 24 Access Compliance (handicapped
provisions), and requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. Demolition of structures shall be considered or undertaken
under the following conditions: 1) where information
determines the need for demolition to eliminate public health
and safety risks, 2) to improve the appearance of the Planning
Area, 3) to accommodate the completion of major roadway
improvements, and 4) to properly implement the land use intent
of this Planning Area.
2. A view corridor into the park at the intersection of Armstrong
Avenue and North Loop Road (extension of Valencia) shall be
maintained.
3. In conjunction with Master Plan improvements in excess of $1
million dollars in valuation, a screening wall shall be provided
along the northern boundary of park where none exists in
accordance with the General Regulations Section 3.11.
A summary of the key design guidelines for the Community Park is
provided in Figure 3-3, located at the end of Section 3.3.
City of Tustin
Page 3-30
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 3. Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
D. Site Development Standards - Single Family Detached
1. Maximum dwelling units - 7 dwelling units per acre
2. Minimum lot area - 3,000 square feet
3.. Minimum lot width - 35 feet
4. Maximum building height - 35 feet
5. Maximum lot coverage - 50 percent of lot area. Covered areas
shall include all areas under roof except trellis areas, roof
overhangs, and covered porches outside the exterior wall.
6. Minimum building setbacks4
a) Edinger Avenue -40 feet
b) Local public street- 10 feet
c) Private street or private drive - 5 feet
d) Interior side yard - 3 feet minimum with aggregate
requirement of 10 feet for both side yards
e) Rear yard - 10 feet
7. Landscape setbacks4
a) Edinger Avenue- 30 feet
8. Landscaping
a) Areas not devoted to buildings, parking areas, hardscape,
and roads, shall be landscaped.
b) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
c) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.5.2 17 of this Specific Plan
9. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide
connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning
Areas, and to citywide bicycle trails where applicable.
10. Fences and Walls
a) Compliance with General Regulations Section 3.11.
b) A masonry block wall shall be maintained and/or
constructed along the western perimeter of the Planning
Area in accordance with the General Development
Regulations.
11. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
12. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
13. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Landscape setbacks are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway,
sidewalk, and planting areas. Building setbacks are measured from future right-of-way. Non-
conforming landscape and building setbacks will be permitted to remain to accommodate
existing walls or buildings not in future right-of-way.
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-39
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
E. Site Development Standards - Single Family Attached
lo
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
o
o
o
10.
11.
Maximum dwelling units - 7 dwelling units per acre
Minimum lot area per family unit - 3,000 square feet
Minimum lot width - no minimum
Maximum building height - 35 feet
Maximum lot coverage - 100 percent less required setbacks
and open space areas
Common open space - 400 square feet per dwelling trait
located within common, designated recreational areas. Private
attached ground level patios may be credited if open on three
sides. Areas not available for open space credit include all
structures, streets, driveways, landscape setbacks, and parking
lots.
Private outdoor open space - minimum private outdoor open
space shall be increased to 400 square feet for existing units.
Minimum gross floor area per dwelling unit, excluding the
garage:
a) Bachelor - 450 square feet
b) 1 Bedroom- 550 square feet
c) 1 Bedroom with den- 700 square feet
d) 2 Bedrooms- 750 square feet
e) 2 Bedrooms or more with den - 900 square feet
Minimum bUilding setbackss
a) Edinger Avenue -40 feet
b) Local public street- 10 feet
c) Private street or private drive - 5 feet
d) Interior side yard - 3 feet minimum with aggregate
requirement of 10 feet for both side yards
e) Rear yard - 10 feet
Landscape setbacks6
a) Edinger Avenue - 30 feet
Landscaping
a) Areas not devoted to buildings, parking areas, hardscape,
and roads, shall be landscaped.
b) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
c) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.5.2 17 of this Specific Plan
5 Building setbacks are measured from future right-of-way. Non-conforming landscape and
building setbacks will be permitted to remain to accommodate existing walls or buildings not
in future right-of-way.
6 Landscape setbacks are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway,
sidewalk, and planting areas. Non-conforming landscape and building setbacks will be
permitted to remain to accommodate existing walls or buildings not in future right-of-way.
City of Tustin
Page 3-40
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Ge
Armstrong Avenue shall be provided for a secondary
community entry treatment (see Section 2.17 for landscape
guidelines).
9. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
10. S ignage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development Requirements
1. Concept plan approval shall be required for Planning Area 10
prior to new development (refer to Section 4.2_1 of this
Specific Plan).
Development Guidelines
1. Provision for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans in Planning Area 10 and with adjacent
Planning Areas 9 and 11.
2. Demolition of structures may be required by Tustin to be
undertaken under the following conditions: 1) where
information determines the need for demolition to eliminate
public health and safety risks, 2) to improve the appearance of
the Planning Area, 3) to accommodate the completion of major
roadway improvements, and 4) to properly implement the
permanent land use intent of this Planning Area.
A summary of the key design guidelines for Planning Area 10 is
provided in Figure 3-7.
City of Tustin
Page 3-92
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fe
4. Existing structures to be reused shall be brought into
conformance with applicable provisions of the Uniform
Building Code as amended, State of California Title 24 Access
Compliance (handicapped provisions), and requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
5. Utility metering modifications and prOvision of independent
utility services shall be committed to by agreement with the
City of Tustin in the Planning Areas 11 or 12, prior to use and
occupancy of existing buildings and new development, except
for interim use. Said agreement shall identify required
capital/infrastructure improvements and environmental impact
report mitigations.
6. Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for
Irvine Ranch Water District well sites and the Barranca
Channel.
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. The placement and design of plazas or other open space areas
should take advantage of the view opportunities to Saddleback
Mountain and significant on-site features, particularly from the
intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway.
2. Commercial uses permitted in Planning Area 11 are intended to
provide support services to the office and industrial uses and
are not intended to encourage auto-oriented, strip commercial
development along Red Hill Avenue or Barranca Parkway.
3. Provisions for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans within Planning Area 11 and 12.
Coordination with. adjacent development plans in Planning
Areas 9 and 10 should also be encouraged.
4. The existing buildings and surrounding site area in Planning
Area 12 shall be aesthetically upgraded through architectural
and landscape improvements, if proposed for reuse. Such
improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of use and
occupancy permits, except permits for interim uses. Such
improvements may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Upgraded window types and treatments (i.e., trim)
Upgraded entries, including doorways, covered
walkways, decorative paving
Upgraded roofing materials and roof overhangs
Screening of roof mounted equipment
Extensive planting of trees and shrubs throughout the
site, including parking areas and common open space
areas
City of Tustin
Page 3-96
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fe
required capital/infrastructure improvements and
environmental impact report mitigations.
6. Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for
Irvine Ranch Water District wells and the Barranca Channel.
7. If the final alignment for Warner Avenue differs from the
assumed alignment as described in Section 3.2, adjustments in
acreage and development potential for Planning Area 13 and
Planning Area 8 (Community Core) shall be calculated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 3.2.5. While the
respective Planning Area boundaries may shift slightly, Warner
Avenue will remain the common boundary between Planning
Area 13 and Planning Area 8.
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. Provisions for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans within Planning Areas 13 and 14.
Coordination with adjacent development plans in Planning
Areas 10, 11 and 12 should also be encouraged.
2. Demolition of structures may be required by Tustin to be
undertaken under the following conditions: 1) where
information determines the need for demolition to eliminate
public health and safety risks, 2) to improve the appearance of
the Planning Area, 3) to accommodate the completion of major
roadway improvements, and 4) to properly implement the
permanent land use intent of this Planning Area.
A summary of the key design guidelines for Planning Areas 13 and
14 is provided in Figure 3-6.
City of Tustin
Page 3-102
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fe
Ge
o
,
.
c) Private street or drive - 10 feet
d) Local public street- 10 feet
e) Minimum distance between buildings - 10 feet
Landscape setbacks29
a) Tustin Ranch Road - 30 feet
b) Barranca Parkway - 30 feet
Landscaping
a) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
b) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.17 of this Specific Plan.
Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide
connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning
Areas, and to citywide bicycle trail where applicable.
8. A portal intersection treatment shall be provided at Tustin
..... Ranch Road and Barranca Parkway (Refer to Section 3.11
as applicable).
Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
10. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development Requirements
1. Concept plan approval shall be required for Planning Area 18
prior to new development (refer to Section 4.2.1 of this
Specific Plan).
A Class I bikeway shall be provided along the southern
boundary of property within the landscape setback. See Section
2.6 for bikeways plan and design standards.
3. Utility metering modifications and provision of independent
utility services shall be committed to by agreement between the
City of Tustin and those agencies receiving or leasing property
in PA 18 prior to use and occupancy of existing buildings and
new development, except for interim uses.
4. Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for the
Barranca Channel.
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. Existing buildings and surrounding site area in Planning Area
18 should be aesthetically integrated with the Specific Plan
area through architectural and landscape improvements, if
proposed for reuse. Such improvements shall be completed
prior to issuance of use and occupancy permits, except for
interim use. Such improvements may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a) Upgraded window types and treatments (i.e., trim)
o
.
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-'1'13
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fe
Ge
10. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development Requirements
1. Concept plan approval shall be required prior to development
of Planning Area 19 (refer to Section 4.2.1 of this Specific
Plan).
2. The baseline mix of uses will be administered by the Non-
Residential Land Use/Trip Budget procedure specified in
Section 3.2.4. The purpose is to ensure that adequate
circulation capacity is available to serve the proposed project.
3. A Class I bikeway shall be provided along the southern
boundary of property within the landscape setback. See Section
2.6 for bikeways plan and design standards.
4. Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for
Irvine Ranch Water District wells.
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. The placement and design of plazas or other open space areas
should consider view opportunities into the project area and to
other Specific Plan features, particularly from the intersection
of Barranca Parkway and Jamboree Road.
2. Provisions for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans within the Planning Area and with adjacent
Planning Area 17 where practicable.
3. Refer to Section 3.8.2 G. 1 and 3.8.2 G.2 for additional
requirements related to any reuse or demolition of structures
which shall also be applicable to Planning Area 189.
A summary of the key design guidelines for Planning Area 19 is
provided in Figure 3-8.
City of Tustin
Page 3-118
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
.
.
,
,
.
10.
11.
Tenure - Development in Planning Area 15 of apartments is a
discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use
permit. No more than 25 percent of the total number of units
permitted within the Tustin portion of the Specific Plan area
may be approved for apartments.
Prior to approval of any subdivision map or site plan in
Planning Area 15, a precise boundary plan for the golf course
shall be submitted by the developer to the City of Tustin for
review and approval. This plan shall precisely define the edges
of the course and show frontages and visibility from Edinger
Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, and North Loop Road. In
addition, the plan shall identify a program for public use of the
golf course, and conceptually identify/locate proposed
buildings and facilities such as clubhouse, driving range, golf
school, snack bar, and maintenance yards.
Prior to issuance of building permits for golf course facilities,
the ultimate owner or operator of the golf course shall enter
into a recordable agreement with the City of Tustin that will
specify that the course:
a) Will remain open to the public;
b) Will make available a certain percentage of high demand
tee times for public walk-on use; and
c) Will establish a formula to guarantee the affordability of
a round of golf to Tustin residents.
Condominiums, multiple family developments, and patio
homes may contain numerous lots, but shall be designated as a
development unit on a tentative map. The minimum size for a
development unit shall be 10 acres.
Hotel and commercial uses, not including the golf course, shall
be located only in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue and
Jamboree Road.
Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for the
Santa Ana- Santa Fe Channel.
If the final alignment for Tustin Ranch Road and Warner
Avenue differs from the assumed alignments as described in
Section 3.2, adjustments in acreage and development potential
for Planning Area 15 and Planning Area'8 (Community Core)
shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section
3.2.5. While the respective Planning Area boundaries may shift
slightly, Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue will remain
the common boundary between Planning Area 15 and Planning
Area 8.
City of Tustin
Page 3-134
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3. Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
He
6. Minimum gross floor area per dwelling unit, excluding the
garage
a) Bachelor- 450 square feet
b) 1 Bedroom- 550 square feet
c) 1 Bedroom with den- 700 square feet
d) 2 Bedrooms- 750 square feet
e) 2 Bedrooms or more with den - 850 square feet
7. Minimum building setbacks4]
a) Edinger Avenue - 40 feet
b) Harvard Avenue - 40 feet
c) Local public street- 10 feet
d) Private street or private drive - 5 feet
e) Interior side yard - 3 feet minimum with aggregate
requirement of 10 feet for both sides
f) Rear yard - 10 feet
g) Building to building - 10 feet for 1 story; 15 feet for 2 or
more
8. Landscape setback4]
a) Harvard Avenue - 30 feet
b) Edinger Avenue - 30 feet
9. Landscaping
a) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
b) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.17 of this Specific Plan
10. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide
connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning
Areas, and to citywide bicycle trails where applicable.
11. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
12. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
13. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Site Development Standards - Patio Homes
1. Maximum dwelling units - 15 dwelling units per acre
2. Minimum lot area - none, refer to Section 3.9.3.t4J. below
3. Building site requirements - patio home subdivisions shall be
designated as a development unit on a tentative map.
4. Maximum building height- 35 feet
5. Maximum lot coverage - 100 percent, less required building
and landscape setbacks
6. Common open space - 400 square feet per dwelling unit
located within common, designated recreational areas. A
minimum of 150 square feet may be for private use if located
Landscape setbacks are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway,
sidewalk, and planting areas. Building setbacks are measured from future right-of-way.
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-139
Chapter 3, Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
3.11.8 Grading
All earthwork shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Tustin
Grading Ordinance and manual, and grading requirements within the City
of Irvine. Grading permits shall consider consistency with the urban
design concept. Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations related to storm drain runoff
from construction sites as implemented in the City of Tustin and Irvine
shall be required.
3.11.9
Hazardous Materials
To ensure that the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous
materials comply with the California Government Code and Health and
Safety Code, all provisions of the Tustin and Irvine Hazardous Materials
Codes and Fire Codes shall apply.
3.11.10 Height Determinations
Building height shall be determined from the finished grade within five (5)
feet of the structure to the highest point of the structure, excluding
chimneys and vents.
3.11.11 Interim Use Provisions
Interim uses shall be permitted in all Planning Areas subject to the
requirements and evaluation criteria specified in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.86_.
In addition to the provisions in Section 4.2.86, the following list of
potential Interim Uses shall be used as a guide for determining whether or
not a proposed interim use shall be allowed.
· Agricultural uses of the same or similar characteristics as practiced at
the time of base closure determination, exclusively within Planning
Areas 5, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15.
· Commercial uses
· Driver's training, excluding speed events
· Educational uses
· Emergency staging and supply areas and related services
· Equipment and vehicle storage, with proper screening
· Facilities for special recreation and craft activities
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-165
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Dedication of right-of-way shown in the Specific Plan shall be
required as determined necessary by the City Engineer or as a
condition of approval of any development.
Access points to individual development sites shall be subject to
acceptance by the City Engineer.
Access onto major arterials, due to their regional significance
coupled with high traffic volumes and speeds will of necessity
warrant a higher degree of access restrictions than would be applied
to lower level arterial roadways.
Installation of curbs, gutters, bikeways, sidewalks, street paving,
street lighting, and street trees shall be subject to the provisions of
the Tustin City Code. Installation shall be provided by a developer
and/or costs shall be assigned to each development lot or parcel in
accordance with a cost-benefit formula determined by the City
Engineer, or otherwise determined as a result of a negotiated
Development Agreement.
All street and highway design will be in accordance with the City of
Tustin and City of Irvine design standards, where applicable;
however, deviations consistent with the Specific Plan design
character and intent may be proposed and approved during
subsequent design or development review by the respective
jurisdiction.
On-street parking shall be prohibited along all arterial and local
collector streets within the Specific Plan area
Advanced Transportation Technology shall be accommodated to the
extent practicable, and any applications shall be documented.
3.11.22 Temporary Uses
Temporary uses shall be regulated pursuant to the Tustin City Code and
Irvine City Code, as applicable.
3.11.23 Trellis
Refer to applicable provisions of Subsection 3.11.43.
City of Tustin
Page 3-170
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
approval of the LRA prior to any new development on parcels
adjacent to the channel in Planning Area 15.
3.11.25 Vibration
No vibration associated with any use shall be permitted which is
discemable beyond the boundary line of the property, unless the vibration
does not negatively impact an adjacent property.
3.12 SIGNAGE
This section establishes regulations and guidelines for project
identification signage throughout the Specific Plan area. The intent is to
achieve a visually coordinated and appealing signage system that provides
identity to the site and promotes effective identification for the range of
uses within the Specific Plan. Specific Plan area signage/monumentation
will occur at key designated thematic intersections as shown in the
Community Structure Plan (Figure 2-15). Signs identifying arrival to the
City of Tustin may occur within the public right-of-way in locations
shown on Figure 2-5.
3.12.1
General Provisions
All signs in the City of Tustin shall conform to the provisions
contained in the Tustin Sign Code, unless otherwise contained in this
section. Whenever the regulations contained herein conflict with the
regulations of the Tustin Sign Code, the Specific Plan regulations
shall take precedence. Signs in the City of Irvine shall conform with
the Irvine Sign Code.
Be
A sign permit shall be applied for and received from the Department
of Community Development prior to constructing, erecting, altering,
replacing, moving, or painting any sign, except for signs exempt
from a permit according to the Sign Code. Permit applications shall
be accompanied by information as required for a standard sign plan
or master sign plan, pursuant to the Sign Code.
Ce
A master sign plan is required for new development or reuse projects
within the Specific Plan area involving multi-use sites and multi-
tenant centers or buildings. A master sign plan is also required for the
Golf Village (PA 15). The purpose of a master sign plan is to
encourage coordinated and quality sign design on sites where a large
number of signs will occur. In addition, the master sign plan should
include on-premises directional/information signs to facilitate smooth
internal circulation.
City of Tustin
Page 3-172
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 4 · Specific Plan Administration
There are certain planning areas that can be released without the need to
initiate significant on-site or off-site Specific Plan infrastructure
improvements as noted above and in the Joint EIS/EIR. However, these
areas shall still bear a proportionate share of roadway infrastructure costs
within the Plan and off-site. There areas are as follows:
The proposed Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) Land Use
area located at the northeast comer of Edinger Avenue and Jamboree
Road.
· The existing residential area located between Peters Canyon Channel
and Harvard Avenue north of Moffett Avenue.
The proposed Elementary School (ES) and the Neighborhood Park
(NP) sites located at the northwest comer of Barranca Parkway and
Harvard Avenue.
The existing residential areas located between Peters Canyon
Channel and Harvard Avenue south of Moffett Avenue.
These areas consist of either former military housing or proposed military
housing sites that can be supported by existing infrastructure. In addition
to exemptions to the cumulative ADT thresholds shown in the previous
table, interim uses and leases which do not result in greater ADT levels
than were generated at MCAS Tustin prior to closure may be authorized
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.11.131 of the Plan. If phasing and
the resulting cumulative ADTs are not consistent with the development
thresholds identified in Table 4.4, a supplemental traffic study would be
completed.
Service providers for off-site arterial highway circulation improvements
are determined by jurisdictional boundaries: the cities of Tustin, Irvine,
and Santa Ana for their jurisdictions, respectively; and the County of
Orange for improvements in unincorporated territory. The Transportation
Corridor Agencies are responsible for the Eastern Transportation Corridor.
CalTrans is responsible for freeway ramp improvements. All providers
work closely with the Orange County Transportation Authority to
implement the Countywide Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
4.4.5
Recreational Bikeways
Additional bikeways beyond the existing system consists of one regional
bikeway (Class I) and several Class II on-road bikeways. The Class I
Bikeway along Peters Canyon Channel will be completed in connection
with completion of channel improvements. Red Hill Avenue Bikeway
improvements will be completed in conjunction with future widening
City of Tustin
Page 4-16
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Attachment 2
MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries
::=::=:=:::=:=: MCAS TUSTIN BOUNDARY
~ REUSE PLAN AREA BOUNDARY'
I '.'." '~' ~""."~' "l CITY OF SANTA ANA
~ crI'Y OF TUSTIN
['"" "- '-~-'1 CITY OF IRVINE
SANTA ANA
North
No Scale
Reuse Plan Area
Attachment 3
October 28, 2002 Staff Report to the
Planning Commission on Zone Change
02-006
ITEM #3
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE:'
OCTOBER 28, 2002
SUBJECT:
ZONE CHANGE .02-006 - A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE
TUSTIN ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
(P&I) TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN) AND AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN CITY
CODE TO ADD SECTION 9246 ESTABLISHING THE MCAS
TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN)
ZONING REGULATIONS.
APPLICANT:
CITY .OF TUSTIN
PROPERTY OWNER: FORMER BASE PROPERTY - CITY OF TUSTIN (APPROX.
982;1 .ACRES)
.... -(300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN)
,
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - NAVY (APPROX. 525.0
ACRES)
............... .....-- (1220 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO)
, ~, '; . ,.; .,:, . ...,
......... , NON'BASE PROPERTY- IRVINE COMPANY (APPROX. 4.1
.. -. ACRES) (15015 HARVARD AVENUE)
_
LocATION:.' -" " THE FORMER MARl'NE CORPS AIR STATION, TUSTIN,
' '"' .... (TUSTIN INCORPORATED LIMITS ONLY)
PRESENT GENERAL
PLAN/ZONING '
'ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
PLAN; PUBLIC AND
A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIS/EIR) WAS CERTIFIED BY
THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 16, 2001. THE
PROPOSED PROJECT WAS EVALUATED WITHIN THE
PROGRAM EIR AND NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS OR ACTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CITY
ACTION.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3848 recommending that the Tustin
City Council approve Zone Change 02-006, amending the 'Tustin 'Zoning Map and
an]ending .the Tustin City Code by adding Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific' Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning designation and regulations.
..-BACKGROUND
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 199t, 1993, and 1995, the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
Tustin was closed' on July 2, 1999.
Federal law .provides the opportunity for the'"~eSponsible local authority to develop a
reuse pla'n',that Will guide the disposal actions of the .United States Department of NaVY
(DON) 'at the site. The City of Tustin ("City~)Twas approved by the Department of
Defense as the 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 to the DON in September 1998.
.
·
The Reuse Plan approved by the 'DON is comprised of approximately 1602 acres of
~ifede.railpmperty and a 4.1' acre privately owned parcel. The majority of the site or
approximately 1,511 acres in the Reuse Plan are located within the City of Tustin with
approximately 95 acres within the City of irvine.
..
: Be. tw., een November 1992 and October 1996, the. City of Tustin held numerous public
.-meetings, workshops, weekend workshops and public hearings soliciting broad-based
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.
On january 16,. 2001, the Tustin City CounCil approved General Plan Amendment
(GPA) 00-001 which adopted amendments to various Elements of the General Plan
needed to establish conformity with the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and whiCh officially
established a new "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" General Plan designation for that
portion of the Reuse Plan property within the City.of Tustin.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 3
Numerous Planning Commission workshops in 2001 and 2002 on the Specific Plan
document were subsequently held on the Specific Plan document with the most recent
workshops having been held on July 22, 2002 and September 9, 2002.
DISCUSSION
Proiect'Description
Califomia Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority fOr cities to adopt
specific plans by resolution .or by ordinance. A Specific Plan is one device for
implementing the goals and policies of the Tustin General Plan. A Specific-Plan
contains the development and reuse regulations that will constitute zoning and planning
requirements for the site.
Zone Change 02-006 would amend the Tustin Zoning Map and'Tustin City Code as
summarized below:
· -':Amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin
.,..Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and Amendment (see Exhibit 1), and,
· .Amend the Tustin-City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
~:pecific'Pian District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations (see Exhibit 2); -.
The proposed MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) (the "specific
Plan" or "Plan") includes-.: detailed planning policies, regulations, implementation
strategies and procedures necessary to guide the muse and development of the site.
The Specific Plan 'has been designed to be practical in economic terms and visionary in'
its ability to create and respond to future market opportunities. A careful balance
between certainty and flexibility underlies the provisions of the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan is organized into five chapters as follows:
· Chapter 1 -an introduction and description of the Plan.
· Chapter 2 -identifies the intended land uses, community structure, urban design,
infrastructure, and utilities, for the Plan.
· Chapter 3 - the development/reuse requirements and design guidelines.
· Chapter 4'- the administration of the Specific Plan and how development/reUse
projects will be processed by the City of Tustin.
· Chapter 5 - Reuse Implementation Strategy.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 4
· Chapter 6 - Appendix (definitions-of the 'terms used in the document), General
Plan consistency analysis, and other background information.
Land use and development regulations contained in the Specific Plan establishes by
land use category the authorized development square footage and dwelling ,..units
permitted, types of use permitted, minimum building site area, maximum building
heights, maximum lot coverage permitted, minimum gross floor area per residential unit,
landscaping requirements, parking standards, signage regulations, etc.
Adoption of the Specific Plan would create the regulatory framework that could, when
development is completed, result in:
· a maximum .of 4,049 dwelling units within the City of Tustin;
· Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless;
· an 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;
· a Golf Village area with hotel and ancillary retail uses; .- . -.:.,.
· approximately 11.4 million square feet of non-residential uses .such.. as
commercial business, retail, office and light industrial uses, and public a'rid
recreation uses (approximately 2.2 million feet is existing floor area on the base
and 9.2 million square feet is potential new floor area) could be developed;
in addition, both of the National Register of Historic Places listed blimp-hang.am ~couid.
be reused, if financially feasible and based on a detailed agreement that the City and
County of Orange have entered into with the Department of the Navy, federal Advisory
Council and State Office of Historic Preservation. The Specific Plan also proposes
major transportation circulation improvements including the extension of Tustin Ranch
Road south of its current terminus to Von Karman, the extension of Warner Avenue to
Jamboree Road and the installation of an internal looped arterial roadway within the
project area. The amount and phasing of development will be based on the sequence
of infrastructure installation both on-site and off-site.
The Specific Plan is framed around a collection of eight neighborhoods. The
neighborhoods are intended to establish a community structure and provide the basis
for the range of land uses, intensity of development, urban design characteristics, and '
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 5
· development regulatiOns for 21. Planning Areas.-The following provides a summary of
the development opportunity provided within each of the 'eight 'neighborhoods
established by the Specific Plan (see Attachment 1)'
Neighborhoo.d A (Learning Village)- located'along the western edge of the
site, .the Leaming Village will be an important anchor'for the community with a
range of public-serving uses within a walkable campus setting. Neighborhood A's.
primary function is to provide education, training, and specific ,social service
functions..The approximately 157 acre. Learning Village includes several parcels
planned for educational~uses, a community park, an abused children's shelter, a
transitional housing site, children's day care, etc. Neighborhood A contains sites
with a land use designation of Learning Village, Community Park and
Transitional/Emergency .Housing land use designations ~ ·
Neighborhood B (Village Housing) -located in the northwestern quadrant of
the site,.the Village HOusing neighborhood will allow the.development of a variety
.~.,~=)~ousing types, and ensures that a percentage.of the Plan!saffordable housing
requirements are met. The housing Will be complemented bY commercial village
services to meet the daily shopping needs of residents, employees and visitors
.to,.the site. The approximately .126 acre NeighborhoOd B contains sites with.a
.~.~!~--:~i.at~:d use designation of Low .Density Residential, MediUm Densi~' Residential
and Village Services.
Neighborhood C ('Urban Regional Park) located.near the center of the. site,
the County of Orange's Urban Regional..~Park:will be a.Significant public amenity
that will serve regional and local recreational needS and also provide .open
space,~ community resource and edUcational .services, support commercial
services and historic preservation activities. The approximately 84.5 acre
Neighborhood C contains only one .site with a land use designation of Urban
Regional Park.
Neighborhood D (Community Core) - located near the center of the site, the
Community Core will provide an opportunity.for one of more' unique, large-scale
development proposals that would complete the SpeCific Plan area. The
Specific Plan provides a high degree of flexibility providing opportunities for
mixed-use development. The approximately 225 acre Neighborhood D contains
only one site with a land use designation of Community Core.
Neighborhood E (Employment Center) -located in the southwest quadrant of
the Specific .Plan area, this neighborhood will be an employment center for the
community. It will provide a business park setting for a full range of professional
offices, research & development, and commercial business uses and will have
important connections with Neighborhood A (Learning Village) for advance and
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 6
employee education opportunities on Site. The approximately 217 acre
Neighborhood E contains sites with a common land use designation of
Commercial Business.
Neighborhood F (Regionally-Oriented. Commercial District)- Located in the
southeast quadrant 'of the site, .this neighborhood will be an auto-accessible,
regional. "big box" commercial center to provide commercial retail services,
specialty merchandising, wholesale, and discount commercial businesses. The
approximately 102 acre Neighborhood F contains sites with a land use
designation of Commercial Business and Commercial. One .16.7 acre site within
Neighborhood F is currently used by the Department of Army for an Armed
Forces Reserve. The Reserve site is proposed with a Commercial land use to
support future redevelopment in the.event, that .the Reserves were to dispose of
this site.
Neighborhood G (Residential Core.)- Iocated..in the northeastern portion of the
site, the ReSidential Core 'is intended,to function.., as the primary residential
development, supporting a range of housing types .including transitional family
units, affordable units and market-rate 'housing, as well as a 500-room hotel and
support commercial .activities adjacent .to a.-golf .course. The 431.9 acre
Neighborhood G contains .Sites with~.~.a~:~land'..ase designation of Golf Village,
Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential, 21.6 acres of
Neighb°rhood (3 within Planning Area 21 are within the City of Irvine.
Consequently, the pro.posed Specific Plan-. and Tustin Code amendment would
not apply to this portion ofNeighborhood. G..
· .
NeighborhoOd H (lrvine Residential Neighborhood) - This 73.4 acre Medium
Density .Residential site is fully' within the City of irvine. Consequently, the
proposed Specific Plan and Tustin Code amendment would not apply to this
Reuse Plan regulated Neighborhood..
As indicated previouSly, the Specific Plan provides significant flexibility to meet and
support, economic changes that could occur over time as the base develops. Two
important examples of the document's built-in flexibility are as follows:
1. Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations - Typically, the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed in each Planning Area may not exceed the numbers
specified in the Specific Plan for that area. However, if a Planning Area is
developed with less than the maximum .number of units allowed, then the
."unused" residential development potential may be transferred to another
Planning Area which supports residential uses, up to a maximum of ten percent
(10%) more than the total units allowed.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 7
,
Non-Residential Land Use Trip Budget'- The 'Specific Plan includes a land
,use/trip budget tracking system to manage the'forecasted vehicle trips generated
by non-residential land uses.at the site. The system establishes a maximum limit
on the number of average daily trips (ADTs) generated from all non-residential
uses within the Specific Plan. As development occurs within each Planning Area,
the Community Development Department. and Public Works Department will
monitor the assumed square footage of non-residential development.
Adjustments in the amount, intensity, or mix of uses may occur if consistent with
the Specific Plan and approved by the City as long as sufficient trip capacity
remains to accommodate remaining development potential in the area.
Unused/unneededADTs from a developed area's trip budget may be'transferred
to another neighborhood with the approval of the property owner and the City of
Tustin.
The Community Development Department will be reSponsible for administration of the
'Specific.,~,Pian, including: .processing assistance, 'interpretations of provisions,
management of ~the Specific Plan's phasing. 'program and Non-Residential Land
Use/Trip:~Budget, approval .of temporary and interim uses, specification of conditions of
approvalT.: and. authorization of certificates of use and occupancy for both new
development .and .reuse. The Zoning Administrator :will be responsible for review and
.-~approval~0f concept'plans, ,deSign ,.reviews to determine compliance with the Specific
.Plan; and consideration of Minor Adjustments which do not alter the policy direction of
the .Plan. The Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator, as defined in the
applicabl® City,Code, shall be responsible for approving Variances and Conditional Use
Permits;. recommending subdiVision maps, parcel maps and Specific Plan amendments
to the City Council; 'and acting on any appeals of Community Development Director or
Zoning Administrator.. decisions. The City Council will be responsible for adopting
amendments to the'Specific Plan; approving subdivision and parcel maps; and acting
on appeals to Planning Commission decisions.
Site and Surrounding Properties
Surrounding properties are described as follows: Uses'to the north (from the westerly'
"Red Hill Avenue" edge to the easterlY "HarVard Avenue" edge) include a light industrial
business park, and. indoor and outdoor storage facility, commercial uses, Edinger
Avenue, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), two large single-family
residential tracts ('i'ustin Meadows and Peppertree), the Santa AnalSanta 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
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 8
research and development uses. Properties located south of Warner Avenue are within
the City of Santa Ana. Properties north of Warner Avenue are within the City of TuStin.
USes to the 'south (from the Westedy "Red Hill Avenue" edge to the easterly "Harvard
Avenue,'edge) include, a combination of business park, light industrial, industrial and
· commercial uses .in the' City of Irvine. 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 (from the southerly "Barranca Parkway" edge to the northerly SCRRA
railroad tracks edge) include residential (Village 38) and recreational uses within the City
of Irvine. ' '
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
Pursuant to,:the Nationalr Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the
Council , on:: EnVironmental Quality Regulations"(40 CFR parts 1500-15.08) and the
California 'Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. et.
seq 21000).and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section
15000.et. seq.), the City of Tustin and. Department. of Navy'completed a Final Joint
~' .Envir°nmentallmpact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). On January
16, 2001, the Tustin City Council certified the Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse
of the.Marine ,Corps .Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (the Program EIS/EIR). A Notice of
Determination was filed on January 23, 2001. Proposed Zone Change 02-006 which
· ' ~.:.includes a Zoning Map Amendment and Amendment to the Tustin City Code was
evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. No additional environmental
analysis or action is required prior to City action on the proposed project.
·
ANALYSIS
,. .
Califomia .Government Code Section 65451 requires the following of a Specific Plan:
(a) A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all
of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including
open space, within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of Public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covered by the plan 'and needed to support the
land uses described in the plan.
Planning Commission Report
ZOne Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 9
(3) Standards and criteria by which development,-.will proceed, and
standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural
resources, where applicable:
(4) A program of implementation measures including., regulations,
programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to
carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) ....
......
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific
plan to the general plan.
In addition, California GOvernment Code Section 65454 states: "No Specific Plan may~:
be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent, with the-
general plan."
........ .~';~.~-. ,,~...
The City Council has the ultimate authority to adopt Zone Change 02-006, amendiag,
the Tusti~ Zoning Map and amending the Tustin City Code .to establish the MGAS
TuStin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning designation and regulatio.ns.
The Tustin Planning Commission is requested to find that 'the .proposed MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan meets all of the aforementioned State req~rements and through~.:.:itsi-.::;~i;-:'-
adoption of Resolution No. 3848 (see Attachment 3) recommend that the Tustin .' City
Council adopt Zone Change 02,006, amending the Tustin ZoningMap.;to MCAS.Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and .amending the Tustin City Code....to
establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
regulations. Findings. supporting the Planning Commission's adoption of'Resolution-No.
3848 are identified below: --
1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated. R..e.,..u~_e Plan
for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin Zoning Map and:'~ustin City
Code be amended prior to implementing actions that will result in the.:economic
redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes.
That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02-006, an amendment of the
Tustin Zoning Map.from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and an amendment to the Tustin City Code to establish
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations in
accordance with Section 65451 of the California Government Code.
.
That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will result in the
systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and will serve a.s an effective
guide for the orderly growth and development of compatible uses of the subject
property in a manner that will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 10
.
comfort or general welfare of Persons residing or working .in or adjacent to the
former MCAS Tustin property.
Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been considered.'
5. That Zone Change 02-006 and establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific. Plan
District (SP-.1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan, as most recently
amended in February 2002 in accordance with Section 65454 of the California
Government Code.
6. Administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is thoroughly integrated into 'the
City's development processing system.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director Of Community. Development
Dana Ogdon
Redevelopment Program Manager
Christine A. Shinglet,~')/
Assistant City Manag~'r
Attachment: Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Neighborhoods Map
Resolution 3848, and Exhibit 1: Ordinance 1257
Approving Zone Change 02-"006, an amendment to
the Tustin Zoning Map'to. reClassify certain properties
from their' existing Public' And~ Institutional (P&I)
District zoning designation 'to MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 SpecificPian).in order'to establish
consistency with General Plan Amendment 00-001,
and the addition of Section 9246 to the Tustin City
Code .related to the establishment of the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan)
zoning regulations.
S:\CDD\PCREPORT~ncaszonechange02-006.doc
Attachment 1
MCAS Tustin Spe:ci.fi,c Plan
Neighborhoods Map
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Neighborhoods
PKW~
.L.E~E:ND
/
./
/
~E
:PLANI~ING~ '~
Atta ch m e nt 2
Resolution 384'8 and Exhibit 1
Ordinance No. 1257
RESOLUTION NO. 3848
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF' TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CiTY
COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 02-006, AMENDING
THE TUSTIN ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) AND AMENDMENT OF THE
TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ADD SECTION 9246 ESTABLISHING
THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN)ZONING REGULATIONS.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin ("City") does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Tustin Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A.
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,
Bo
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,
Co
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution 00-90 that
certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin,
and adopted Resolution 00-91 that adopted General Plan Amendment 00-001
establishing a MCAS Tustin Specific Plan general plan land use designation
for the Tustin portion of the former MCAS Tustin ,and adjacent 4.1-acre
property in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
ResolutiOn No. 3848
Page 2
De
California State law allows a City .to adopt a specific plan for the systematic
implementation of the General Plan and to provide comprehensive direction for
the development type, location and intensity of uses, design and capacity of
infrastructure, design guidelines, and other planning activities. The closure of
MCAS Tustin and implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
necessitates the amendment of the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City Code;
and,
E. The Tustin Planning Commission has received a request to consider and make
a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on the proposed Zone Change 02-
006 that is intended to amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and
Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 'Specific Plan) and
amend the Tustin City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations that will apply to
future development within the Specific Plan area.
'F. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan project, evidenced by the propoSed zone
change project was evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR. No additional
environmental analysis or action is required prior to City action on the
proposed project.
On October 28, 2002, 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 Zone Change 02-006; and
H. The Tustin Planning Commission has received, reviewed and considered 'the
proposed Zone Change 02-006, the testimony, evidence and comments made
at the public hearing and has made the following Findings:
1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of'the federally mandated
Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin .Zoning
Map and Tustin City Code be amended prior to implementing actions that
will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian PUrposes.
....
2. That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02-006,. an:amendment
of the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS
Tustin Specific 'Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and an amendment to
the Tustin City Code to establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
(SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65451
of the California Government Code.
3. That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will
result in the systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and will
serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development of
compatible uses of the subject property in a manner that will not be
Resolution No..3848
Page 3
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in or adjacent to the former MCAS Tustin
property.
4. Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been
considered. '
5. That Zone Change 02-006 and establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan, as
most recently amended in February 2002 in accordance with Section
65454 of the California Government Code.
6. Administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is thoroughly integrated
into the City's development processing system.
II.
The Tustin Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Tustin City Council
approve Zone Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City
Code as identified in "Exhibit 1" attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at.a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning COmmission held
on the 28th day of October 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
STEPHEN V. KOZAK
Chairperson
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby,certify-that ! am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3848 was duly
pa~sed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning CommissiOn, held on the
28'" day of October, 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Mcas~pereso3848.doc
Exhibit 1
Ordinance No. 1257
ORDINANCE NO. 1257
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE
CHANGE 02-006, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
TUSTIN ZONING MAP TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM THEIR EXISTING 'PUBLIC
AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) DISTRICT ZONING
DESlGNATION TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
'DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 00-001, AND' THE ADDITION OF
SECTION 9246 TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-I
SPECIFIC P .LAN) ZONING REGULATIONS.
The City Council. of the City of TUstin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows;
A. The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially
...... closed ~:o'n. July 2, 1999 as a result of recommendations by the
... --;~ Federal'.Base ClosUre and Realignment Commission. ~.
B,
Co
The City of Tustin approved a Reuse Plan in October 1996, that was
subsequently amended by an Errata in SePtember 1998, and which
provides for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin and an
apprOximate 4.1-acre immediately adjacent, parcel currently owned
by The Irvine Company.
On. January 16, 2001, the Tustin City CoUncil adopted Resolution
00-90 that certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and
Reuse of MCAS .Tustin, and adopted Resolution 00-91 that adopted
General Plan Amendment 00-001 establishing a MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan general plan land use designation for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
Do
The Tustin Zoning Map currently identifies the zoning for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 2
as Public and Institutional (P&I). Adoption of a zoning designation
consistent with the approved Reuse Plan and General Plan
Amendment 00-001 is now required.
E.
The City of Tustin has prepared the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and
proposed Zoning Map change to ensure the orderly development
and improvement of the former MCAS Tustin and immediately
adjacent private property consistent with the general plan
objectives, policies, programs for development of the former MCAS
Tustin and an approximate 4.1-acre adjacent parcel currently
owned by The Irvine Company.
Fo
The Tustin 'City Code does not currently include provisions
establishing.the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan zoning regulations and
requirements and therefore must be amended to provide sufficient
and clear guidance regarding development consistent'with the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designation within the Tustin General
Plan.
S.
Section 65850 of the Government Code allows the City to adopt
ordinances that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land;
the intensity of land use; and off-street parking and loading.
H.
This Code Amendment is necessary to protect the health, welfare,'.
safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the citizens of Tustin
and the community vision for the City by providing permanent
regulations for the former MCAS Tustin site. '
The Planning Commission, at a public hearing that was duly
noticed, called, and held on Zone Change 02-006 on October 2'8,
·
2002, approved Resolution No. 3848 recommending that the City
Council adopt Zone Change 02-006.
J,
A public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held by the Tustin
City Council on Zone Change 02-006 on ,2002.
K,
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, evidenced by the proposed zone
change project was evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR. No
additional environmental analysis or action is required prior to City
action on the proposed project.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 02-006 which
approves the following specific actions'
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 3
,
.
Amend the Tustin zoning map to reclassify the Tustin portion of the former
MCAS Tustin and an adjacent 4.1-acre parcel currently owned, by The
lrvine Company from Public and Institutional to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Amend Article 9 of the Tustin City .Code to add Section 9246. to the Tustin
Municipal Code to read as follows:
9246 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan)
a. Purpose
The purpose of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific
-Plan) is to establish zoning regulations to guide the orderly development
and improvement in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan' for
that portion of the city which is designated as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
on the official zoning map of the city. The preparation and adoption of a
specific plan is authorized by Chapter 31 Article 8 of the State ,of California
Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.).
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan replaces the 'usual development
standards' otherwise applicable to most property within the City of Tustin.
b. Adoption of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
There is adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, 'the text of which is set
forth in the document entitled "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan"
attached to this ordinance, as Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
c. Applicability
The SP-1 Specific Plan District is established by this chapter. The
provisions of this section shall apply to all property shown on the official
zoning map within the SP-1 Specific Plan District. The regulations set
forth in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan shall apply to the SP-1 Specific
Plan District only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Tustin
General Plan.
d. Permitted Uses and Development Standards
All property within the SP-1 District shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with all policies, requirements, regulations and provisions set'
forth the in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
~Ordinance No. 1257
Page 4
e. Zoning Adoption or Change
The SP-1 District zoning shall be adopted or changed by the same
procedure prescribed within the Tustin City' Code for zoning district
amendments and 'consistent with State of California Planning and Zoning
Law. An amendment to the McAS Tustin Specific Plan may be processed
as described 'within Section 4.2,,7 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Amendments to the MCAS Tustin SpeCific Plan' may be adopted by
ordinance and may be amended as often '-as 'deemed '-necessary by the.
Tustin City Council.
:.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY · ·
Ali of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish
the. purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutioi~ality shall apply only
to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional
as applied to all facts, all of the remaining 'provisions of this ordinance shall
continue to be fully effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the-city' 0f. Tustii~,'.at a,'regular
meetiag on the . day of ,2002.
JEFFERYM,THQMAS
Mayor -'
· - .,.-
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 5
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1257
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members
of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing
'Ordinance No. 1257 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of
the Tustin City Council, held on the . day of ,2002 and was given its
second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the .. day of. ,2002 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNClLMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
M cas~ncasreuseplan\ordinance 1257.doc
Exhibit A
Tustin Zoning M'ap Amendment
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
...... "' ,(SP-1 Specific Plan)
Attachment 4
Letter Submitted to the Planning
Commission on October 28, 2002 by
Connor, Blake & Griffin
CONNOR, BLAKE'& GRIFFIN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2600 i%~ICHELSON DRrVE
Surfs 1450
IRVINE, CAL~ORNL~ 92612
TELEPHONE (949) 622-2600
TELEFACSLU]LE (949) 622-2626
E-MAIL: ¢connor~busincsslit. eom
October 28, 2002
City of Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re:
Objections to Zone Change 02-006 and Joint Final Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal
and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
In connection with the public hearing to be held on October 28, 2002 by
the City of Tustin Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") regarding Zone
Change 02-006 ("ZC 02-006"), we submit this letter of opposition on behalf of our client
the Santa Aha Unified School District ("SAUSD").
SAUSD hereby objects to ZC 02-006, and the Planning Commission's
reliance on the "Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin" (the
"FEIS/FEIR") as the environmental documentation for ZC 02-006, based upon each and
every procedural and substantive objection, comment, contention, or argument which (1)
SAUSD previously asserted in objecting to and challenging the approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 00-001 and the certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City of Tustin (the
"City") on January 16, 2001, including, but not limited to, all objections, comments,
contentions, and arguments raised in the "First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate"
filed in that certain mandamus proceeding entitled Santa Ana Unified School District, et
al. v. City of Tustin, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CC02595, a true
and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, and the letters which are attached as Exhibits "B" through "G".hereto and are
incorporated herein by reference, and (2) have been or are presented, either orally or in
writing, in connection with any public hearing or workshop conducted by your
Commission regarding ZC 02-006, including, but not limited to, its October 28, 2002
public hearing and the workshops conducted on July 22 and September 9, 2002.
In addition, SAUSD objects to ZC 02-006 and the Planning Commission's
reliance on the FEIS/FEIR on each of the following grounds:
RSCCDXMCAS-LandTmsfrXPIancom01 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
City of Tustin Planning Commission
October 28, 2002
Page 2
(1) As currently proposed for adoption, ZC 02-006 violates the
provisions of Government Code section 65051.5 and Health and Safety
Code section 33492.114--i.e., Assembly Bill 212, Chapter 123, Statutes
2001 ("AB 212")--in that it fails to impose the conditions of approval
required by such sections to minimize the impact of the City's Reuse Plan
for Marine Corps Air Station Tustin ("MCAS-Tustin") on SAUSD, among
others;
(2) The City, including the Planning Commission, is prohibited
from adopting, approving, or recommending the approval of ZC 02-006, or
any other land use approval, until the City's General Plan is brought into
compliance with all provisions of the Government Code and all other
applicable land use laws and regulations. At the present time, the Housing
Element of the City's General Plan is being challenged as inadequate and
incomplete in that certain mandamus proceeding entitled Juan Garcia v.
City of Tustin, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CC02149. In
addition, the Housing Element is out of compliance with state law in that
the City has not adopted the revisions to its most recent Housing Element
amendment which were suggested by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development nor has the City adopted any
findings declaring such revisions to be unnecessary or inappropriate; and
(3) The City has violated sections 15162 and 15168 ofthe
State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines by failing to
prepare and certify a subsequent environmental impact report for ZC 02-
006 to address the mitigation measures and project alternatives which were
previously found not to be feasible but which new information
demonstrates would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce
one or more significant impacts. In particular, the FEIS/FEIR was
prepared and certified based upon several critical assumptions regarding
the impact of the City's Reuse Plan on SAUSD which are clearly no
longer accurate (assuming arguendo that such assumption were accurate
when the FEIS/FEIR was prepared and certified), including, but not
limited to, (a) that Senate Bill 50 ("SB 50") supersedes.all prior CEQA
case law and prevents the City from imposing any mitigation measures,
other than school impact fees, to minimize the impacts on SAUSD, but, in
fact, AB 212 expressly finds and declares that SB 50 does not in any way
prevent the City from imposing additional mitigation measures, and indeed
requires the imposition of certain additional mitigation measures, to
minimize the impact of the City's Reuse Plan on, inter alia, SAUSD; and
RSCCDhMCAS-LandTrnsfrXPI ancom01 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & Gm~ LLP
City of Tustin Planning Commission
October 28, 2002
Page 3
(b) that providing SAUSD with a school site at MCAS-Tustin would
destroy the economic viability of the City's Reuse Plan--although the City
applied for more than 1,200 acres as part of an economic development
conveyance from the Department of the Navy and contended that all such
acres were necessary to make the City's Reuse Plan economically viable,
the Navy elected to sell approximately 235 acres at the base for its own
account and the City is nonetheless proceeding with its Reuse Plan without
any suggestions that it is no longer economically viable.
Very truly yours,
Edmond M. Connor
RSCCDWICAS-LandTrnsfrXPlancom01.Doc
LIST OF EXHIBITS TO OCTOBER 28~ 2002 LETTER
TO CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Exhibit "A":
Exhibit "B":
Exhibit "C":
Exhibit "D":
Exhibit "E":
Exhibit "F"'
Exhibit "G":
The "First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate" filed on behalf of, inter
alia, Santa Ana Unified School District in that certain mandamus
proceeding entitled Santa Ana Unified School District, et al. v. City of
Tustin, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CC02595;
The January 16, 2001 letter from Edmond M. Connor, Esq., connor,
Blake & Griffin LLP, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of
Tustin, regarding General Plan Amendment 00-001 ("GPA 00-00 l")and
"Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin"
(the "FEIS/FEIR");
The November 28, 2000 letter from Edmond M. Connor, Esq., Connor,
Blake & Griffin LLP, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of
Tustin, regarding GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FEIR;
The December 18, 2000 letter from M. Andriette Culbertson, President,
Culbertson, Adams & Associates, to the City Council, City of Tustin;
The January 16, 2001 letter from Dwight E. Berg, P.E., Public Economics,
Inc. ("PEI"), to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin;
The January 16, 2001 letter from Colette Marie McLaughlin, Planner for
SAUSD, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin; and
The January 16, 2001 letter from Dante Gumucio of PEI to Dana Ogdon,
Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin.
RSCCD/MCAS-Tustin/Corresp/Exhibits. Doc
Exhibit A
10
23
24
25
26
27
28
EDMOND M. CONNOR, State Bar No. 65515
CRAIG L. GRIFFIN, State Bar No. 145777
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-2600
Telefacsimile: (949) 622-2626
Attorneys for Petitioners SANTA ANA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, RANCHO SANTIAGO
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, and
MARISELA LONGACRE
Districts exempt from filingfee under Gov't Code ~6103
.... FILED
SUPERIOR, COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAi. JUg'rICE CENTER
JAN 17 2002
ALAN SLATER, Clerk cf the Court
BY: ..... I,-, CLINE ,DEFUT"(
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL )
DISTRICT, a School District of the State of )
California; RANCHO SANTIAGO )
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a )
Community College District of the State of )
California; and MARISELA LONGACRE, an )
individual,
Petitioners,
Vo
CITY OF TUSTIN, a Political Subdivision of
the State of California; CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF TUSTIN, the Duly Elected
Legislative Body of the City; PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CITY OF TUSTIN, the
Duly Appointed Subagency of the Council;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Respondents.
DOES 26 through 50, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.
CASE NO. 01 CC02595
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO:
JUDGE ROBERT H. GALLIVAN
Department C28
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (the "First Amended
Petition") against (1) respondents CITY OF TUSTIN ("Tustin"), CITY COUNCIL OF CITY
OF TUSTIN (the "City Council"), PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF TUSTIN (the
"Planning Commission"), and DOES I through 25, inclusive (hereinafter, Tustin, the City
Council, the Planning Commission, and DOES I through 25, inclusive, are sometimes
collectively referred to as the "City"), and (2) real parties in interest DOES 26 through 50,
inclusive (collectively, "Real Parties"), petitioners SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT ("SAUSD"), RANCHO SANTIAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
("RSCCD"), and MARISELA LONGACRE ("Longacre") [hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD
are sometimes collectively referred to as the "Districts"; the Districts and Longacre are
sometimes collectively referred to as "Petitioners"] allege as follows:
I. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED PETITION
1. In deciding who should benefit from the proposed redevelopment of over
1,600 acres of surplus federal land which formerly comprised the Marine Corps Air Station at
Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin"), the City of Tustin has now set in motion a plan to
ensure that no school children from Santa Ana will share in this windfall gift from the U.S.
Navy.
2. In fact, by showing no concern for such basic legal concepts as fairness,
justice, and equality, the City has chosen to widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have
nots" by adopting a general plan amendment for the reuse of MCAS-Tustin which sets aside
nearly 200 acres of free land to accommodate the construction of new schools and facilities
for three school districts which have substantial white-student populations and do not have a
critical need for such land.
3. Regrettably, however, the City's general plan amendment for MCAS-
Tustin fails to designate even one square inch of land at the base for the two Districts in
Santa Ana which face severe overcrowding problems and have student populations which are
predominantly Hispanic/Latino.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Indeed, despite openly admitting that its plans to redevelop MCAS-
Tustin will potentially generate hundreds and hundreds of new students for SAUSD's
horribly-overcrowded schools, the City has approved a Final Environmental Impact Report
(the "FEIS/FEIR") for its general plan amendment which cynically concludes that SAUSD
will just have to deal with those overcrowding problems itself, and should not expect any help
from the City in setting aside any surplus federal land at the base for new school sites to
mitigate such impacts:
"Such physical impacts may be significant and, if so, mitigation
would be the responsibility of the SAUSD." (FEIS/FEIR at 4-63 to 4-64.)
5. Of course, the City has not only sought to wash its hands of any
responsibility for addressing the horrendous problems which the proposed build-out of
MCAS-Tustin will create for SAUSD, but the City has also chosen to ignore the student
generation impacts which such redevelopment will have on the community college facilities
operated byRSCCD. In short, the City has turned a deaf ear to RSCCD's concerns that its
already-overcrowded facilities at Santa Ana College will not be able to accommodate the
thousands of additional new students that will potentially be generated by the City's Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin.
6. By approving its general plan amendment for MCAS-Tustin (hereinafter
referred to as "GPA 00-001") without (1) adequately addressing the severe adverse impacts
which the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will have on public schools and facilities within
the two Districts, and (2) adopting all feasible mitigation measures to help minimize those
student generation impacts on the Districts, the City has clearly violated the dictates of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines.
7. Although at one point in the FEIS/FEIR the City admits that the student
generation impacts on the two Districts may result in physical changes which "may be
significant," the FEIS/FEIR inexplicably concludes that the project impacts on the Districts
will not be "significant" and, thus, do not require any mitigation in the form of new school
sites at the base. However, it is obvious that, by employing patently unreasonable planning
assumptions, the City has purposely sought to understate the number of new students which
3
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
l0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will be added to the Districts' schools and facilities when MCAS-Tustin is redeveloped in
order to avoid the need to mitigate these impacts.
8. For example, although the City readily concedes in the FEIS/FEIR that
24,852 "direct" jobs and 15,081 "indirect and induced" jobs will be created by its massive
redevelopment project at MCAS-Tustin, the City has made the arbitrary and capricious
assumption that, under a "worst case" scenario, only four percent (4%) of the workers who
will fill these new jobs will reside in homes located within the City of Santa Ana.
9. In other words, even though a significant number of the new jobs that
will be generated by the build-out of MCAS-Tustin will be service, retail, clerical, and
warehouse jobs that tend to offer low to moderate pay, and even though Santa Ana would
appear to offer the best source of affordable housing for the workers who will fill these new
jobs at the base, the City has refused to consider the very real possibility that, under "worst
case" conditions, far more than 4% of these workers will end up residing in Santa Aha and
will then need to send their children to SAUSD's schools to be educated--thereby
exacerbating the terribly overcrowded conditions which presently exist at all of SAUSD's
schools.
10. As explained below, the City's projected range of 82 to 509 additional
students that will be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the redevelopment
of MCAS-Tustin grossly underestimates the true impacts of the project and is simply
indefensible.
11. By incorporating more reasonable, "real life" assumptions into the same
methodologies used by the City in arriving at the student generation estimates set forth in the
FEIS/FEIR, it can be seen that the City's estimates are understated by at least a factor of 10.
What that means, for example, is that, instead of 509 additional students, it would be more
reasonable to assume that approximately 5,600 new students could be added to SAUSD's
already overcrowded school facilities under a "worst case" analysis of the build-out of
MCAS-Tustin.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. What is even more difficult to understand than the City's unreasonably
low estimates of student generation impacts on the Districts is how the City proposes to deal
with these impacts. Indeed, the City has seen fit to provide 180 acres of surplus federal land
at MCAS-Tustin for new school sites for the Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD"), the
Irvine Unified School District ("IUSD") and the South Orange County Community College
District ("SOCCCD"), but has failed and refused to provide this same accommodation to
SAUSD and RSCCD to help mitigate the student generation impacts which will severely
affect them.
13. Petitioners can only wonder aloud how it is that, with a net increase of
302 new students resulting from the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, IUSD--which has a
59% white student population--qualifies to receive a 20-acre school site at the base, but
SAUSD, with a 92% Hispanic/Latino population, is to be given no land at the base to
construct facilities to compensate for the 509 new students which the FEIS/FEIR openly
admits could be added to SAUSD's school system when MCAS-Tustin is redeveloped.
14. In this same regard, Petitioners must question why the FEIS/FEIR
provides that SOCCCD will be awarded the entire 100-acre "Learning Village" parcel
designated in GPA 00-001, even though SOCCCD already has a vast amount of unused land
available at its other campuses. In fact, SOCCCD--which has a 63.5% white student
population--has some 300 acres of land available to it at its two campuses to serve the needs
of some 33,000 students, but RSCCD has only 110 acres at its two campuses to
accommodate 52,000 students (only 23% of which are white and 49% of which are
Hispanic/Latino).
15. Sadly, the City's failure and refusal to provide answers to these questions
and to properly analyze and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with its massive
development plans for MCAS-Tustin have left Petitioners with no choice but to seek judicial
relief under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines to compel the City to vacate its approval
of GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FEIR.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. In addition to seeking redress for the serious CEQA violations detailed
below, Petitioners are also seeking relief under the California Government Code to require
the City to set aside its approval of GPA 00-001 and to withhold reapproval of that project
until the City has adopted a revised Housing Element for its General Plan which fully
complies with the requirements of the Government Code.
17. At the time that the City approved GPA 00-001 at the public hearing held
on January 16, 2001, the City's Housing Element had not been properly revised and readopted
before the expiration of the statutory deadline of December 31, 2000, for updating that
document. Accordingly, the Housing Element was legally invalid at the time the City
approved GPA 00-001 and that, in turn, rendered invalid any and all project approvals which
were based thereon, such as GPA 00-001.
18. In addition, the Housing Element suffered from numerous deficiencies,
such as grossly outdated data and projections regarding the affordable housing needs relating
to the City in general and to MCAS-Tustin in particular.
19. Incredibly, although the California Department of Housing and
Community Development ("HDC") had declared as early as November 2000 that there were
numerous respects in which the City's Housing Element was not in compliance with the
dictates of the Government Code, the City simply ignored the deficiencies cited in writing by
HCD and acted as if there was absolutely nothing wrong with its Housing Element in
adopting GPA 00-001. The City's conduct in this regard was decidedly illegal and its
approval of GPA 00-001 must be set aside as requested below.
II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Parties
20. SAUSD is now, and at all times herein mentioned was, a school district
of the state of California. SAUSD is one of three school districts whose boundaries include
portions of the former Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin ("MCAS-Tustin"). At least 122
acres of undeveloped land at MCAS-Tustin fall within SAUSD's boundaries.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
IO
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21. RSCCD is now, and at all times herein mentioned was, a community
college district of the state of California. The same 122 acres of undeveloped land at MCAS-
Tustin which lie within SAUSD's boundaries also lie within RSCCD's boundaries covering
the base.
22. Longacre is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a homeowner and
resident of the City. Longacre has paid taxes to the City within one year prior to the filing of
this action, and is beneficially interested in the issuance of the relief requested herein.
23. Petitioners allege on information and belief that Tustin is now, and at all
times mentioned herein was, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of California and situated in Orange County, California.
24. Petitioners allege on information and belief that the City Council is now,
and at all times mentioned herein was, the duly elected legislative body of the City, organized
and existing under the laws of the state of California.
25. Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Planning
Commission is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the duly appointed planning
subagency of the City Council, organized and existing under the laws of the state of
California.
26. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or
otherwise, of the respondents sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are presently
unknown to Petitioners, which therefore sue such respondents by such fictitious names.
Petitioners will seek leave of Court to amend this First Amended Petition to show the true
names and capacities of such respondents when such information is ascertained.
27. Each respondents sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
performed, participated in, or abetted in some manner, the acts and omissions alleged herein,
is responsible for the violations of law described hereinbelow, and is subject to the relief
sought herein.
28. The City was the sole project proponent for GPA 00-001 and the
certification of the FEIS/FEIR, and Petitioners have no information or belief as to the
7
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Wri~.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
~9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
existence or identity of any other project proponents or applicants in addition to the City.
Moreover, Petitioners have no information or belief as to the existence or identity of any
persons or entities (1) who, if absent from this Action, will prevent complete relief from
being afforded to the parties herein or (2) who claim interests relating to the subject of the
Action and are so situated that the disposition of the Action in their absence may as a
practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect such interests.
29. To the extent that any persons or entities exist (1) whose absence from
this Action will prevent complete relief from being afforded to the parties herein or (2) who
claim interests relating to the subject of the Action and are so situated that the disposition of
the Action in their absence may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect
such interests, Petitioners are presently unaware of their true names and capacities, whether
individual, corporate, or otherwise, and therefore sue such persons or entities herein as DOES
26 through 50, inclusive. Petitioner will seek leave of Court to amend this First Amended
Petition to show the true names and capacities of DOES 26 through 50, inclusive, when, and
if, such information is ascertained.
B. Factual Background
30. Approximately ten years ago, the United States Congress enacted the
Defense Base Closure and Redevelopment Act of 1990, which set forth guidelines and
procedures for the closure and reuse of military installations. As part of the base closure
process, MCAS-Tustin was ordered to be operationally closed by July 1999.
31. Federal law provides local agencies the opportunity to develop a reuse ·
plan that will guide the disposal actions of the armed forces branch responsible for the
military installations to be closed. In July 1992, the Department of Defense, Office of
Economic Adjustment, approved the City as the Local Redevelopment Authority (the "LRA")
for MCAS-Tustin.
32. In its capacity as the LRA for MCAS-Tustin, the City participated in the
creation of the "Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan" (the
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Reuse Plan"), which was approved by the City in its capacity as the LRA for MCAS-TusIin
in October 1996, and which was thereafter amended by the City in September 1998.
33. The Reuse Plan proposes that the 1,606-acres of land presently
encompassed by MCAS-Tustin (the "Property") be develOped for, inter alia, approximately
10 million square feet of commercial/business uses (including a golf village with hotel and
ancillary retail sites), 4,600 residential units, four public schools, and a "Learning Village"
campus.
34. The Reuse Plan also makes recommendations regarding how and to
whom the Navy should convey the Property for development and reuse. In particular, it
recommends that over 1,200 of the 1,600 acres at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed directly to the
City for it to~ inter alia, sell or lease to commercial, industrial, and residential developers.
35. In furtherance of that recommendation, the City submitted its Economic
Development Conveyance Application (the "EDC Application") to the Navy, in or about
February 1999, requesting that the Navy convey approximately 1,288 acres of real property at
MCAS-Tustin to the City at no cost.
36. In an effort to comply with (a) 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.); and (b) the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") [Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.] and the State
CEQA Guidelines (the "CEQA Guidelines") [Title 14 Cal. Code. Regs § 15000 et seq.], the
City and the United States Department of the Navy jointly prepared a combined Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIS/FEIR"),
which purported to identify, analyzel and mitigate the proposed environmental impacts
associated with the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin in accordance with the City's Reuse Plan
for that military base.
37. As the first major step in implementing its Reuse Plan, the City prepared
General Plan Amendment No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") to modify certain elements of the
City's General Plan to accommodate future land-use planning for the base.
9
RSCCD/MCAS/Arnd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38. On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on GPA 00-001. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
a resolution recommending that the City Council approve GPA 00-001.
39. On January 16, 2001, a public hearing was held by the City Council to
consider GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FE1R. ApproXimately 80 people submitted public
comments at the hearing, expressing views both in favor of, and in opposition to, the
proposed project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council adopted resolutions
approving both GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FEIR.
40. In July 2001, the California State Legislature adopted, and the Governor
signed, Assembly Bill No. 212 ("AB 212"), which added section 65051.5 to the Government
Code and section 33492.114 to the Health and Safety Code. AB 212 was adopted to ensure
that, after the land at MCAS-Tustin is conveyed by the Navy and the City proceeds to
authorize the development of that property, a portion of the land at the base will be used to
relieve the conditions of severe overcrowding which exist at the Districts' facilities and to
otherwise mitigate the student generation impacts on the Districts that xvill occur as a result
of the redevelopment of MCAS-TusIin pursuant to the Reuse Plan.
41. Petitioners have exhausted all of their administrative remedies, or the
exhaustion of such remedies would have been futile. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than the relief sought in this First
Amended Petition.
10
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandale
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate
And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of CEQA And The
CEQA Guidelines)
A. The FEIS/FEIR Fails To Adequately Identify The Severe Adverse
Impacts Which GPA 00-001 Will Have On Public Schools And
Facilities Within The Districts.
42. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs I through 41, inclusive, as set forth above.
43. SAUSD currently operates a total of 54 schools--36 elementary schools,
nine middle schools, six high schools, and three specialty schools. As expressly recognized
by the FEIS/FEIR, virtually all of the 54 schools within SAUSD are overcrowded.
44. The California Department of Education ("CDE") has set forth
recommended average student per acre ratios for schools within the State. For elementary
schools, CDE recommends an average of 84.7 students/acre; SAUSD averages 159.7
'students/acre, or almost double the CED recommendation. For middle schools, CDE
recommends an average of 72.2 students/acre; SAUSD averages 101.4 students/acre. For
high schools, CDE recommends an average of 47.9 students/acre; SAUSD averages 90.2,
again almost double the recommended students per acre density.
45. As a result of this severe overcrowding, SAUSD has been relocating
students to "portables" (otherwise known as "relocatable trailers"). Specifically,
overcrowding has forced SAUSD to relocate approximately 24,000 of its almost 58,000
students to some 912 portables.
46. In addition, overcrowding has forced SAUSD to go to a multi-tracked
"year-round" calendar at 25 of its elementary schools and four of its intermediate schools. As
noted in a recent newspaper report, there exists a growing concern in California that 12-
month "multi-track" schedules in poor and minority communities--such as SAUSD--"present
11
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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."
47. As noted above, the proposed redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will be of
mammoth proportions. In effect, the military base will be replaced by a huge master-planned
community. The FEIS/FEIR projects that the Reuse Plan will directly generate 24,852 new
jobs, indirectly generate 15,081 new jobs, and create up to 37,468 construction jobs, for a
total of 77,400 new jobs.
48. In an attempt to determine the impacts that these additional jobs will
have upon the school facilities within SAUSD, the City commissioned a report entitled
"Updated Report on the School Facility Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS
Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District" (the
"Household Growth Report").
49. Based upon the projected number of new jobs being created by the Reuse
Plan and certain assumptions regarding demographics, the Household Growth Report provides
an estimate, adopted by the FEIS/FEIR, that the Reuse Plan will add between 82 to 509 new
students to SAUSD.
50. Based upon the estimates adopted from the Housing Growth Report, the
FEIS/FE1R concludes that the Reuse Plan will have "no capacity impacts" upon SAUSD.
Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that "no mitigation will be required."
51. However, the FEIS/FEIR's projected range of 82 to 509 additional
students to be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin is simply not credible because it is based on arbitrary, capricious, and factually
unsupported assumptions which have materially skewed the results. Indeed, even at first
blush, the conclusion adopted by the FEIS/FEIR that as few as 82 new students might be
added to SAUSD's schools as a result of 77,400 new jobs being created at the base is patently
unsound.
52. In response to many misleading statements contained in recent staff
reports prepared by the City, the Districts commissioned the preparation of a study by Public
12
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Economics, Inc. for Petitioners (the "PEI Study") to analyze the student generation impacts
discussed in such staff reports. The PEI Study, which was submitted to the City prior to
action being taken on GPA 00-001, confirms that the student impacts predicted by the
FE1S/FEIR are grossly underestimated.
53. By incorporating more reasonable assumptions into the same
methodologies used by the City's consultants in arriving at the student generation estimates
set forth in the FEIS/FE1R, PEI was able to generate a new range of estimates to better define
the number of students that will potentially be added to SAUSD's schools when the City's
Reuse Plan is implemented.
54. The calculations performed by PEI--based on the same formulas
employed by the City's consultants--show that the estimates set forth in the FEIS/FEIR are
understated by a factor of 10. Instead of a range of 82 to 509 additional students, the
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin can be expected to generate a low of 741 new students, and a
high of 5,581 new students, that will be added to SAUSD's already overcrowded school
facilities.
55. One of the most glaring problems with the Housing Growth Report upon
which the FEIS/FEIR is based is that it fails--in calculating the "Scenario 1" upper range
estimate--to include the same factor it uses in calculating the "Scenario 2" lower range
estimate. Specifically, in arriving at the "Scenario 2" estimate of 82 new students, the
Housing Growth Report recognizes that there is a "multiplier effect" so that, for every job
directly created by the Reuse Plan, there are 0.61 jobs indirectly created. In setting the high
end of the projected range of student generation impacts at 509 students, the report uses only
directly created jobs, and fails to take into account any jobs created indirectly.
56. Since the FEIS/FEIR clearly concedes that the City's Reuse Plan for
MCAS-Tustin will result in 24,852 "direct" jobs and 15,081 "indirect and induced" jobs (see,
Table 4.2-2 at p. 4-18), there is no rational justification for why the same 0.61 multiplier for
this second category of "indirect and induced" jobs would have been omitted from the City's
calculations for "Scenario 1," but included in its calculations for "Scenario 2."
13
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Wril. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57. Once the City's calculations for "Scenario I" are adjusted to account for
the proper number of "indirect and induced" jobs to be generated by the redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin, it is clear that the supposed "worst case" scenario for the student generation
impacts to SAUSD is off by a factor of over 60% and this can hardly be considered to be an
insignificant error that can be disregarded. In fact, this miscalculation is so material that, by
itself, it requires the FEIS/FEIR to be supplemented and recirculated for public review and
comment.
58. Although it is unclear whether the Housing Growth Report's failure to
factor in the student generation impacts caused by indirectly created jobs was inadvertent or
intentional, correctly calculating the high range estimate increases it from 509 students to 817
students.
59. A second major flaw in the Housing Growth Report estimate is the
unreasonable assumption that only 3.8% of the workers filling the new jobs being created by
the Reuse Plan will live in Santa Ana. This assumption is based entirely upon a statistic
demonstrating that 3.8% of the countywide housing groWth will be captured by Santa Ana.
60. In using the 3.8 figure, the report fails to take into consideration that
Santa Ana is immediately adjacent to the Reuse Plan area. The report also fails to take into
consideration that a significant number of the jobs being created are Iow to moderate paying
jobs, and that most of the new housing construction in the Reuse Plan area and South Orange
County will be upscale, single family dwellings beyond the reach of the workers filling those
jobs.
61. The third major flaw in the Housing Growth Report is its reliance upon
the unsupported assumption that only 10% of the 24,853 non-construction jobs directly
created by the Reuse Plan will be "new." In other words, the report assumes (a) 90% of the
jobs at the MCAS-Tustin site will involve firms which relocate from elsewhere in Orange
County, (b) all of the jobs will be filled with the same employees as at present, and (c) none
of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be nearer to their new job
location. Moreover, the report assumes that no businesses will "fill in" the millions of square
14
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
feet of existing business space being vacated by the businesses relocating to the Reuse Plan
area, and that such space will remain vacant indefinitely. These assumptions are unsupported
by substantial evidence, and are arbitrary and capricious.
62. Inasmuch as the FEIS/FEIR relies upon assumptions which are arbitrary,
capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately
identify significant capacity impacts upon SAUSD. Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR violates
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the
Guidelines.
9 B. The City's Own Estimates Demonstrate That Student Generation
l0 Impacts On SAUSD Will Result In Significant Physical
l l Environmental Impacts.
12 63. As set forth above, the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-
13 Tustin could generate up to 5,581 new students for SAUSD. It is beyond dispute that the
14 addition of over 5,500 new students to the seriously overcrowded SAUSD school system
15 would require extensive new facilities to be constructed.
~6 64. However, regardless of whether one accepts PEI's "worst case"
;7 'ection of 5,581 new students for SAUSD or the Housing Growth Report's "worst case"
~ 8 estimate of 509 (or 817 as properly calculated) students, it is clear that the redevelopment of
19 MCAS-Tustin will require the construction of new facilities by SAUSD, which will in turn
20 result in "significant" physical impacts upon the environment.
2~ 65. Indeed the FEIS/FEIR itself expressly acknowledges that (a) SAUSD
22 school facilities are severely overcrowded, (b) the Reuse Plan could add hundreds of new
23 students to SAUSD, and (c) the construction of new facilities by SAUSD could have a
24 "significant" physical impact upon the environment. Despite these express acknowledgments,
25 however, the FEIS/FEIR does not even attempt to identify the extent or nature of these
26 physical environmental impacts.
27
28
15
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
66. Instead of properly seeking to identify those physical impacts and discuss
possible mitigation, the FEIS/FE1R completely avoids the issue by labeling its own expert's
estimate of student generation on SAUSD as "speculative," as follows'
"Since the need for new facilities is not yet confirmed, there is no
facility design or location that could be evaluated in this EIS/EIR
for physical impacts on the environment. Such physical impacts
may be significant and, if so, mitigation would be the
responsibility of the SAUSD."
67. Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that because the need for new
facilities "is not yet confirmed," there can be no facility design or location to be evaluated.
68. Contrary to this conclusion, however, the FEIS/FEIR does not consider
as "speculation" its projection that 24,852 new jobs (1) will be created directly on the base
and (2) will result in new households being drawn into the Santa Ana area as new workers
seek affordable housing in the general vicinity of their employment. Similarly, the
FEIS/FEIR does not deem as "speculation" its projection that the Reuse Plan will indirectly
generate an additional 15,081 jobs in the area surrounding MCAS-Tustin.
69. In the January 16, 2001 Agenda Report for GPA 00-001, City staff
introduced an entirely new standard for determining whether the student general impacts
associated with the build-out of MCAS-TusIin would rise to the level of "significant" effects
which would need to be identified in the FEIS/FEIR and for which adequate mitigation
measures would need to be proposed.
70. What staff suggested in the Agenda Report--but which was not discussed
in the FEIS/FEIR--was that student generation impacts would not be considered "significant"
unless they required the construction of an entirely new school at the elementary,
intermediate, or high school level. In this regard, City staff made the following observations
in the Agenda Report:
"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 tl~e 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
16
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
projectio,~s under each scenario of household ls'rowth, 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 the SAUSD."
(Emphasis added.)
71. The clear implication of the above-quoted passage from the January 16th
Agenda Report is that, if either of the "indirect impact scenarios" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR
indicated that at least 800 new students would be generated for the SAUSD school system by
the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, then the City would have to agree that such an impact
would be significant and would require "an entire school site at MCAS-Tustin" to be
provided as mitigation.
72. As noted above, the calculations performed by the City's consultants in
projecting the 509 additional students under "scenario 1" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR,
inexplicably omitted a factor which, if included, would raise its projection to 817 new
students. This, obviously, would exceed the City's 800-student threshold. Of course, the
City's 800 student threshold has no statutory or case law basis under CEQA for establishing a
significant impact requiring mitigation.
73. Given the overcrowded conditions already existing within SAUSD
schools, and the overwhelming evidence that the Reuse Plan will generate hundreds and even
thousands of new students for SAUSD, the need for SAUSD to build additional facilities as a
result of the Reuse Plan is far from speculative: it is inevitable and unavoidable.
74. Moreover, the FEIS/FEIR's observation that there is no identified
location for a new school within SAUSD obscures a key environmental issue. A large part of
the problem faced by SAUSD in seeking to alleviate overcrowding is that the vast majority of
the District lies within the City of Santa Ana, which is heavily built out.
75. Accordingly, although the population density of Santa Ana continues to
steadily rise as families--including immigrants seeking employment opportunities in the area,
17
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-move into housing units vacated by older "empty nest" residents, contiguous open space of a
size sufficient to build schools is virtually non-existent.
76. The FEIS/FEIR avoids providing any clue as to where new school
facilities could be located precisely because any attempt to identify possible sites would
reveal severe and unavoidable impacts to the physical environment. For example, obtaining
10 acres (for an elementary school) to 40 acres (for a high school) for the construction of a
new educational facility would likely require condemnation of existing commercial,
residential, or parkland uses. The change in existing uses would bring a host of direct and
indirect environmental impacts, including, inter alia, changes in noise levels, traffic patterns,
air pollution, drainage, and even wildlife habitats if, for example, parkland is taken.
77. Because the FEIS/FEIR does not even attempt to identify or address the
significant physical environmental impacts which would result from student generation within
SAUSD caused by the Reuse Plan, the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines.
C. The FEIS/FEIR Is Devoid Of Any Analysis Of Student Generation
Impacts On RSCCD, And The Physical Environment Impacts
Associated Therewith.
78. Not only does the FEIS/FEIR leave many unanswered questions
regarding impacts on SAUSD, but it also completely ignores the student generation impacts
which will be felt by RSCCD when MCAS-Tustin is redeveloped.
79. Like SAUSD, RSCCD is currently experiencing severe overcrowding in
its facilities. With 56 acres and 20,000 full-time equivalent students, Santa Ana College is the
third smallest in size and the sixth largest in enrollment out of 107 community colleges in the
state of California. In fact, Santa Ana College enrollment is greater than every campus of the
California State University and the University of California systems.
80. 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,
18
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandale
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
schools, and commercial buildings to accommodate the huge influx of predominantly
minority students.
81. Like SAUSD, RSCCD has also been forced to rely upon portable
classrooms to accommodate its students. At present there are as many portable/relocatable
classrooms at Santa Ana College as there are permanent buildings on campus.
82. In the January 16, 2001 Agenda Report, City staff attempts to justify this
glaring omission by offering the explanation that its EIR consultan! had no prior experience
in projecting indirect impacts on a community college district. Accordingly, the City staff
concludes that "there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts" of the Reuse Plan on
RSCCD.
83. Despite the unsupported comments of staff, however, there was and is a
feasible way to evaluate the indirect impacts of the Reuse Plan upon RSCCD. As set forth in
a letter sent by PEI to the City prior to its adoption of GPA 00-001, by simply modifying the
methodologies employed by the City's consultants in the FEIS/FEIR, it is possible to make a
reasonable estimate as to the range of additional full-time students that will be added to
RSCCD's system as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
84. Using these methodologies, PEI projects that the City's Reuse Plan for
MCAS-Tustin will generate up to 2,270 new full-time community college students for
RSCCD.
85. In light of the severe overcrowding being experienced by RSCCD, the
additional students generated by the Reuse Plan will require the construction of additional
facilities. As with the facility construction within SAUSD, the construction of additional
educational facilities within RSCCD will have substantial and severe physical environmental
impacts. None of these impacts have been noted or discussed in the FEIS/FEIR.
86. Because the FE1S/FEIR does not even attempt to identify or address the
significant physical environmental impacts which would result from student generation within
RSCCD caused by the Reuse Plan, the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines.
19
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Based On An Erroneous Interpretations Of State Law (Senate Bill
50), The City Failed And Refused To Even Consider The Po'ssibility
Of Designating New School Sites At MCAS-Tustin To Mitigate
Student Generation Impacts On The Districts.
87. The key assumption underlying the entire analysis in the FEIS/FEIR
regarding which mitigation measures are available to mitigate student generation impacts on
the Districts is that the sole mitigation measure permitted by state law is the assessment of
development fees on the ultimate developers of the Property.
88. As demonstrated by the following statements from the January 16, 2001
Agenda Report, the City staff interpreted Senate Bill No. 50 ("SB 50")--which became
effective after the City approved the Reuse Plan and the 1998 amendment thereto excluding
the Districts from MCAS-Tustin--as prohibiting the City from designating any new school
sites at MCAS-Tustin to mitigate the student generation impacts of the Reuse Plan on the
Districts:
"Except for paying school impacts fees (that will be required as
part of the project) a new development is not required to build or
provide sites for new schools (California Government Code
Section 65995)." (Attachment 6 to January 16, 2001 Agenda
Report at p. 3.)
"Finally, since Goleta and E1 Dorado were decided, the obligation
of a development project to mitigate impacts on schools has been
completely revised. The State is now responsible under SB 50 for
financing new schools and mitigating the impacts of land use
approvals (see California Government Code Section 65995(e))."
(Id. at p. 4.)
"Even if mitigation was warranted, State law prohibits
conditioning projects to require that land be provided for schools
(Cal. Gov't Code Section 65995)." (Id.)
"CEQA does not require the provision of land as mitigation .of
significant impacts [upon schools] and in fact, SB 50 precludes
such a requirement." (Id. at p. 7.)
"School issues are influenced by the provisions of SB 50 that
preclude mandating dedication of school sites." (Id.)
20
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
I 89. Contrary to the City's interpretation of SB 50, that statute does not in
2 any way change, limit, or eliminate the City's obligations under CEQA and the CEQA
3 Guidelines to mitigate the adverse impacts that the Reuse Plan will have on the Districts.
4 90. SB 50 was intended to limit and control the nature and extent of school
5 facility fees and exactions that local agencies can levy or impose in connection with
6 development projects proposed by real estate developers.
7 91. SB 50 was never intended to apply to the federal base closure and reuse
8 process relating to MCAS-Tustin. Under that process, the City, as the LRA, was required to
9 ,are the Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of the surplus federal land that is to be
lo conveyed by the United States in closing MCAS-Tustin. The City's approval of GPA 00-001
I I ~n support of the Reuse Plan did not involve the imposition of the type of "conditions" or
12 "exactions" on real estate developers which are proscribed by SB 50.
13 92. The preparation and approval of a Reuse Plan for a military base is an
14 activity which is expressly subject to CEQA (see sections 21083.8 and 21083.8.1) and there is
15 no basis for asserting that the State Legislature intended that SB 50 could be used by LRAs,
16 such as the City, to circumvent the requirements of CEQA. To the contrary, SB 50 expressly
~7 states that it shall not be interpreted "to limit or prohibit the authority ora local agency to
18 reserve or designate real property for a schoolsite." (See Gov. Code § 65998(a).)
19 93. 'Consistent with SB 50, the City has designated new schoolsites at
20 MCAS-Tustin for TUSD, IUSD, and SOCCCD in order to mitigate the student generation
21 impacts the Reuse Plan will have on those districts.
22 94. The fact that SB 50 does not, and was not intended to, preclude the City
23 from designating new school sites at MCAS-Tustin for the Districts to mitigate student
24 generation impacts was reinforced and made abundantly clear by the recent adoption of AB
25 212.
26 95. Section 3 of AB 212 expressly provides that, inter alia:
27
28
2t
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"The LegiSlature finds and declares that the Cit'Y of Tustin has
taken the position that current state law prohibits the city from
designating new schoolsites for the Santa Ana Unified School
District and the Rancho Santiago Community College District as
conditions of approval for the development of new land uses at the
Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin. The Legislature further finds
and declares that it is necessary to adopt this special legislation in
order to (a) remove any perceived impediments to providing land
for adequate schoolsites for those districts under the unique
circumstances presented by the Reuse Plan for the Marine Corps
Air Station-Tustin and (b) reaffirm the fact that the development
of any new land uses at the Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin shall
be and remain subject to the land use regulations of this state."
96. In requiring that the City condition its grant or issuance of any land use
approval for land at MCAS-Tustin, which the City intends to or does acquire, on the
conveyance or dedication of land at MCAS-Tustin to the Districts to mitigate the impacts of
the Reuse Plan on the Districts, AB 212 states that its provisions apply:
"[N]otwithstanding any other provision of law, including Chapter
4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) [SB 50], which the
Legislature hereby finds and declares shall not relieve the City of
Tustin or the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency of their
duties under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code [CEQA] to fully mitigate all adverse
environmental effects associated with the buildout of the Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin by designating adequate schoolsites at the
former base to alleviate impacts on the Santa Ana Unified School
District and the Rancho Santiago Community College District."
(Govt. Code {}65051.5.)
97. Although AB 212 did not go into effect until January 1,2002--i.e., after
the City's adoption of GPA 00-001 on January 16, 2001--it applies retroactively to all land
use approvals relating to MCAS-Tustin which the City granted or issued on or after January
1,2001. (Govt. Code §65051.5; Health&Saf. Code § 33492.114.)
98. Accordingly, given that the FEIS/FEIR does not even attempt to consider
the possibility of designating new school sites at MCAS-Tustin for the Districts to mitigate
student generation impacts, the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and AB 212.
22
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petilion for Writ of Mandate
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
E. The FEIS/FEIR Fails To Describe Ail Feasible Mitigation Measures
To Minimize The Impacts Upon SAUSD And RSCCD, And Related
Significant Physical Impacts To The Environment.
99. There are 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"). Approximately 122 acres of MCAS-Tustin fall within SAUSD's boundaries.
100. As noted above, the FEIS/FEIR avoids having to identify substantial
physical impacts to the environment by simply noting that "there is no facility design or
location that could be evaluated in this EIS/EIR."
101. ]! is indeed ironic that the FEIS/FEIR purportedly cannot identify any
new site for additional facilities for SAUSD, but had no difficulty identifying sites for TUSD
and ]USD upon which to build facilities to mitigate the student generation effects of the
Reuse Plan.
102. Specifically, the FEIS/FEIR acknowledges that the Reuse Plan would add
302 new students to the IUSD. In mitigation of that impact, the City will transfer a 20-acre
school site within the Property for IUSD.
103. In a similar manner, the FEIS/FEIR estimates that the Reuse Plan would
generate 1,143 new students for TUSD. In mitigation, the City will provide TUSD two 10-
acre elementary school sites, and a 40-acre high school site within the Property.
104. While acknowledging that the Reuse Plan could generate up to 509 new
students for SAUSD (817 using proper math), the City has proposed to provide no land to
SAUSD. Given that SAUSD encompasses 122 acres of the total 1,606 acres of mostly
undeveloped land being given--for free--to the City, one would expect the FEIS/FEIR to
provide some logical explanation as to why the impacts caused by the Reuse Plan on SAUSD
could not be mitigated by providing land. None, however, is provided.
105. Indeed, the FEIS/FEIR fails to satisfactorily ex'plain why the City felt the
need to transfer a 20-acre school site to IUSD to mitigate the effects of adding 302 new
23
R$CCD/MCA$/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
I students to IUSD, but apparently saw no need to provide land to SAUSD to accommodate the
2 purported 509 new students the Reuse Plan would add to SAUSD.
3 106. Ironically, the FEIS/FEIR acknowledges three new schools to be built on
4 the 60 acres provided to TUSD will exceed that needed to fully mitigate the effects of the
s Reuse Plan, and will thus accommodate "some of the future growth anticipated for the Tustin
6 community as a whole." Some explanation should have been provided in the FEIS/FEIR as to
7 why the needs of the 24,000 students currently shoehorned into portable classrooms within
8 SAUSD could not be similarly accommodated (there are now more students attending classes
9 in portables at schools in the SAUSD than the total number of students enrolled at all schools
l0 in the IUSD (23,392), and well over 1-1/2 times the total number of students attending all
II schools in the TUSD (16,192)).
12 107. Moreover, the FEIS/FEIR's statement that it cannot address
13 environmental impacts because no site for additional facility construction relating to SAUSD
14 has been identified is disingenuous. Prior to the City being named as LRA for MCAS-Tustin,
is the United States Department of Education previously set aside 75 acres within MCAS-TUstin
16 to alleviate present and future overcrowding within SAUSD. Declaring the Department of
17 Education's approval "null and void," however, the City took away SAUSD's 75 acres of land
18 within MCAS-Tustin, and now plans to sell the site to private developers for
19 commercial/business use.
20 108. As noted above, the FEIS/FEIR completely fails to adequately address
21 student generation impacts to the seriously overcrowded RSCCD facilities and the associated
22 sical environment impacts resulting therefrom.
23 109. Again, although the FEIS/FEIR has no trouble identifying 100 acres of
24 land to give to SOCCCD, it provides no land at all for RSCCD, which also lies partially
25 within MCAS-Tustin.
26 l 10. In a stroke of pure irony, SOCCCD has apparently now determined that it
27 does not need the 100-acre site to build additional undergraduate facilities. As discussed
28 below, SOCCCD has announced its intention to use the 100-acre "Learning Village" for uses
24
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
other than to provide traditional community college undergraduate programs. Moreover,
officials of SOCCCD haVe admitted that if they cannot obtain land at MCAS-Tustin as part of
the Reuse Plan, SOCCCD can simply move its proposed project to another location at one of
its two other campuses.
111. This, of course, confirms that SOCCCD does not need any additional
land at MCAS-Tustin because it has a substantial amount of unused land at its two other
campuses.
112. Accordingly, under the Reuse Plan, both RSCCD and SOCCCD get what
they don't need: RSCCD gets 2,200 new students in its overcrowded schools, and SOCCCD
gets 100 more acres added to its surplus land holdings.
113. Because the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately describe all feasible
mitigation measures to minimize the significant student generation and related physical
environment impacts resulting from student generation on SAUSD and R, SCCD under the
Reuse Plan, it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section
15126.4 of the Guidelines.
114. Similarly, because the Mitigation Monitoring Program the City proposes
to adopt in connection with the Reuse Plan also fails to incorporate adequate mitigation
measures, it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section
15097 of the Guidelines.
F. The FEIS/FEIR Fails To Discuss Any Project Alternatives Which
Would Lessen Or Avoid The Significant Impacts Upon SAUSD And
RSCCD, And Associated Environmental Impacts.
115. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines provides, in relevant part:
"An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the 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, and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives."
25
RSCCD/MCAS/Arnd--Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
116. In purporting to comply with section 15126.6, the FEIS/FEIR sets forth
two alternative plans in addition to the Reuse Plan.
117. Despite the indisputably overcrowded conditions currently existing
within SAUSD or RSCCD, and that the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will create student
generation impacts, none of the other alternatives explored in the FEIS/FEIR considers
adding an new school sites for either of these two Districts.
118. As noted above, prior to the City's designation as LRA, the Department
of Education had designated 75 of the 122 acres of MCAS-Tustin falling within SAUSD
boundaries for the development of new school facilities.
119. Each of the development alternatives, however, designate all of the 122
acres within SAUSD's boundaries as either "commercial," "commercial business," or
"commercial recreation." Nowhere in the FEIS/FEIR is the possibility even mentioned that
some of the land within or adjacent to SAUSD's boundaries be used for the construction of
school facilities. Similarly, the alternatives set forth in the FEIS/FEIR never consider
providing land to RSCCD for the purpose of additional educational facilities.
120. Because the FEIS/FEIR fails to analyze any project alternatives which
would lessen or avoid the significant impacts upon SAUSD and RSCCD, and associated
environmental impacts, it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not
limited to, section 15126.6 of the Guidelines.
G. The Findings Of Fact And Statement Of Overriding Considerations
Are Legally Inadequate.
121. Before an EIR is certified and a project is approved, CEQA section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 require a public agency to make certain findings
regarding each environmental impact associated with the project, and CEQA section 21081.5
and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(b) require that all such findings must be based upon
substantial evidence in the record.
122. Specifically, CEQA and the Guidelines required the City, inter alia, to
make one of two findings for each significant environmental impact identified in the
26
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
1!
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FEIS/FEIR to provide an explanation of the rationale for each finding they made. The two
possible findings which the City could have made for each significant impact were that (a) the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIS/FEIR would reduce the
impact to a level of insignificance, or (b) the impact is unavoidable because one or more
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives which are identified in the FEIS/FEIR as relating to the impact in
question. CEQA and the Guidelines required the City to make this later finding for each
mitigation measure and project alternative that was identified by the FEIS/FEIR, but was not
adopted by the City.
123. In addition, section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the
body determining whether to approve the project which is the subject of CEQA review must
balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If
the decision-making body determines that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the body approving the project must state in
writing the specific reasons to support its approval of the project based on the final EIR
and/or other information in the record. Such writing, called a statement of overriding
considerations, is to be included in the record of the project approval.
124. As set forth at length above, the FEIS/FSIR fails to properly identify and
address the significant environmental impacts, reasonable project alternatives, and feasible
mitigation measures relating to the Reuse Plan. Given this failure, the City's Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations--which are designed to incorporate the
City's assessment of these issues--are both legally inadequate. Accordingly, the City failed
to proceed in the manner required by law and violated CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the Guidelines.
H. New Information Regarding SOCCCD's Use Of The Learning Center
Requires A Subsequent EIR Or Supplement To The FEIR.
125. A subsequent EIR is required by CEQA section 21166 and Guidelines
section 15162 whenever certain changes occur with respect to the design of a proposed
27
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
project, the circumstances under which such project will be undertaken, or the information
regarding its environmental impacts. Under section 15162 of the Guidelines, a supplement to
an EIR ("Supplement") may, in certain circumstances, be used in place of a subsequent EIR.
126. At the time the FEIS/FEIR was prepared, the City had been provided
with no plans regarding how SOCCCD would utilize the 100-acre Learning Center site. Since
the preparation of the FEIS/FEIR, however, significant new information has come to light
regarding this subject.
127. Specifically, SOCCCD has announced that it intends to develop a project
on the site identified as the "Digital Innovation Center for the Arts, Science, and Technology"
("DI-CAST") to teach students in such high-tech areas as animation, laser optics and virtual
reality. However, the classes to be provided by SOCCCD will be directed toward "older
students" who need certification training to advance in their jobs or change professions. In
other instances, SOCCCD will contract to teach classes for private companies. SOCCCD
expects most of the classes it offers as part of its DI-CAST project to be short, immersion-
style offerings, perhaps taught in five-week cycles, mostly at night or on weekends.
128. The significance of this information is twofold. First, 'although the
City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin will be generating upwards to 2,200 new full-time
community college students for RSCCD, the programs to be offered by SOCCCD will not be
geared to address the needs of such students. That, of course, will leave RSCCD with the
burden of accommodating these new students in its already-overcrowded system with no new
land or facilities being provided at MCAS-Tustin. As discussed above, these impacts and
appropriate mitigation measures need to be addressed in a Subsequent EIR or Supplement.
129. Second, in addition to the classroom facilities to be constructed,
SOCCCD has announced that it will be building a 1,000 room dormitory on the site. The
addition of 1,000 more full time, albeit temporary, residents will create numerous
environmental impacts, including traffic circulation impacts, well beyond that contemplated
in the FEI S/FEIR.
28
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
130. Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, section 15162 of the Guidelines, in that it fails to take into
account SOCCCD's proposed use of the Learning Center site, and has not been supplemented
or replaced with a subsequent EIR.
131. As a result of the City's failure to comply with the requirements of
CEQA and the Slate CEQA Guidelines in approving the FEIS/FEIR, Petitioners are entitled to
a peremptory writ of mandate which, inter alia, directs the City to vacate and set aside its
certification of the FEIS/FEIR and approvals of GPA 00-001, including, but not limited to,
Resolution No. 00-90 and Resolution No. 00-91.
132. In addition, Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in
support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve
and protect Petitioners' rights herein.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate
And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of Government
Code § 65580 Et Seq. (Invalid Housing Element))
A. The City Failed To Comply With Government Code Sections
65588(e)(1) and 65585(t) In Approving GPA 00-001 And Housing Element
Therein.
133. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 132, inclusive, as set forth above.
134. One of the key purposes of Housing Element law is to require counties
and cities to recognize and fulfill their responsibilities to make decent housing available to all
residents, including Iow income persons.
135. Petitioners have a strong interest in ensuring that affordable housing is
made available in the City. As set forth above, SAUSD and RSCCD administer educational
29
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
facilities which are severely overcrowded, and which are expected to become even more
overcrowded over the next decade or more. One of the chief reasons for this overcrowding is
the lack of affordable housing in other parts of Orange County.
136. Given that the Reuse Plan is projected to generate up to 77,400 jobs--
including many low to moderate income jobs--it is critical that the Housing Element
adequately detail how the City intends to meet the housing needs of the Workers who will fill
those jobs, and others of low to moderate income. If the City fails to provide for sufficient
low to moderate income housing in connection with GPA 00-001, the geographic areas served
by SAUSD and RSCCD will only face further overcrowding.
137. Longacre similarly has a strong interest in ensuring the development of
affordable housing within the City. Without an adequate supply of affordable housing, Iow to
moderate income workers are forced to commute both into and through the City, causing
traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. Again, given the large number of jobs to be
generated within the Reuse Plan area, adequate provision for affordable housing is crucial.
138. Pursuant to Government Code section 65588, each local government is
required to revise the Housing Element of its General Plan every five years, which must be
sent to California's Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for
review and approval. Under section 65588(e)(1), the time within which the City was required
to review and revise its preexisting Housing Element (the "Old Element') expired on
December 31, 2000.
139. In October of 2000, the City provided a new Housing Element intended
to satisfy section 65588 to HCD for approval (the "New Element"). On November 16, 2000,
HCD denied approval of the New Element, citing a large number of inadequacies. A true and
correct copy of the letter received from HCD, with attached Appendix setting forth the
inadequacies of the New Element (the "HCD Analysis"), is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
To date, the City has not revised and resubmitted the New Element to HCD.
140. Having failed to obtain HCD approval of the New Element, the City was
thus limited to two courses of action under Government code section 65585(f): The City
3O
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
I0
12
1'4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
could (a) wait to adopt GPA 00-001 until after it had revised the New Element and obtained
HCD approval, or (b) adopt the New Element without changes, making specific written
findings as to why it believed that the New Element complies with the Government Code
requirements despite HCD's findings to the contrary.
141. The City, however, did neither. Disregarding HCD's rejection of the
New Element, the City incorporated an earlier amendment to the Old Element (the "Amended
Element") into GPA 00-001. Although this Amended Element had been previously approved
by HCD in February of 2000 as a valid amendment to the Old Element, HCD now considers
the Amended Element invalid because the Old Element had expired under section
65588(e)(1), and the New Element had been rejected.
142. Because the City failed to comply with the clear requirements of
Government Code sections 65588(e)(1) and 65585(f), GPA 00-001 adopted by the City on
January 16, 2001 is invalid.
B. The Amended Element Fails To Comply With Government Code Sections
65583 and 65584.
143. In addition to the code violations associated with its adoption, the
Amended Element is substantively deficient in that it fails to provide the information and
level of specificity required under Government Code sections 65583 and 65584.
144. The deficiencies identified in the HCD Analysis of the New Element,
along with the citations to the supporting Government Code sections, apply with even greater
force when applied to the dramatically less complete information found in the Amended
Element. Petitioners hereby incorporate the HCD Analysis in this First Amended, as if set
forth in full.
145. In addition to the deficiencies identified in the HCD Analysis, a review
of the Amended Element as a whole reveals that much of the information contained therein is
seriously outdated, and fails to take into account the growth and development of the City
occurring in recent years. Indeed much of the Amended Element discusses "future" goals for
the 1989-1994 planning period.
31
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
146. In addition, the census data relied upon in the Amended Element is so
outdated as to be virtually useless in future planning, particularly in light of the vastly more
recent data contained in the New Element.
147. As a result of the City's failure to comply with the requirements of the
Government Code in adopting the Amended Element as part of GPA 00-001, and the
inadequacy of the Amended Element itself, Petitioners are entitled to a peremptory writ of
mandate which, inter alia, directs the City to vacate and set aside its approval of GPA 00-
001, including, but not limited to, Resolution No. 00-91.
148. In addition, Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in
support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve
and protect Petitioners' rights herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
('Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate
And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of
Government Code § 65051.5 And Health & Safety Code § 33492.114)
149. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 148, inclusive, as set forth above.
150. In granting land use approvals to allow for the development of
commercial, residential, or other land uses on all or any portion of MCAS-Tustin, the City is
required under AB 212 to condition those approvals in such a manner as to provide for the
timely conveyance or irrevocable offer to dedicate to the Districts for purposes of
constructing or operating a K-14 educational facility' (a) fee title to a 100-acre parcel of
contiguous land situated within that portion of MCAS-Tustin that falls within the Districts'
current attendance boundaries or (b) fee title to other property at MCAS-Tustin that the
Districts agree in writing to accept, provided that this other property does not include any of
the parcels designated under the Reuse Plan for conveyance to certain public agencies and
nonprofit organizations. (Govt. Code {}65051.5; Health & Saf. Code {}33492.114.)
32
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
151. According to the express language of AB 212, any land use or other
approvals granted or issued by the City that do not comply with AB 212 "shall be invalid and
of no force or effect," and are subject to being vacated and set aside by writ of mandate.
152. The City's adoption of GPA 00-001 to serve as the master land use plan
to implement the Reuse Plan for the base was the first land use approval issued by the City to
authorize the large-scale development of commercial, residential, and other land uses as
MCAS-Tustin.
153. The City has applied to the Navy to acquire title to over 1,200 acres of
land at MCAS-Tustin, i.e., over 75% of the surplus land available for distribution at the base.
If and when it acquires that land, which primarily consists parcels designated for of
commercial and residential uses, the City plans to auction those parcels off to private real
estate developers so that lhey can proceed to develop the base in accordance with the master
land use plan authorized by GPA 00-001.
154. Although GPA 00-001 was finally adopted by the City Council on
January 16, 2001--i.e., prior to AB 212's effective date of January 1,2002--it is nonetheless
subject to AB 212 because the statute expressly provides that it "shall apply retroaCtively to
all land use or other approvals relating to the Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin that are
granted or issued by [the City] on or after January 1, 2001." (Govt. Code §65051.5; Health &
Sar. Code {}33492.114.)
155. The City Council's approval of GPA 00-001 was not issued in
compliance with AB 212, i.e., the City adopted GPA 00-001 without imposing the conditions
of approval and mitigation measures necessary to provide for the certain parcels of land at
MCAS-Tustin to be timely conveyed to the Districts after the City acquired title thereto.
Accordingly, the City's approval of GPA 00-001 must be vacated and set aside on the
grounds that it violates the dictates of AB 212 and is invalid.
156. The City, however, has failed to take any action to vacate and set aside
its approval of GPA 00-001, or to otherwise amend or modify that approval to impose the
conditions of approval required by AB 212. To the contrary, since AB 212 was signed by the
33
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Governor in July 2001, the City has steadfastly maintained that AB 212 is invalid and
unconstitutional.
157. For example, City officials have stated in the press that "the City will file
its own lawsuit to have [AB 212] negated as unconstitutional" and that the City "will turn to
the courts to fight the legislation." (Orange County Register, July 12, 2001, "Base Bill
Approved By Senate"; Orange County Register, August 2, 2001, "State Joins Battle Over
Helicopter Base Governor Signs Bill Barring Tustin From Developing Former Base Until 100
Acres Are Turned Over To Schools.")
158. Not only has the City repeatedly insisted in public statements in the press
that AB 212 is unconstitutional and unenforceable, but it has also expressly stated, both
orally and in writing, in recent proceedings conducted by the United Stated District Court in
that certain civil rights action entitled Santa Aha Unified School District et al. v. City of
Tustin, et al. (U.S. District Court Case No. 01-3426 WJR (CTx)) [hereinafter referred to as
the "Federal Court Action"] that AB 212 is unconstitutional and the City intends to challenge
its validity in Court.
159. Indeed, in motion papers recently filed in the Federal Court Action, the
City has stated that it "believes that AB 212 is invalid, and intends to file an action seeking to
invalidate the statute." ("Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, or, in the
Alternative to Stay" at p. 2, lines 3-5.)
160. Given the City's unwavering, albeit unjustified, position that AB 212 is
unconstitutional and of no legal effect, it would have been futile for Petitioners, prior to
bringing this claim, to have formally requested the City to vacate and set aside GPA 00-001
on the grounds that it violates AB 212 and is invalid..
161. As a result of the City's failure to vacate and set aside GPA 00-001,
Petitioners are entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate which, inter alia, directs the City to
vacate and set aside its approval of GPA 00-001, including, but not limited to, Resolution No.
00-91.
34
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
162. Iff' addition, Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in
support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve
and protect Petitioners' rights herein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for relief as follows:
ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. For a peremptory writ of mandate, and for ancillary injunctive relief,
including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction, and permanent injunction, as prayed for hereinabove;
2. For Petitioners' attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Code of Civil
Procedure section 1021.5 and Government Code section 800;
3. For Petitioners' cost of suit; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DATED: January lb 2002 EDMOND M CONNOR
~,
CRAIG L. GR1FFIN
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Edmond M. Connor
Attorneys For Petitioners
Santa Ana Unified School District,
Rancho Santiago Community College District,
and Marisela Longacre
35
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROL~.,' OF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASo ~vlAIL
I am employed with Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, whose address is
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450, Irvine, California 92612; I am not a party to
the cause; I am over the age of eighteen years and I am readily familiar with the
practice of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and know that in
the ordinary course of the business practice of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP the
document described below will be deposited with the United States Postal Service
on the same date that it is placed at Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP with postage
thereon fully prepaid for collection and mailing.
I further declare that on the date hereof I served a copy of the
following documents:
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
on the following by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
addressed as follows for collection and mailing via first class mail at Connor,
Blake & Griffin LLP, 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450, lrvine, California 92612
in accordance with the ordinary business practices of Connor, Blake & Griffin
LLP:
Daniel K. Spradlin, Esq.
Craig G. Farrington, Esq.
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart
701 S. Parker Street, Ste. 7000
Orange, CA 92868
Attorneys for Defendants
City of TUstin, et al.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the above is true and correct.
Exhibit B
EDMOND M. CONNOR
LAURA LEE BLAKE
CRAIG L. GRIFFIN
DAVID J. HESSELTINE
MATTHEW J. FLETCIIER
.~ONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN"~-P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2600 M]CHELSO~q DroVE
SLATE 1450
IRXrrNE, CAL~FORNLa, 92612
TELEPHONE (949) 622-2600
TELEFACSlMILE (949) 622-2626
E-MAIL: econnor~businesslit.com
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re'.
Additional 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:
In connection with the public hearing to be held on January 16, 2001, by
the City Council for the City of Tustin (the "City") regarding General Plan Amendment
00-001 (the "Project') and the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final
Environmental Impact Report" (hereinafter, the "FEIS/FEIR") for the disposal and reuse
of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin, Califomia ("MCAS-Tustin"), we submit
this letter on behalf of our clients the Santa Ana Unified School District (the "SAUSD"),
the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the "RSCCD"), Victor and Susan
Garcia (the "Garcias"), Fortino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karina Valenzuela
[hereinafter, the SAUSD and the 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"].
The Concerned Parties hereby object to the FEIS/FEIR and the Project on
the basis of each and every procedural and substantive contention, objection, comment, or
argument raised in the following letters, as well as all other letters submitted to the City
in connection with the FEIS/FEIR or the Projeet:
(a) the November 28, 2000 letter from Edmond M. Connor, Esq.,
Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of
Tustin, regarding the FEIS/FEIR and the Project;
(b) the December 18, 2000 letter from M. Andriette Culbertson,
President, Culbertson, Adams & Associates, to the City Council, City of Tustin,
which was prepared at the request of our office;
R SCCDX, MCA S-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3.Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL!
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 2
(c) the January 16, 2001 letter from Dwight E. Berg, P.E., Public
Economics, Inc. ("PEI"), to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin,
which is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto;
(d) the January 16, 2001 letter from Colette Marie McLaughlin,
Planner for SAUSD, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin,
which is attached as Exhibit "B" hereto;
(e) the January 16, 2001 letter from Dante Gumucio of PEI to Dana
Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin, which is attached as Exhibit "C"
hereto; and
(f) the January 16, 2001 letter from Julie Slark, Executive Director of
Research Planning and Development, Rancho Santiago Community College
District, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin, which is
attached as Exhibit "D" hereto.
Each of the above-listed letters is incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full hereat. In addition, the Concerned Parties also object to the FEIS/FEIR and
the Project on the basis of each of the objections raised, or comments or arguments made,
by the Concerned Parties, their representatives, or any other Project opponent at any
public hearing or meeting conducted by the City in connection with the Project or the
FEIS/FEIR, including, but not limited to, the public hearing conducted by the City's
Planning Commission on November 28, 2000.
The Agenda Report for the January 16, 2001 hearing on GPA 00-001 sets
forth comments in response to some of the points which I raised in my letter to you of
November 28, 2000. In those comments, staff repeatedly makes reference to the student
generation estimates set forth in a July 1996 report by SAUSD's consultant, PEI. In his
attached letter to you (Exhibit "A" hereto), Mr. Berg of PEI takes issue with the City's
attempt to compare the estimates set forth in PEI's July 1996 report to the "worst case"
projections for student generation impacts which were set forth in the FEIS/FEIR. In
addition, Mr. Berg points out in his letter that the FEIS/FEIR's projected range of 82 to
509 additional students to be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin is not credible because it is based on unreasonable
assumptions which have materially skewed the results.
By incorporating more reasonable assumptions into the same
methodologies used by the City's consultants in arriving at its student generation
estimates, PEI has generated a new range of estimates to better define the number of
RSCCDXMCA S-LandTrnsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 3
students that will potentially be added to SAUSD's schools when the City's Reuse Plan is
implemented. The calculations performed by PEI--based on the methodologies employed
by the City's consultants--show that the FEIS/FEIR has seriously underestimated the
student generation impacts associated with the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan.
When these new calculations are considered in light of (1) the. CEQA
compliance analysis set forth in Ms. Culbertson's letter to the City Council, dated '
December 18, 2000, and (2) the additional facts set forth in the materials attached as
Exhibits "A" through "E" hereto, it is clear that the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines and must be corrected and recirculated for public review and comment
before the City takes any action on GPA 00-001. On this basis, therefore, the Concerned
Parties hereby request that the City continue the City Council hearing on GPA 00-001
until all of the CEQA compliance issues raised on behalf of the Concerned Parties have
been properly addressed and resolved.
In particular, the concerned Parties request that the City defer taking any
action to certify the FEIS/FEIR for GPA 00-001 until the misstatements of law set forth
in Attachment 6 to the January 16, 2001 Agenda Report are corrected and the FEIS/FEIR
is amended accordingly to add appropriate mitigation measures to minimize the Project's
impacts on public services and facilities within the Districts.. Specifically, the City
should acknowledge that the following contentions are disingenuous and incorrect when
applied to the City's Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of surplus federal land at MCAS-
Tustin:
"Except for paying school impact fees (that will be required as part of the
project) a new development is not required to build or provide sites for new
schools .... Finally, since Goleta and E1 Dorado were decided, the obligation of
a development project to mitigate impacts on schools has been completely
revised. The State is now responsible under SB 50 for financing new schools and
mitigating the impacts of land use approvals (see California Government Code
Section 65995(e)) .... Even if mitigation was warranted, State law prohibits
conditiordng projects to require that land be provided for schools (Cal. Gov't.
Code Section 65995)." (Agenda Report, pp. 3-4.)
In the first place, SB 50 has no application whatsoever to the obligations
of the U.S. Department of the Navy (the "DON") under NEPA and the Environmental
Justice Order to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are adopted to minimize the
adverse environmental effects associated with the disposal and reuse of surplus federal
land at MCAS-Tustin, particularly impacts on minority populations. Since the
FEIS/FEIR is intended to be an environmental compliance document that will jointly be
R SCCD~MCA S-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 4
utilized by thc DON and the City in issuing approvals relating to the City's Reuse Plan
for MCAS-Tustin, it is imperative that the FEIS/FEIR be revised and recirculated to
acknowledge the significant impacts which the Project will have on public services and
facilities within the Districts and to provide for appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
or eliminate these impacts. The City cannot attempt to unilaterally exonerate the DON
from complying with the requirements of NEPA and the Environmental Justice Order by
simply invoking the provisions of SB 50.
More impOrtantly, however, SB 50 provides no escape route for the City
to avoid its obligations under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to mitigate the adverse
impacts the Project will have on public services and facilities within the Districts.
Indeed, SB 50 was never intended to apply to the federal base closure and reuse process
relating to MCAS-Tustin. Under that process, the City, as the Local Redevelopment
Agency ("LRA") is required to prepare a Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of the surplus
federal land that is to be conveyed by the United States in closing the military installation
in question. The City's proposed approval of GPA 00-001 in support of its Reuse Plan
for MCAS-Tustin does not involve the imposition of the type of"conditions" or
"exactions" on real estate developers which are proscribed by SB 50.
The preparation and approval of a Reuse Plan for a military base is an
activity which is expressly subject to CEQA (see sections 21083.8 and 21083.8.1) and
there is no basis for asserting that the State Legislature intended that SB 50 could be used
by LRAs, such as the City, to circumvent the requirements of CEQA. In fact, SB 50
expressly states that it shall not be interpreted "to limit or prohibit the authority of a local
agency to reserve or designate real property for a schoolsite." (See, Gov. Code, §
65998(a).)
Not surprisingly, the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin does, indeed,
designate (1) 80 acres of land for schoolsites for the Tustin Unified School District and
the Irvine Unified School District and (2) 100 acres of land for a "Learning Village" site
for the South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD"). However, no
land for schoolsites for either of the Districts is provided under the Reuse Plan and both
the letter and the spirit of NEPA and CEQA--as well as SB 50--would require such sites
to be designated as appropriate mitigation for the impacts that will be generated by the
City's Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
Turning to another subject, the Concerned Parties strongly disagree with
staff's assertion in the Agenda Report that there is "no feasible way" to evaluate the
student generation impacts on RSCCD that will be created by build-out of the City's
Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin. Obviously, the community college facilities and programs
R SCCDWICAS-LandTms fr\Ogdon3. Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 5
provided by RSCCD qualify as "public services" within the meaning of section 15126.2
of the CEQA Guidelines and, as such, any significant impacts to these services must be
addressed and mitigated in the FEIS/FEIR. Regrettably, the FEIS/FEIR fails to even
mention RSCCD in discussing impacts on public services and facilities and, in the
Agenda Report, staff attempts to justify this glaring omission by offering the explanation
that its EIR consultant has no prior experience in projecting indirect impacts on a
community college district.
In the attached letter from Ms. Julie Slark, the Executive Director of
Research, Planning, and Development for RSCCD, Ms. Slark points out that, by simply
modifying the methodologies employed by the City's consultants in the FEIS/FEIR, it is
possible to make a reasonable estimate as to the range of additional full-time students that
will be added to the RSCCD system as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
The point to be made here is that, if Ms. Slark can perform these calculations, the City's
consultant can certainly do likewise--and should have done so in analyzing the
environmental impacts of the City's Reuse plan.
To underscore this point, PEI was asked to perform such an analysis on
behalf of RSCCD, and the results of that analysis are set forth in the letter from Mr.
Gumucio to Mr. Ogdon which is attached as Exhibit "C" hereto. Clearly, the provisions
of SB 50 do not apply to community college districts and thus the FEIS/FEIR not only
fails to address the impacts of the Project on the public services and facilities within
RSCCD, but also fails to provide any mitigation measures to address these impacts.
Merely alluding to the Reuse Plan's designation of the "Learning Village" parcel for
SOCCCD does not constitute adequate compliance with CEQA.
We believe that calculations supplied by Mr. Gumucio and Ms. Slark
demonstrate that the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan will have significant impacts on
RSCCD's already-overcrowded facilities. These impacts should have been disclosed and
analyzed in the FEIS/FEIR and appropriate mitigation measures should have been
discussed to. minimize or avoid such impacts. The failure of the FEIS/FEIR to contain
any discussion whatsoever regarding student generation impacts on RSCCD renders that
document legally defective and requires it to be supplemented and recirculated for public
review and comment.
In the light of the startling revelations regarding SOCCCD's plans to
develop a portion of the "Learning Village" parcel which were disclosed in an article
which appeared two weeks ago in the Los Angeles Times (see Exhibit "E," hereto), it is
now clear that significant new information has surfaced regarding the City's Reuse Plan
which requires the FEIS/FEIR to be revised and recirculated to address the Project's
RSCCD\MCAS-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3.Doc
CONNOR~ BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLF
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 6
impacts on community college district services and facilities. According to the attached
article, if SOCCCD obtains land at MCAS-Tustin, it intends to develop a project known
as the "Digital Innovation Center for the Arts, Science, and Technology ("DI-CAST") to
teach students in such high-tech areas as animation, laser optics and virtual reality.
However, the classes to be provided by SOCCCD will be directed toward "older
students" who need certification training to advance in their jobs or change professions.
In other instances, SOCCCD will contract to teach classes for companies. SOCCCD
expects most of the classes it offers as part of its DI-CAST project to be short,
immersion-style offerings, perhaps taught in five-week cycles, mostly at night or on
weekends.
What this means, therefore, is that, although the City's Reuse Plan for
MCAS-Tustin will be generating upwards to 3,000 new full-time community college
students for RSCCD, the programs to be offered by SOCCCD will not be geared to
address the needs of such students. That, of course, will leave RSCCD with the burden of
accommodating these new students in its already-overcrowded system with no new land
or facilities being provided at MCAS-Tustin. Obviously, these impacts need to be
addressed and appropriate mitigation measures need to be discussed in the FEIS/FEIR.
In revising the FEIS/FEIR to incorporate a discussion of such impacts and
mitigation measures as they relate to RSCCD, the City should be mindful that, as
reported in the attached LA Times article, officials of SOCCCD have now admitted
publicly that, if that district does not obtain land at MCAS-Tustin as part of the City's
Reuse Plan, SOCCCD can simply move its "DI-CAST" project to another location at one
of its two other campuses. This candid admission confirms what the Districts have long
suspected, i.e., that SOCCCD does not need any additional land at MCAS-Tustin because
it has a substantial amount of unused land at its two other campuses. Accordingly, since
the Districts desperately need surplus at MCAS-Tustin to build new school facilities, a
balancing of the equities would certainly favor--indeed it would mandate--that the City's
Reuse Plan and FEIS/FEIR be amended to provide that the entire "Learning Village"
parcel be conveyed to the Districts.
As a final note, in Attachment 6 to the Agenda Report for the January 16,
2001 public hearing, staff refers to a purported "offer" to provide SAUSD with 10 acres
of land at MCAS-Tustin and $3.5 million in up-front tier level 1 school impact
development fees. What is unclear is whether the City intends its reference to this so-
called "offer" to constitute "mitigation" for the adverse impacts which the Project will
have on SAUSD. If that is the City's intention, then such mitigation must properly be
addressed in the FEIS/FEIR and in the City's Mitigation Monitoring Report relating
thereto. As the City is well aware, of course, its belated "offer" is woefully inadequate in
RSCCD~2¢I CA S-LandTrnsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 7
light of SAUSD's needs and is grossly unfair in light of the 160 acres of land which it is
providing to Tustin Unified, Irvine Unified, and SOCCCD.
In light of the fOregoing, the Concerned Parties respectfully submit that
the City should refrain from taking any action to certify the FEIS/FEIR or to approve
GPA 00-001 until the CEQA-related deficiencies noted herein have been corrected and
the FEIS/FEIR has been recirculated for public review and comment.
Edm~m/d M Connor
bcc: Dr. Edward Hemandez
Dr. Al Mijares
Dr. Don Stabler
Martin N. Burton, Esq.
Ruben Smith, Esq.
Victor/Susan Garcia
Fortino/Bertha Rivera
Karina Valenzuela
R SCCD\MCAS-LandTrnsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
EXHIBIT "A"
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Public Finance
Urban Economics
Development Services
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), Public Economics,
Inc. ("PEI") has prepared this response ("Response") to certain staff comments set forth in
Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," prepared by City
staff in sUpport of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and
certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ("City") at the public
hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In particular, this Response addresses comments of City
staff regarding the number of new students projected to be generated within SAUSD from
proposed redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-fourths of all
redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California--including a number of
military base closures--on behalf of over 200 local school districts, community college districts,
and county offices of education.
Dwight Berg, principal investigator for this Response, has personally advised over 125 school
districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in
general, and redevelopment in particular. Mr. Berg has a Master of Science degree in Social
Science with an emphasis in Economics, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Economics and
Engineering, all from the California Institute of Technology.
820 W. Town and Country Road ° Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 ° FAX (714) 647-6232
World Wide Web: hhtp;//www, pub-econ.corn
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 2
Analysis
The FEIS/FEIR relies on the (i) Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the
MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District ("DMC
Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ("DMC") in May 1999, and (ii) Updated
Report School Facility Construction Cost Impact of Redevelopment (sic) of the MCAS Tustin
Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District ("JCJ Report"), prepared by JCJ Associates in June
1999. Specifically, City staff state that "the DMC Report brackets a .... high and low range of
probable household impacts to the [District, and the ] JCJ Report uses the DMC Report high and
low impact assumptions to identify a range of students.
Based on the DMC and JCJ Reports, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin will generate only 82 to 509 new students for SAUSD. As further support for this
conclusion, City staff refers to a report prepared by PEI in July 1996 for SAUSD, entitled
"Analysis of the Impact of MCAS-Tustin Reuse Plan on Santa Ana Unified School District"
("1996 PEI Report"), in which PEI projected an impact of 404 new households and 272 new
students.
City staff fails to disclose that the 1996 PEI Report utilized student generation factors which are
now out-of-date, and were not used by JCJ in calculating the figures reported in the FEIS/FEIR.
The 1996 PEI Report used 0.673 K-12 students per household, which in 1998 the District
updated to 0.93 K-12 students per household, the factor used in the FEIS/FEIR. In January
2000, the District updated the factor to 0.995 K-12 students per household--an increase of about
7 percent. For purposes of this letter and for the sake of comparison, all figures from the 1996
PEI Report have been adjusted to reflect the 1998 student generation factor utilized in the
FEIS/FEIR except where noted. Using the 1998 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report
would have shown a projected impact of 377 new students. (Using the 2000 student generation
rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 402 new students.)~
In referring to the 1996 PEI Report, City staff also fails to disclose the true purpose for which
that report was prepared. .Specifically, the 1996 PEI Report was prepared to identify the
minimum number of students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin, in a manner consistent with the requirements proposed at the time regarding how
mitigation payments by the redevelopment agency for MCAS-Tustin should be determined.
City staff did note that the 1996 PEI Report was based on the City's original estimate that 26,180 new
on-site jobs will be created at MCAS-Tustin. If the 1996 PEI Report had been based on the revised estimate of
24,852 new jobs utilized in the FEIS/FEIR, the revised number of new students would be slightly less than the
amounts shown above.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 3
The 1996 PEI Report was prepared one and one-half years before the initial draft of the EIS/EIR
was prepared, when the City of Tustin was claiming that the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin wouM have no direct or indirect impact on SA USD. The 1996 PEI Report utilized
a conservative methodology to demonstrate that even under a "best case" scenario from the City's
point of view, redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin would generate at least 377 new students in
SAUSD, resulting in a significant impact that the City needed to address in the EIS/EIR.2
Although a "worst case" scenario is required to be examined in preparing an EIK the 1996 PEI
Report was not intended to serve that purpose. Indeed, that task was left to the City's
consultants. IfPEI had been asked to develop a "worst case" scenario, the projections would not
only have been much higher than the projections set forth in the 1996 PEI Report, they would
also have been considerably higher than the projections from the DMC and JCJ Reports that were
incorporated within the FEIS/FEIR.
The fact of the matter is that in presenting a "worst case" scenario, the FEIS/FEIR greatly
understate the true range of new students that would be generated by the proposed
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the FEIS/FEIR's ignoring certain basic
economic principles related to job growth in Orange County, and misinterpreting or misapplying'
other economic data. As more fully explained below, if the FEIS/FEIR is corrected to properly
apply such principles and data, the range of new students that would be generated by the
proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would increase by approximately a factor of 10: from the
current projections of 82 to 509 new students, to a revised projection of 741 to 5,581 new
students.
The FEIS/FEIR underestimates the nu~nber of jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to
Orange County:
Method//2 of the FEIS/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will generate only
82 new students for SAUSD. This projection is based on the following assumptions: (i) 90
percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin will involve firms which simply
relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) ali such jobs will involve the same employees as
previously, and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be
The term "significant impact" appears to be applied differently by PEI than by the City of Tustin. PEI
deems significant any students generated over and above SAUSD's existing student capacity (based on State
guidelines.) The City does not identify any objective criteria to be used in determining "significant," other than to
suggest that, if enough students were generated to fill an entire grade school, middle school, or high school, then
the student generation impact would be deemed "significant" under CEQA. PEI is not aware of any such standard
being used in California to gauge the significance of estimated increases in student enrollment.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 4
closer to their place of work. However, these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four
reasons.
First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be created
on-site at MCAS-Tustin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not possibly be
"relocated" from somewhere else in the County ((FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.). The regional and
community parks, the golf course, the learning village, the housing facilities are unique land uses
which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that
relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS/FEIR rather than
an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional park, or other similar facility will actually be
relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected
in the FEIS/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas designated
as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to
create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere in the County.
However, many of the jobs associated with the retail, wholesale, and discount businesses that are
also projected for these land use areas will be new to the County. Indeed, at least some of these
jobs will be "big box" retail establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses
are most likely to open new stores at MCAS-Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously
serve (including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEI]~ projects will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that only 10%
of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could" be new to Orange County, i.e., that 90 percent of such jobs
would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated that this claim is based on
interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff economists at certain companies and
agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically identify any person interviewed or, more
importantly, what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to
make in arriving at this 90 percent figure. No verifiable information regarding these supposed
responses is provided in the FEIS/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply
relocate from elsewhere within the County, but that such relocation will not have any impact on
SAUSD. In so doing, the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban
economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin will be
occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but whose former
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 5
homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim would be inappropriate
since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "backfilled" by new occupants. The
FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
residential uses.
However, the FEIS/FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when commercial/industrial space
previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms
new to the County (or by other firms that move from elsewhere in the County, which in turn
vacate space filled by firms from outside the County).3
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FEIS/FEIR implicitly assumes
that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to
MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this assumption is just as inappropriate
for non-residential uses as for residential uses. Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at
MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still be
substantial net additional impacts on total County employment. HoweVer, the FEIS/FEIR fails to
consider these additional impacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors as the
number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii) unemployed, or (iii)
not in the labor force. However, in claiming that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will
be filled by persons who already have jobs in the County, the FEIS/FEIR not only ignores the
backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems
highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the
County than there are employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and
labor force participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere
in Orange County, the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold
New jobs lead to migration of new workers to fill these jobs, and migrating employees may follow or
precede local job creation. In its report "Causes of Growth and Possible Control measures in the San Diego
Region (Agenda Report No. R-83, September 11, 1987), the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG")
states that "many of these labor-force dependent migrants are lured to the .... area by non-economic factors such as
climate and environment. But without a job or at least the prospect of one, they would not migrate here, or after
arrival, would be unable to afford a permanent stay." Moreover, migration impacts are relevant even "if all new
jobs went to local workers," in which case "migrants would simply ~oack-fill' a large share of the jobs vacated by
local residents, i.e., take the existing 'Group A' jobs vacated by current residents who take new jobs, or fill existing
'Group B' jobs vacated by current residents who fill the 'Group A' jobs, and so on."
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 6
those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work. City staff claims
that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is
negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the
amount of relocating workers that they deem to be "negligible."
In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent--compared to the City's
figure of 10 percent-- is much more reasonable for establishing the l°w end of the range of new
jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100 percent is an
appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent figure still appears
highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County, it
assumes that either one-half of the old space will not be backfilled, and/or one-half of the new
on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously
unemployed or not in the labor force. Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50
percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method//2 of the FEIS/FEIR as a low end
measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange
County.
The FEIS/FEIR fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined total of
0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on-site firms (indirect
jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs). However, Method//1 of
the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such indirect or induced jobs (DMC
Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method//2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect employment
that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the intent of Method
#1. However, this results in the anomalous situation in which Method #2, which includes direct
and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates fewer impacts than Method/4 I, which ignores
multiplier effects.
If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a range of
impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier effects result
from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method //1 because it uses
total on-site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness of Method #1 for
bracketing impacts.4
Perhaps failure to acknowledge tlfs point in the FEIS/FEIR and related staff reports, is based on confusion
by staff regarding the meaning of "direct impacts." On the one hand, staff uses "direct" 1o refer to student
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 7
In addition, City staff has stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 . . . would result in
identical.., conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as "direct
employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of on-site jobs (as
currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the previous page) rather than 10
percent as shown in Method #2.
If the same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method //2 is applied to
Method #1, the number of new students generated within SAUSD increases by 60.5 percent, i.e.,
from 509 new students to 819 new students based on 1998 student generation factors (876 new
students based on 2000 student generation factors--see Alternative Method A below).
The FEI$/FE1R improperly utilizes the "HousehoM Capture" figure from 0CP-96 in each of
its Methods:
The FEIS/FEIR references the following statistic from OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing growth in
Orange County from 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Aha." In each of the two
methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD, the FEIS/FEIR
misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers taking the new jobs
created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns and (ii)
housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent
on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of homes being created
elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent figure from OCP-96, which estimates the
percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000
and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at
MCAS-Tustin and establish new households in Santa Ana.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail, clerical,
warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best. However,
housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-family housing that
will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs
generation impacts of on-site housing, and "indirect" to refer to student impacts of generated by job creation. On
the other hand, staff uses "direct" to refer to those on-site jobs that have multiplier effects, and "indirect" to the
multiplier effects themselves (which in fact include "indirect" impacts--off-site jobs created by finns within the
region that sell to or buy from on-site firms--and "induced" impacts---off-site jobs created by finns within the
region that produce or sell goods and services demanded by new employees).
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
..Page 8
(FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable
housing in other areas and communities near MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important
that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are likely to establish
new households in Santa Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other
communities around MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns--and by inference,
housing affordability--Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96 for
estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana. Census data
from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45,414 workers (25.49 percent) also live
in Santa Ana. In other words, 25.49 percent of jobs in Santa Ana are filled by workers who found
Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing.
Census data also show that of 1,123,048 jobs in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent)
live in Santa Ana.s
Since MCAS-Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that a similar
percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In other words, it is
prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent of workers will
reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns,
and by inference, housing affordability. Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and
(E) below, the figures of 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent derived from the 1990 Census have been
substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP-96.
Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be generated in
SA USD by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin:
Alternative Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC Report included in its
Method #2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method #1. The number of indirect or induced jobs
that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the
FEIS/FEIR. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By simply including the number of new students that will
be generated by these indirect or induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR's projection of 509 new students
increases to 819 with 1998 student generation rates (876 students with 2000 student generation
rates).
5 By comparison, the 1990 Census also demonstrates that of the 33,531 people who work in Tustin, only
5,789 (17.26 percent) also live in Tustin. The fact that the number of workers who live and work in Santa Ana is
more than eight percentage points higher than the number that work and live in Tustin suggest that housing Js
more affordable in Santa Ana than in Tustin--and as a result, that Santa Ana would draw relatively more of the
workers from MCAS-Tustin.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 9
Alternative Method ~): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC
Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin that would be new to
Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 7.24 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for
the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new household created by
redev.elopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These two modifications cause
the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase
by a factor of nine from 82 to 741 new students with 1998 student generation rates (793 students
with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (C): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 7.24 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 3 from 509 to 1,482 with 1998 student generation
rates (1,585 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created
at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 25.49 percent
figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within
SAUSD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 32 from 82 to 2,192 new
students with 1998 student generation rates (2,791 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (E): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 25.49 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will reside within. SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of more than 10 from 509 to 5,217 new students with 1998
student generation rates (5,581 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Conclusion
In conclusion, by making reasonable modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new
household estimates set forth in the FEIS/FEIR are based, a more credible range of estimates
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 10
emerges to better define the student generation impacts on SAUSD which will be caused by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. The current "best case" and "worst case" scenarios set forth in
the FEIS/FEIR (i.e., 82 to 509 additional students) are simply not credible and should be revised
upward (i.e., to 741 to 5,217 students based on 1998 student generation factors (and to 793 to
5,581 new students based on 2000 student generation factors) in light of the points discussed
above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
Dwight~E. Berg, P.E.u ~{~
Consultant
attachment
KSSANTA AN.USD~IRRESP5.SAM
EXHIBIT "B"
San a Ana Unified zhool District
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
January 16, 2001
Re: GPA-O0-O01; FE1S/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
At the request of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, the attomeys for the Santa Ana Unified
School District ("SAUSD") and the Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD")
[hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the "Districts"], I have been
asked to submit this letter in response to certain comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the
"Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," which has been prepared by the
Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment
No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") and the certification of the related FEIS/FEIR by the City Council
of the City of Tustin (the "City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001.
I am currently employed as a facilities plam~er in the Facilities Planning Department of
SAUSD, and I am presently completing my doctoral studies at the School of Social Ecology at
the University of California at Irvine. Prior to working for SAUSD, I provided planning services
for the Cities of Westminster and Long Beach. My present duties include the coordination and
administration of facilities planning activities related to new school construction, renovation of
existing schools, and other support activities. A large portion of my current workload involves
the acquisition of land for the new school facilities, which SAUSD desperately needs. My work
in this area has included research regarding the feasibility of developing new schools at the
Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin").
In the Agenda Report prepared for the public hearing to be held on GPA 00-001 on
January 16, 2001, staff continues to assert that the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will neither
(1) generate any significant adverse impacts on public services and facilities within the two
Districts, nor (2) necessitate the City's adoption of any mitigation measures to minimize such
adverse impacts by, for example, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be set aside
as new school sites for SAUSD and RSCCD. I do not believe that the City has properly assessed
the significant environmental effects associated the reuse of MCAS-Tustin, particularly with
respect to impacts on public services and facilities affecting the Districts.
In order to properly assess the "significance" of such environmental impacts, the City
should consider all of the letters, testimony, and other materials submitted to date on behalf of the
1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 (714) 480-5357
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Nadia Maria Davis, President · Nativo Lopez, Vice President
Sal Tinajero, Clerk · Rosemarie Avila, Member · John Palacio, Member
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 2
Districts with respect to the FEIS/FEIR, as well as the following additional facts which I have
extrapolated from SAUSD's records and files:
(1) SAUSD has a student population which is 96% minority and is
characterized by limited English language proficiency at a rate about three times that of
the State and Orange County as a whole. About two-thirds of SAUSD's students reside
in households with incomes at or below the federal poverty level. SAUSD experienced
explosive enrollment growth during the latter 1980s and early 1990s. Though the pace of
enrollment growth has moderated in recent years, the State Class Size Reduction program
that emerged suddenly in mid-1996 put additional stress on SAUSD's already
overcrowded facilities, as classrooms had to be subdivided to accommodate no more than
20 students in the first and second grades throughout the District. To accommodate all of
the school facilities needs, SAUSD has acquired over 400 portable classrooms and
operates most of its elementary and intermediate schools on year-round schedules;
(2) Enrollment counts at SAUSD rose sharply through 1990 and the
composition of its student population has changed markedly. To date, virtually all
students enrolled in SAUSD are members of one or another racial/ethnic minority (with
Latinos comprising almost 92% of all students). Socioeconomically, nearly two-thirds
qualify for free lunches; 71% possess limited English language skills; 40% are
immigrants;
(3) At the elementary level, nearly four students in five are limited English-
proficient ("LEP"), and in many of SAUSD's elementary schools, LEP students
collectively speak at least five separate primary languages, principally Spanish.
Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that particular neighborhoods may be evolving
differently. In community meetings held in connection with the preparation of the FMP,
SAUSD's consultants heard accounts of areas where young families with children often
rent homes formerly occupied by older "empty nesters," extended families often pool
resources to buy homes, and many families who cannot afford separate dwellings often
"double up" in the same residence;
(4) Califomia is a major entry port into the United States, and Santa Ana and
its schools are a conspicuous front doorstep into American society. Many families who
children attend SAUSD are newly legalized residents, the natural aftermath of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"). Under the IRCA, some 66,000 persons
in Santa Aha applied to legalize their status--one of every 46 applicants nationwide in a
city inhabited by 1/1000th of the nation's population. According to a 1994 American
Housing Survey, 87% of households in Santa Aha with children send them to the City's
public schools (vs. 81% for Orange County as a whole). Most transfers into SAUSD are
children of parents holding jobs in Santa Ana, for whom convenience is a factor;
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 3
(5) In recent years, scores of Mexicans immigrants from the community of
Granjenal, for example, have settled in Santa Ana, essentially re-creating the community
and supplying the next generation of more educated young adults. More recently, nearly
one-fifth (4,417) of the 23,068 refugees coming to Orange County between 1990 and
1994 settled in Santa Ana. The pattern of settlement of California's new immigrants
resembles that of earlier immigrants. As before, the majority settled in a handful of
California counties to join their family and friends. The distinctiveness of Orange
County is its increasing popularity as an intended designation of residence for
immigrants;
(6) Immigrant communities, once established, become conspicuous
designations for future immigrants with common origins (as the movement from
Granjenal to Santa Ana exemplifies). Newcomers eager to settle near kin and friends
manage to secure accommodations, doubling up and pushing levels of residential density
(persons per household) even higher. The household configuration of Santa Ana's
population is distinctive. Residential density is extraordinarily high, yet continues to rise.
Persons per household in 1997 averaged 4.19, far above any other city in Orange County;
and
(7) Santa Ana's population is conducive to future school enrollments. First,
30% of the population is under 18, well above the corresponding figure for the rest of
Orange County or California. Second, a disproportionate share of Santa Ana's population
is within the childbearing ages (18-44 years). Santa Ana's age structure (conducive to
future enrollments) and its surrounding setting (permeated by public school enrollment
growth) are two distinctive features bearing on its future.
In addition to the above-listed facts, the new Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City of Santa Ana, which was adopted in December 2000, contains the following relevant facts:
(1) Household Size. During the 1990s, there was an increase in average
household size from 4.1 to 4.3 persons per household in Santa Ana;
(2) Age Distribution. During the 1990s, the preschool (under 4) and prime
working (25-54) age groups added 9,000 and 15,000 persons respectively while all other
age groups showed a decline or a very small increase;
(3) Ethnicity. The City's Hispanic population increased from about 65% of
the total in 1990 to 68% in 1997. The Asian population increased from 9% to 10%
during this same period, while the non-Hispanic White and African American populations
showed a net decline. (Housing Elements, p. A-27.)
Attached hereto as Exhibits "1" through "4" are three charts and one table which I have
prepared as follows:
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 4
(1) Exhibit "1" is a chart entitled "Average School Enrollment," which
compares the average enrollment of the elementary, middle, and high schools for the
SAUSD, the Tustin Unified School District, and the Irvine Unified School District.
Exhibit "A" was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department
of Education and the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS-Tustin;
(2) Exhibit "2" is a chart entitled "Housing Estimates, Jan. 1, 2000," which
compares the average number of persons per household for the Cities of Santa Ana,
Tustin, and Irvine and the County of Orange. Exhibit "B" was prepared based on
information obtained from the California Department of Finance;
(3) Exhibit "3" is a chart entitled "Comparison of SAUSD School Densities
With California Department of Ed. Recommended Average Student Per Acre," which
compares the average number of students per acres for elementary, middle, and high
schools in the SAUSD to the recommended averages for such schools. Exhibit "C" was
prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Education;
and
(4) Exhibit "4" is a table entitled "SAUSD Enrollments, Acreage, and
MTYRE Info.," which summarizes the number of students, the size in acres, the number
of students per acre, and the type of multi-track year round education ("MTYRE"), if any,
for each school in the SAUSD. The table also provides average information for the all
elementary, middle, and high schools in the District, as well as the District as a whole.
Exhibit "4" was prepared based on the SAUSD's own data.
Hopefully, the data provided above, as well as the charts and table enclosed herewith,
will assist the City in reevaluating the environmental impacts associated with the City's Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin and will enable it to conclude that (1) the project will have significant
adverse effects on minority populations seeking to avail themselves of public services and
facilities with the two Districts and (2) such impacts need to be adequately mitigated by, among
other things, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be used for new school sites for
the Districts.
Very truly yours,
Colette Marie McLaughlin
Planner, SAUSD
EXHIBIT "1"
E
0
o
EXHIBIT "2"
HouSing Estimates, Jan. ,, 2000
3.0 "" ' "'"
I I li~l~
' , ...'-~
!
!
::>.5-
,' ,'?.:8..
'
, ,,..:.:.~
::
1.5- ::i;' ,,z,,~
1.0 - I ~I,~,:,
!
0.5- '
,,
! ·
0.0 "
Persons/HouseholO
B Irvine 2.9
Santa Ana 4.3
I~Tustin 2.9
Orange County 3.1
http:llwww.dof, ca. gov lhtmllDemograplE- 5te xt.htm
EXHIBIT "3"
~E
tO 0
0 0
~E
E~
0 ~
(.> ~-
,,.
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >
III ~D
EXHIBIT "4"
School
SAUSD
Adams
Carver
Davis
~nd
-'dison
Franklin
Fremont
Garfield
Grant*
Greenville
Harvey
Heninger
Hoover
Jackson
Jefferson
Kennedy
King
Lincoln
Lowell
Madison
Martin
Monroe
Monte Vista
Pico
Remington
rnero-Cruz
Roosevelt
Santiago
Sepulveda
Taft
Thorpe
ker
/Vashington
Wilson
Total K-5
Carr
Lathrop
MacArthur
McFadden
idez*
Sierra
Spurgeon
Villa
Willard
Total 6-8
Enroll..,ents, Acreage, and MT'Y, .,= Info.
10/99CBEDS [
856
780
78O
935
1,042
643
1,124
1,106
337
986
595
1,088
1,208
1,233
966
970
1,056
1,306
1,056
1,281
993
906
921
948
948
575
431
1,177
1,106
940
1,153
763
914
1,327
1,164
33,614
1,833
1 779
1~236
1 748
1 300
1 010
1.573
I 168
I 623
13,270
2,707
243
236
24O
2,986
3,449
2,829
Acres
i MTYRE (multi-track
Students per acre year round education)
6.75 127 4 cycles
4.03 194 4 cycles
4.75 164 4 cycles
5.58 168 4 cycles
3.69 282 4 cycles
2.53 254 I cycle
2.88 390 4 cycles
4.99 222 4 cycles
2.75 123
6.5 152
5.5 108
6.69 163 4 cycles
4.47 270 4 cycles
9.52 ' 130 4 cycles
9.64 100
6 162 4 cycles
4.98 212 4 cycles
9.53 137 4 cycles
5.12 206 4 cycles
6.12 209 4 cycles
6.81 146 4 cycles
6.6 137
9.98 92 4 cycles
8.86 107
4.27 222 4 cycles
4.05 142
2.3 187 4 cycles
5.57 211 4 cycles
8.97 123
5.44 173 4 cycles
10 115
6.67 114
7.1 129 4 cycles
8.63 154 4 cycles
3.86 302 4 cycles
211.13 159.2
25.22 73 4 cycles
7.65 233 4 cycles
10 124
24.18 72
12 108
11.84 85 2 cycles
19 83 2 cycles
11.25 104
9.79 166
130.93 101.4
24.99 1 O8
2.47 98
0 NA
2.44 98
36.44 82
24.3 142
50.O2 57
140.66 90.2
the number below is
Century students per acre
Chavez adjusted by adding
College students from new
Vlountain View** schools and
Saddleback excluding students
Santa Ana from schools that
Valley share facilities
Total 9-12 12,690
Total All Grades 57,937 482.72 122.9
· new schools: counts are excluded from total enrollment but are included in adjusted students/acre **
student enrollment count has been excluded from adjusted students/acre
EXHIBIT "C"
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Public Finance
Urban Economics
Development Services
January 16, 2000
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Rancho Santiago Community College District ("CCD"),
Public Economics, Inc. ("PEI") has prepared this response ("Response") to certain staff
comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to Cky Manager,
William Huston," prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General
Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of
the City of Tustin ("City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In
particular, this Response addresses comments of City staff that "there is no feasible way
to evaluate indirect impacts" of MCAS-Tustin on the CCD.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-
fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California-
including a number of military base closures-on behalf of over 200 local school districts,
community college districts, and county offices of education.
Dante Gumucio, CEO of PEI, has personally advised over 200 school districts and
community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in gen.eral,
and redevelopment in particular. Ivh'. Gumucio has over 20 years academic and
consulting experience. He has been on the full-time economics faculty at California State
University, Fullerton (and taught part-time at Chapman University), where his classes
820 W. Town and Country Road ' Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 ° FAX (774) 647-6232
World Wide Web: hhtp;//www, pub-econ.corn
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 2 of 10
included urban economics, benefit-cost analysis, public finance, and mathematical
economics, as well as classes in the MPA and MBA programs. He has also taught in the
University extension at the University of California, lrvine, including courses in the
Economic Fundamentals of Planning and Development and Financial Aspects of
Planning. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Economics and has a Master of Science degree in
Economics, both from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a Bachelor of Science
degree in Economics from Brigham Young University.
Back~,round
In comments submitted on November 28, 2000 on the CCD's behalf by. Connor, Blake &
Griffin ("Connor"), that firm noted that the FEIS/FEIR contains no analysis of the
number of credit or non-credit students that will be added to the CCD due to
redevelopment ofMCAS-Tustin. In its response to Connor's comments, City staff stated
that "there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts [ofjob creation] on the [CCD].
Moreover, City staff also stated that "there is no universally recognized methodology for
projecting indirect impacts [of job creation] on a Community college district." The first
statement is incorrect and the second statement is irrelevant.
Just because student generation factors are expressed relative to residential dwelling units
(" DUs") or resident population within a school district does not mean that it is infeasible
to project the impact on student generation of non-residential development. To the
contrary, K-12 districts typically levy developer fees on non-residential development
based on a fee justification analysis which demonstrates a rational and substantial nexus
between non-residential development and employment, migration, household formation,
and K-12 student generation.
Just because community college districts do not levy or have to justify developer fees
does not mean that there is not a similar rational and substantial nexus between non-
residential development and employment and generation of community college students.
Indeed, program EIRs prepared for redevelopment plans, program EIRs prepared for
general plans and specific plans, and various project E1Rs have attempted to quantify the
impacts of development on community college districts. And many such impact reports
include not only the impact of non-residential development, but the impact of both direct
and indirect/induced non-residential development.
The City attributes its position regarding the lack of a universally recognized
methodology for estimating impacts on community colleges to the City's environmental
consultant, Cotton and Beland and Associates ("CBA"). PEI is quite certain that it has
reviewed E1Rs prepared by CBA which do estimate the impacts of future development on
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 3 of 10
community college districts. And PEI does not know why such impacts were excluded
from the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS-Tustin. However, even if CBA had never included such
impacts in EIRs for other projects (which PE1 believes not to be the case), there are a
number of other environmental firms which have included such impacts in their
environmental documentation, and which use similar methods in doing so.
However, even if there were not one single, universally recognized methodology for
estimating such impacts, what is required by CEQA, as well as by case law and the State
and federal constitutions is not universality, but rationality. One such rational method is
used by the California State Department of Finance and the State Chancellor's Office for
California Community Colleges. This method involves applying "credit enrollment rates"
to projected future populations over the age of 18 within a college district's (primary)
"service area." Following is an analysis prepared by PEI in conjunction with Rancho
Santiago CCD staffwhich utilizes this very method.
Analysis
In projecting the impact on household formation of on-site employment at MCAS-Tustin,
the FEIS/FEIR relies on the Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of
the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Grovah in the Santa Ana Unified School District
("DMC Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ("DMC") in May 1999. Had
student generation rates available from the CCD for college credit and adult education
enrollment been combined with household projections from the DMC Report, the
FEIS/FEIR could have included estimates of enrollment impact on the CCD.
Unfortunately, no such impacts were estimated.
As shown in Exh~it 1, the CCD's combined credit/adult education student enrollment
rate is 0.1392 students per service area population. PEI and the CCD have used
household projections contained in the FEIS/FEIR to project future student generation for
the CCD from redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. However, household projections in the
FEIS/FEIR were for Santa Aha Unified School District ("SAUSD"), which has a smaller
geographic area and resident population than the CCD. Hence, PE1 and the CCD have
adjusted household projections for SAUSD for some scenarios to reflect the CCD's larger
area.
However, the FEIS/FE1R greatly understates the true range of new households that will
be generated within SAUSD by reuse of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the
FEIS/FE1R's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange
County, and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data. As more fully
explained below, if the FEIS/FE1R is corrected to properly apply such principles and
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 4 of 10
data, the number of new households within the boundaries of the CCD generated by reuse
of MCAS-Tustin would range from 880 new households to 6,602 new households, which
would increase student enrollment in the District by 303 to 2,270 new community college
students.
The FEIS/FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will be new
to Orange County:
Method #2 of the FE1S/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will
generate only 88 new households within SAUSD. This projection is based on the
following assumptions: (i) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin
will involve fn-rns which shnply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) all such
jobs will involve the same employees as previously, and (iii) none of these same
employees will relocate their residence in order to be closer to their place of work.
However, these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four reasons.
First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be
created on-site at MCAS-TusIin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not
possibly be "relocated" fi.om somewhere else in the County (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18). The
regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village, and housing facilities
are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses
which might house tenants that relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an
oversight of the FEIS/FE1R rather than an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional
park, or other similar facility will actually be relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this
oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected in the FEIS/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas
designated as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land
uses are projected to create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate
from elsewhere in the County. However, many of the jobs associated with the retail,
wholesale, and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will be
new to the County. lndeed, at least some of these jobs will be "big box" retail
establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses are most likely to
open new stores at MCAS-Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve
(including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEIR project will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that
only 10% of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could" be new to Orange County, i.e., that 90
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 5 of 10
percent of such jobs would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated
that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff
economists at certain companies and agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically
identify any person interviewed or, more importantly, what questions such persons were
asked or what assumptions they were asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure.
No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in the
FEIS/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin
simply relocate from elsewhere within the County, but that such relocation will not have
any impact on SAUSD. In so doing, the FEIS/FE1R entirely ignores the phenomenon
known to urban economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin
will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but
whose former homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim
would be inappropriate since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "back-fdled"
by new occupants. The FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backf'fll
phenomenon when it comes to residential uses.
However, the FE!S/FE1R appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when
commercial/industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space
is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that move
from elsewhere in the County, which in turn vacate space filled by firms fi.om outside the
County).
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FEIS/FEIR implicitly
assumes that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that
allegedly relocate to MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this
assumption is just as inapprOpriate for non-residential uses as for residential uses.
Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the
County (which we dispute) there will still be substantial net additional impacts on total
County employment. However, the FE1S/FEIR fails to consider these additional impacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors
as the number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii)
unemployed, or (iii) not in the labor force. However, in claiming that 90 percent of the
new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will be filled by persons who akeady have jobs in the County,
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 6 of 10
the FEIS/FEIR not only ignores the backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these
factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems highly unlikely given that Orange
County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the County than there are
employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and labor force
participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from
elsewhere in Orange County, the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the
workers who hold those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place
of work. City staff claims that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be
closer to their place of work is negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to
support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be
"negligible."
In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent-compared to the
City's figure of 10 percent is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the
range of new jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100
percent is an appr. opriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent
figure still appears highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocated from
elsewhere in the County, it assumes that either one-half the old space will not be
backfilled, and/or one-half the new on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously
employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force.
Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50 percent is substituted for the
10 percent figure used in Method #2 of the FEIS/FE1R as a low end measure of the
percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange County.
The FEIS/FEIR fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods:
Method #2 of the FE1S/FEIR properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined
total of 0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy fi.om on-site
firms (indirect jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs).
However, MethOd #1 of the FEIS/FE1R entirely ignores the impacts associated with such
indirect or induced jobs (DMC Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect
employment that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the
intent of Method #1. However, this results in the anomalous situation in which Method
#2, which includes direct and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates fewer impacts
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 7 of 10
than Method #I, which ignores multiplier effects.
If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a
range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier
effects result tSom direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method
#1 because it uses total on-site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness
of Method #1 for bracketing impacts.
In addition, City staffhas stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 ... would result
in identical.., conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as
"direct employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of
on-site jobs (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the
previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown in Method #2.
If the same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method #2 is applied
to Method #l, the number of new students generated within CCD increases from 188 new
students to 303 new students
The FEIS/FEIR improperly utilizes the "Household Capture" figure from 0CP-96 in
each of its Methods:
The FEIS/FEIR references the following statistic from OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing
growth in Orange County from 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Ana." In each of
the two methodologies it uses )or projecting the number of new students within SAUSD,
the FE1S/FEIR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers
taking the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns
and (ii) housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is
directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Aha relative to the
number of homes being created elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent
figure from OCP-96, which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide
that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to
the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin and establish new
households in Santa Ana.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail,
clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best.
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 8 of 10
However, housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-
family housing that will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the
workers who fill these types of jobs (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling
these jobs will need to find affordable housing in other areas and communities near
MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important that the data used to estimate the
number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are l~ely to establish new households in Santa
Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around
MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns-and by inference,
housing affordability-Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96
for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana.
Census data fi.om 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45,414 workers
(25.49 percent) also live in Santa Ana. In other words, 25.49 percent of jobs in Santa
Ana are filled by workers who found Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting
distance and to provide affordable housing. Census data also show that of 1,123,048 jobs
in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent) live in Santa Ana.
Since MCAS-Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that
a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In
other words, it is prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent of workers will reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically
to identify commuting patterns, and by inference, housing affordability.
The boundaries of the CCD include all of SAUSD. The comparative size of the two
districts is indicated by their respective assessed valuations, which in FY 2000-01 totaled
$35.2 billion for the CCD and $15.5 billion for the SAUSD. Nonetheless, PEI and CCD
staff have adjusted the Census-based estimates for SAUSD of 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent by much less than the relative difference in assessed values. The adjusted
estimates for the CCD conservatively range from 9.5 percent to 30 percent. Accordingly,
in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and (E) below, the figures of 9.5 percent and 30
percent derived by adjusting the 1990 Census for SAUSD have been substituted for the 4
percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP-96. ~
Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be
generated b~ CCD by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin
Alternative Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 fi-om the
FEIS/FEIR modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 9 of 10
Report included in its Method #2 but unjustifiably excluded fi.om Method #1. The
number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same
number that is estimated by the City in the FEIS/FEIR. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By
simply including the number of new students that will be generated by these indirect or
induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR would have a projection of 303 new CCD students.
Alternative Method (B): This alternative method is based on Method /42 fi.om the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent
figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin
that would be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 9.50 percent figure
derived fi-om the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will
locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students
generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 359.
Alternative Method (C): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 9.50 percent figure to
estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that
will locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 719.
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the
number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it
substitutes the 25.49 percent figure derived fi-om 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure
utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within CCD. These two modifications
cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-
Tustin to increase to 1,135.
Alternative Method ~): This alternative method is based on Method #1 fi.om the
FEIS/FE1R with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 30.00 percent figure to
estimate the number of new household created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that
will locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 2,270.
Ma'. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 10 of 10
Conclusion
In conclusion, the preceding analysis demonstrates that it is feasible to estimate the
indirect impacts on the CCD of job creation at MCAS Tustin. Moreover, such estimates
can be prepared using a fairly standard estimation methodology. By making reasonable
modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new household estimates set forth
in the FEIS/FEIR are based, and combining these with the CCD's student enrollment
rates, a more credible range of estimates emerges to better define the student generation
impacts on CCD which will be caused by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. "Best case"
and "worst case" scenarios of 303 to 2,270 students should be set forth in the FEIS/FEIR
in light of the points discussed above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
attachment
EXHIBIT "D"
RANCHO SANTIA )
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Santa Aha College - Santiago Canyon College
2323 North Broadway
Santa Aha, California
92706-1640
(714) 480-7300
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re'
GPA 00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse
of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
I currently serve as the Executive Director of Research, Planning and Development for the
Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD"). I understand that, in the Agenda
Report which has been prepared in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan
Amendment No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") and the proposed certification of the Final EIS/EIR
("FEIS/FEIR") for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California
("MCAS-Tustin") by the City Council of the City of Tustin (the "City"), staff has concluded that
there is "no feasible way" to evaluate the student generation impacts on RSCCD which will be
caused by the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin.
As the person principally in charge at RSCCD for estimating growth in student enrollment, I
believe that it is, in fact, Possible to estimate the range of full-time (i.e., credit) students that will
be added to the RSCCD system by the City's Reuse Plan. For example, by utilizing the
methodologies employed in the May 1999 report prepared by the City's consultant, Dennis
Macheski Consulting ("DMC"), I have prepared a spreadsheet (see enclosed) showing that,
depending on which methodology is used, between 302 and 2,266 additional students could be
generated for RSCCD as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
The DMC analysis follows a series of estimates from "employment added to site" to "SAUSD's
student generation ratio per household." I have modified and augmented the DMC
methodologies to address the RSCCD population and enrollment specifically. I used population
and enrollment projection conventions typically used by California community college
statisticians and by our Research Department. Based on these calculations, it is apparent that the
build-out of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin will further exacerbate our facilities
shortage by adding new students that we do not have the space to accommodate.
Considering the limited amount of land that our community college district currently owns, the
current status of classroom overcrowding, and future enrollments expected, the additional
community college students that may be generated by MCAS-Tustin redevelopment, would
become extremely problematic. As noted in Santa Ana College's Facilities Master Plan/A
Report by President's Facilities Ad Hoc Committee, Draft 1, November 30, 2000:
Board of Trustees
.Brian E. Conley, M.A. · John R. Hanna, J.D. · Lawrence R. "Larry" Labrado · Michael N. Ortell, J.D. · Enriqueta L. Ramos, Ph.D. · Lisa Woolery · Phillip E. Yarbrough
Edward Hernandez Jr., Ed.D., Chancellor
With 56 acres and 20,000 full time equivalent students (FTES), Santa Ana College
[SAC] is the third smallest in size and the sixth largest in enrollment out of the 107
community colleges in the State.
· Based on Fall 99-00 headcount, SAC enrollment is greater than every campus of the
California State University and the University of California.
Prior to 1995, there were no relocatable buildings in campus. In the past five years,
22 portable facilities have been brought to campus. There are now as many
relocatable/portable buildings as there are permanent buildings on campus.
In addition to the problems noted above, we expect to soon experience huge increases in
enrollments from what many refer to as "Tidal Wave Two", given that the enrollments in our K-
12 Unified Districts are swelling. In fact, by the year 2005, the RSCCD will qualify, according
to California Community College Board of Governors' standards, for 26,000 square feet of
additional laboratory space and 18,000 square feet of additional office space. (This was
calculated from the RSCCD 2001 Five Year Plan submitted'to the California Community
College Chancellor's Office in February 2000.)
For these reasons, we have been attempting to acquire additional land, and it had been our hope
that the City's Reuse Plan could be modified to accommodate us in this regard by recommending
that surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed to us in conjunction with one or more
land transfers to also meet the needs of the Santa Ana Unified School District.
Very truly yours,
Julie Slark, Executive Director
Research, Planning, and Development
mllc.
· ~o c5 o ~ c; o- o ~ r-,; ~ ,,0 o t..- ',- N
EXHIBIT "E"
t-
O
Exhibit C
E~)MONO M. CONNOR
LAVRA LEE BLAKE
CRAIG L. GRIFFIN
DAVID J. HESSELTINE
MATTHEW J. FLETCltER
,.
'~NN. OR, BLAKE & GRIFFII~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2600 IVl_~o~q Dm-yE
Surm 1450
IRVOqE, C,xLn:Om, n_~ 92612
T~.E~qO~q£ (949) 622-2600
TELEF^CSlM~LE (949) 622-2626
E-MAIL: econnor~businesslit.com
~p
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 "Navy"), 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 Concemed Parties, we submit the following objections to the adequacy of the
FEIS/FEIR:
(1) in violation of the California Environmental Quality 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 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;
RSCCD~VlCAS-LandTmsfr\Ogdon.doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL'
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 Aha;
(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 limited to, section 15,097 of the Guidelines, the Mitigation Monitoring
Program with the City proposes to adopt in connection with the Project fails to
incorporate adequate mitigation measures andis 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
R SCCD~MCAS-LandTrnsfrkEngagement
Dana Ogdon
November 28, 2000
Page 3
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL'
objections set forth in the three letters which SAUSD previously submitted to the City of
Tustin (the "City") relating to the FE1S/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, 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 "November 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 services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana. 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 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 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
R SCCD~MCA S-LandTrnsfr~Engagemenl
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLi
Dana Ogdon
November 28, 2000
Page 4
adequate amount of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to SAUSD 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 surplus 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 socioeconomics 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.
~rmmon~.~ connor. '
R SCCDXJVICA S-LandTrnsfr~Engagement
Exhibit D
December 18, 2000
CULB£RTSONI, ADAMS & ASSOCIATES
PLANNING CON S U'I.'!ANT$
City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Turin, CA 92780-3767
SUBJECT:
GPA 00-001- Failure to Adequately Disclose Significant Impacts in
FEIS/FEIR on Base Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station,
Tustia, California; Fa/lure to Identify Feasible Mita'gation Measures and
Project Allernalives
Honorable Council Members:
This office represents Santa Aha Unified School Distr/ct (hereinafter "SAUSD") in
preparing environmental documentation for school facilities, and has for over 10 years.
The signatory to this letter is no stranger to the California Env/ronmental Quality Act
("CEQA"), having administered, written or critiqued over 500 documents in the last 27+
years. Some of the more controversial projects in Orange County have been addressed by
the undersigned to the satisfaction of renewing courts. My professional commitment to
complete, unbiased and accurate administration of CEQA has been a halhnaxk of my
work
The SAUSD has recently requested that we (1) review the record so fax established for
the Final EIS/EIR ("FEI S/FEiR ') and deterrrfine if' there has been full and accurate
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Slate CEQA
Guidelines and (2) respond to the slaws CEQA-related comments set forth in
Attachment 5 to lhe Agenda Report which has been prepared by the Redevelopment
Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption 'of General Plan Amendment No. 00-
001 ("GPA 00-001") and the certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the
City of Tustin (the "City~') at the punic hear/ag scheduled for December 18, 2000.
Please note that the Agenda Report was only obtained from the City by SAUSD'5
counsel, Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, last Friday afternoon, December 15, 2000, and
was forwarded to me for my review on Friday evening. As such, my office has had little
t/me to fully anals, ze and respond to the many new points raised by staff in its respoase to
the written comments which SAUSD's counsel submitted to the City's Planning
Commission in connection with lhe public hearing on GPA 00-00I which was heId
November 28, 2000.
85 Argor~ant, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, California 926.56-4105 · {949! 581-2888 · Fax (943} 581-3599
Cib' Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 2
However, notwithstand~g th6 severe time iimitations W/th which my office had to
contend over lhe past weekend, our review of the record has sufficed lo demonstrate that
the CEQA compliance process for GPA 00-001 is seriously flawed and must be
mater/ally revised before the City Council can legally proceed to approve that project.
The reason to address the City Council at this late point m the process is to make one last
attempt- in a direct fashion - to alert the City Council lo major errors in the CEQA
process. Whatever the reasons ostensibly compelling the City Council to move forward
at this point, the City Council alone is responsible for determining the adequacy of this
CEQA process, and the mitigation which (or which does not, in the case of Santa/Sma
Unified School District), attend it. As a frequent representative of public agencies and
school districts, we find ourselves obligated to point out these problems - and their
solutions- to the City Council directly.
Failure to Adequately Disclose SJ. gnificant Impacts to SAUSD School Syst. em
The FEIS/FEIR concedes that, under the City's preferred alternative, referred to as
"Alternative 1," 'up to 509 new students would be indirectly generated for the SAUSD
school syslem as a result of the tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created by
the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-TusIin (FEIS/FE[R, at pp. 4,61 to 4-64.) According lo
the FEIS/FEIR, the build-out ot' Alternative 1 could result in "indirect or induced growth"
which would add up to 547 new households within SAUSD's jurisdiction as new
employees moved into the Santa Ana area to fill some of the new jobs created at MCAS-
Tus~in. (Sa.)
For the reasons stated below, the failure of the FEIS/FEIR to adequately identify the
student generation impacts associated with the development of Alternative I as
"significant env/ronmental effects" under CEQA and to specify feasible mitigation
measures to minimize or eliminate these impacts .is a clear-cut violation of CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City's apparent refusal to adopt the appropriate
findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a m/tigation monitoring report to
properly address these impacts likewise rum afoul of the mandatory provisions of CEQA
and the Guidelines.
Sections 15126 and 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requixe an EIR to idemify all
"significant environmental effects of the proposed project." In this regard, EIRs must
discuss "changes 'induced m population distribution, population concentration, the human
use of the land.., and other aspects of the resource base such as... vublic servj, ces."
(Emphasis added.) Of course, in this context, the tema "public services" would include
public school~ wilhin the SAUSD school ~ystcm.
SAUSD~cbool Impacts lcuer
City Council
City of Tustin
December lg, 2000
Page 3
In determining wheihe~ the student generation impacts on SAUSD which would be
associated with t'he redevelopment of MCAS-Tuslin 'should be deemed "~ignificanI"
within the meaning of CEQA and would require adequate mitigation, the provisions of
Section 15064(e) of the CEQA Guidelines are quite instructive and appear to address
very school "overcrowding" problems which will be exacerbated by the City's Reuse
Plan for MCAS-TustJn:
"Altemat/vely, economic and social effects of a physical change maybe used to
determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the environment. If
t_he physical chang.e causes adverse economic or social effects on r~eopl_,e thos~
adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining w-'~ether lh~ physical
change is significant For example, if.a project_would cause 0vercrowd/ng
9f a public facility and lhe overcrowding muses an adverse effect on
p__e_ople, .the overcrowding would be regarded lis a si~ificant eff~
(Emphasis added.)
A/though school overcrowding, standing alone, may not, ia every instance, constitute a
"significant env/ronmental effect" within the meaning of CEQA, the California courts
have held that, when a proposed project would add additional' students to an already-
overcrowded school district, thereby necessitating the construction of new school
facilities--and possibly changing bus routes and altering traffic patterns--to accommodate
the influx of such new students, these student generation impacts would be considered
"significant" under CEQA and would require adequate mitigation_ (See, e.g., GoIeta
Union School Dist. v. Regents of Universi~ of California (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1025,
1032; El Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of t'lacerville (1983) 144 Cal. App,3d
123, 131-132.)
In the Goleta Union case, the trial court found that the EIR initially prepared by the
Regents violated CEQA because it failed to pro,ride relevant information and adequate
mitigation measures regarding the significant env/ronmer}tal impacts wkich the Regents'
plan to expand the University of California at Santa Barbara ("UCSB") might have on
student enrollment in the schools run by the GoIeta Lrnior~ School District (the
"District"). Specifically, the trial court found that, because of severe overcrowding of the
Districts' classrooms, the additional students tha! would be generaled by the expansion of
UCSB would eventually necessitate construction of new classroom facilities or add/lional
busing of students. The Supplemental ErR which the trial court requh'ed the Regents to
prepm'e after making this finding reported that the cumulative effect of the Regents'
expansion plan would involve an increase of 192 new students in the District. The
Court of Appeal in the Goleta Union case agreed that, based upon the trial court's
find/rigs, this p~-ojected increase in student enrollment was a s_/~ificant effect which
SAUSD~chool ImpaCts lc'ae~
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 4
'required appropr/ale mitigation measures tO be specified in the Supplemental EIR in
order lo comply with the dictates of CEQA.
Likewise, in the El Dorado Union case, the Court of Appeal afl'reed the thal court's
ruling that the City's E1]~ fell "woefully short" of the requirements imposed by CEQA
because (1) it did not adequately address of the effects of adding 8823 new high school
students to an already overcrowded school system and (2) it failed to specify any
mitigation measures to minimize those impacts. In contrast to the 192 additional
students Jn the Goleta Union case, and the 88.3 additional studen~ls in the E1 Dorado
Union case--both of which were deemed to be "sign/ficant" impacts requiting proper
CEQA compliance--the FEIS/FEIX in this case estimates that up to 509 new students for
the SAUSD school sy~em could be generated by the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan
fo~ MCAS-Tustin. Inexplicably, however, the FEIS/FEIR fails to idenlify lh/s student
generation impact as significant and likewise fails to specify any m/tigation measures,
other than a br/efreference to developer fees, to m/nim/ze this impact.
Prior letters submitted on behalf of SAUSD have clearly demonstrated that SAUSD is
experiencing severe overcrowding problems and is in desperate need of additional school
facilities to handle some 24,000 students who are temporarily housed in "portable"
classrooms. Obviously, add/ag over 500 new students to an already overcrowded and
over-capacity school system will necessitate the construction of new classroom lac/l/ties
to accommodate these new students because there is no excess capacity to absorb these
students. Moreover, depending on where these new students reside w/thin SAUSD's
boundaries, lheir transportation needs to and from their respective schools may
necessitate chang/ag existing school bus roules and altering traffic patterns within the
Santa Ana area. Each of these impacts needs to be adequately addressed and m/t/gated in
the FEIS/F'EER before the City proceeds to approve GPA 00-001.
What is imperative to ~.ote here is that, when the FEIS/FEIR is read in conjunction with
the staff comments set forth in lhe Agenda Report regarding GPA 00-00 I, it is apparent
that the City, itself, has provided the ev/dence necessary to establish that the student
generation impacts of its Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin are so "significant" that, at a
minimum, an entire new grade school will need to be built to handle the influx of the
hundreds of new students that MIl be added to the SAUSD school system. At page 9 of
the "Response to Written Comments" section of the Agenda Report, the staff makes the
following observations:
"The FEIS/lCEIR states only that, based on the assumption that perhaps new
employees at the former MCAS Tuslin site might seek new housing w/th/n the
SAUSD, there is the potential for an indirect impact on the SAUSD dom the
MCAS Tusfin project. To bracket the range of probable indirect impacts, the
SAUSDI%hool Impacts leuer
City Council
City ofTustin .
December 18, 2000
Page 5
City's experts presented an estimate using two scenarios. _Both scenario l,___ga
highly, unlikely worst-case scenario, and scenario 2, the more 1/kel¥ scenario~
_were r~repared for the FEJS/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 studen, s (scenario 2) over the same per/od. Based on
SAUSD student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential impact to
SAUSD would be in grades K-8 w/th over 50% of this impact in grades K-5
(und~ either scenario). --With an average K-5. el.e. mentarv s. chool built to
accommodate 800 studems, the_~ middle school built to acCommodat~
1560 studenls and the average high school built to accommodate 2400 studen_ts~
_neither of the ig. di~-ect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation, of an
entire schoo, l site at MCAS Tusfin as requested by the SAUSD." (Emphasis
added.)
The clear/replication of the ab,0. ve-quoted passage from t,h.e Agenda Report for GPA 00-
001 is that, if either of the indirect impact scenarios' discussed in the FEISiFEIR
indicated lhat at least 800 new students would be generated for the SAUSD school
system by the ~'edevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, then the City would have to agree that
such an impact would be si_~nificant and would require "an entire school site at MCAS-
Tustin" to be prey/dod as mitigation. By carefully scrutinizing the calculations
performed by the City's consultant in projecting the 509 additional students under
"scenario 1" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR, it tums out that, after accounting for an
unjustified omission which was made in the calculations performed by the City's
consultant, the actual number of students that would be generated under "scenario l"
would be 817 new students. This, ofcourse, would be well above the City's gOO-student
threshold--which~ by the way, has no basis in CEQA law--for establishing a significant
impact requiting mitigation.
In the May 1999 report entitled "Updated Report on the School Facility Indirect Impac!
of Redevelopment on the MCAS-Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Aha
Unified School District," which was prepared at the City's request by Dennis Macheski
Consulting (DMC") and which forms lhe basis of the indirect studenl generation figuJes
set forth on pages 4-62 and 4-63 of the FEIS/FEIR, DMC failed lo utilize any multiplier
for indirect and induced employment in determining that some 509 additional students
would be added to SAUSD's school under "scenario I." However, in determining that
82 new students would be indirectly generated for the SAUSD school system under
"scenario 2," DMC used a multiplier of 0.61 for indirect and induced employment, which
resulted fin a projeclion of additional new jobs, which DMC included in its calculation.
When that same 0.61 multiplier is applied 1o the figures set forth on page 5 of DMC's
report, the revised number of "new households estimated to live in the SAUSD" would
SAUSDk~¢hool Impacts
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 6
be 878 new households, rather than the 547 households set forth in Table 4.4-1 on page
4-63 of the FEiS/FEIR. Then, by applying the same 0.93 student ge~neration muir/pi/er
used in the FEIS/FEIR (which is now ouldaled and is no longer used by SAUSD), the
number of additional students that would be generated under "scenario 1" would be 817
new students-which is substantially different than the 509-student figure reported in the
FEIS/FEIIL ·
Since the FEIS/FEIR clearly concedes that the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS,Tusfin will
result in 24,852 "d/rect"jobs and 15,081 "redirect and induced"jobs (see. Table 4.2-2 at
p. 4-18), there is no rational justification for why the same 0.61 multiplier for this second
category of "indirect and induced" jobs would have been omitted from DMC's
calculations for "scenario 1," but included in his calculations for "scenario 2." Once his
calculations for "scenario 1" are adjusted to account for the proper number of "ind/rect
and induced" jobs to be generated by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tusfin, it is clear that
the supposed "worst case" scenario for the student generation impacts to SAUSD is off
by a factor of over 60°,/0 and this c~ hardly be considered to be an insignificant error that
can be disregarded. In fact, this miscalculation is so material that it requires the
FEIS/FEIR to be supplemented and recJrculated for public review and comment
Moreover, what this omission underscores is the need to criticaJly reevaluate DMC's
calculations and carefully reexamine the assumptions upon wlx/ch those calculations
were based to determine whelher the FEIS/FEIR has ser/ously underestimated the
number of new students that roll be generated for the SAUSD school system by the
City's proposed Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin. At the request of SAUSD's counsel, the
consulting firm of Public Economics, Inc. ("PEF') has been asked to madertake such an
reevaluation m time for the City's Council December 18 hearing on GPA 00-001, and I
will defer to PEI to direct its whiten analysis to the City for/ts review in this regmd
As the record stands now, however, the so-called "worst case" scenario for student
generation impacts on SAUSD is factually incorrect and is patently inadequate under
CEQA. In addition, the 82-student scenario-referred to as "scenario 2"/n the Agenda
Report-is highly questionable because it is based on the untenable and wholly
unsupportable assumption that only ten percent (10%) of the "direct" jobs generated by
the development of the City's Reuse Plan w/ll be "new" jobs to the MCAS-Tusfi~
development area that will not already be filled by pre-ex/sting employees. This
assumption will also be examined in the report to be subm/tted by PEI.
As a final c~bservation in this area, ,ye find the City's reliance on the "direct" or
"indh'ect" nature of school impacts troubling. This is clearly a distinct/on Mthout a
difference. Whether the students are generated by increases in households brought about
by a neighboring agency's promotion of' job and revenue producing opportunities, or
SAUSDISchool Impacts letter
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 7
whether the sludents axe generated by th~ construction of homes, is irrelevant to a
determination of whether the impact is required to be disclosed under CEQA. By
obscuring this issue, the City has essentially eliminated the log/ca! progression of
analytical events leading to mitigation and project alternative discussions. It is precisely
this type of indifferent agency conduct thai CEQA is aimed at exposing, particularly in
multi-jurisdictional settings.
Failure to Disclose the Una__vailabi!/__ty of Land for New S____chool Faci_____llities
Irrespective of the number of studerlt5 truly generated by the City's Reuse Plan, the
FEIS/FEIR completely overlooks wheth, er the S_____AUSD can a_____~ually accommodate these
student___.__.~s. Even a cursory evaluation of SAUSD facilities-if one had been undertak--'-'-'-~Ii
all by the City--reveals that there is no land available fo~ absorption of these students.
The City simply ignores the effect of the addition of 509 new students to the 58,000
students already housed in SAUSD.
The City fails to acknowledge that significant impacts attend the addition of,~___,/students
to a schooI district which is already on rnul~i-tcdCk year round education, l~aturing some
of the bighest student per acre densities in the state o£ California. While ~chools in other
districts operate elementary schools of 750-900 students on 10-12 acres, the same schools
in SAUSD house as many as 1,124 such children on 2.88 acres. To state that SAUSD has
feasible "options" to acqu/re additional school sites to accommodate more students in an
urban district is simply false.
A proper environmental analysis would have addressed this space issue d/rectly, lnstead,
the ;FEIS/~IR avoids taking a hard look at whether it is feasible to find space available
to construct classroom facilities to house the hundreds and hundreds of new students that
will be added to SAUSD's schools as a result of the proposed redevelopment of MCAS-
Tuslin. The "ratio" approach to impact assessment - the concept that the impact of 509
students is "small" in relation to the total size of the District (58,000) - has long been
regarded as inappropriate under CEQA. Accordingly, tiffs is 3'et another example of a
malerial failure on the part of the City to adequately assess the significant impacts of its
Reuse Plan on public services and fac/lilies.
Failure to___Identi~Miti~ation Measures and Project Alternative_._~s
In pursuit of id~nt/fying adequale mitigation, the SAUSD has asked for undeveloped
I_and. which is virtually non-existent in the Santa Ann area. The C/fy, however, has
refused this request. Ostensibly, the City seems to believe that it cms d/sm/ss effects to
SAUSD because (1) the studems added could be spread district-~tde (even thought there
are no facilities to house them); (2) the students generated are "secondary effects"; in
other words students generaled by houses built for the base are more important; and (3)
SAUSDKSchool Impacts l~ner
City Council
City of Tust/n
December l 8, 2000
Page g
the portion of the base in SAUSD involves is 'non-residential, employment-generating
land uses. Of course, as to this last point, it is the ~ which has made this land use
decision. Therefore, to the extent the City has elected to shape its land use plan in a
manner that reduces the obligation for school sites genuinely owed to SAUSD, this is the
C.i _ry.'S_, not SAUSD's. fault.
Happily, CEQA provides a solution in these cases - the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures, follow/ng the consideration of a reasonable range of project alternatives.
There can be no question that such feasible mitigation or project alternatives are required
to be considered and that they may only be xejected if found infeasible on the basis of
substantial evidence. I! is difficult to imagine, with some 150 acres of the base falling
w/thin SAUSD's jur/sdiction, that a land dedication could not be made available.
Clearly, it is feasible - land in generous portions has been made available to other school
districts on the basis of lesser hnpacts) Notably, there are more students in SAUSD
housed in portables (24,000) than the entire student populatlon of Irv/ne Unified
(23,400). When considered in this light, the failure to provide land to SAUSD presents a
stark - and troubling- contrast.
It is clear th. at the City of Tustin has made accommodation for its impacts in other
contexts, and in fact mit__.jgated in excess of. its impacts in at least two instances. With
_
respect to traffic, the ~ecord discloses that in the City of Sanla Ana, the City of Tusfin
mitigated impacts to affected intersections to the degree the reuse project contributed
traffic - pro rata, in other words. Notably, however, with respecl to two or, crowded
intersections, the City of Tustin proposed to pay for ~lete - not pro rata -
improvements to these intersections to offset the impacts.
If the City of Tustin can spend money to lay asphalt to help autos move more efficiently
lhrough intersections, can there be a just/fication for ignoring rn/tigation for children in
an overcrowded school district7 We think not.
What is so unique about this case is that it involves a military base d/sposal and reuse
process and, as such, the City, in .its capacity as the Local Redevelopment Agency
designated for this process, has the abilily to recommend to the U. S. Department of the
~ Compare the disparate treatment given to the Irvine Unified and Tustin Unified School Distr;cts, both of
which have ex/sling capacity at all grade levels. Irvine USD received 20 acres ofland for 302 student,
generated; Turin USD received 60 acre, for 1.143 students. Santa Ann received no acreage for 509
studc-nts. Using a pro-rata share approach, Irvine USD receiv~ 1 acre of land for every 15.1 students;
Tustin received ! acre of land for evgry 19.05 student,. If one were 1o merely extrapolate an equ/valent
amount of acreage for Santa Ann USD using these ratios, Santa Arm USD would be entitled too 33.7 ames
(using the ratio for Irvine USD) et 26.7 ,cre~ respectively. The "solutions" proposed by the city to this
land availability issue for SAUSD fall far short of the City's treatment of'tho other two school districts
involved.
SAUSD'k.qc, hooi Impacts letter
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 9
Naw (the "Navy") lhaI surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin be transferred lo SAUSD-.
al no cost to the City-qo help mitigate the Student generation impacts that will be caused
by the City's Reuse Plan. At present, MCAS-Tusfin is overflow/rig with the precious
commodity of va_~cant land which SAUSD desperately needs for school sites to construct
the udditional classroom fac/I/ties necessary Io accommodate the hundreds and hundreds
of new students which w/Il be generated by the redevelopmen! of MCAS-Tusfin.
As a feasible m/figation measure, the City could ~'ecommend to the Navy that a sufficient
amount of surplus land lying w/thin SAUSD's boundaries at MCAS-Tust/n be conveyed
to SAUSD for new school sites. Alternatively, without any threat to the economic
viability of the City's Reuse Plan, the City could propose mitigation measures which
would entail a public benefit conveyance of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin wh/ch was
outside of SAUSD's boundaries, but which could be acquired by a Joint Powers
Authority ("J-PA") of which SAUSD would be a member along with the Rancho Santiago
Community College District ("RSCCD"). For example, instead of supporting the
conveyance of 100 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tuslin to the South Orange County
Commurfity College District ("SOCCCD"), the City could recommend to the Navy that a
sufficient portion of this acreage to conslmct a K.-14 facility be transferred to a JPA,
wh/ch would consist of an "Education Coalition" including SAUSD and RSCCD. This
option was discussed in the earl/er correspondence, wh/ch SAUSD's counsel submitted
to the City in connection with GPA 00-001.
Unfortunately, in instead of discussing any mitigation measures in the FEIS/FEIR which
would involve the transfer of surplus federal land to SAUSD, either directly ~o SAUSD or
/ndirectly to a JPA of wh/ch SAUSD was a member, the City has wrongfiflly concluded
in the FEIS/TEIR that any problems caused by the additional students which will be
generated by its Reuse Plan could be resolved by the imposition of school impact
development fees, or other revenues which SAUSD could attempt to obtain from the
stale of California. (FEI$/FEIR, p. 4-63.) However, even assuming for the sake of
argument that such fees or other state funds might be available for SAUSD to obtain,
those revenues would not mitigate the overriding problem faced by SAUSD, i.e., the
cnticaJ shortage of available land w/lhin its boundaries that can be used of new' school
sites. Such land does, howeve'i'i e}ist in abundance at MCA$-/ustin.
Without acknowledging the fact that it holds the key to provid/ng SAUSD w/th the land it
needs to comtmct new school sites, the City offers the follow/ng unsubstantiated
comments in the FEIS,~ZEIR in an attempt to justify its fa/lure to propose feasible
mitigation measures to lessen or avoid the significant sludent generation impacts
associated with ~he build-out of the City's Reuse Plan:
SAUSD~School impacts ie~r
(:ity Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 10
"Since the need for new facilities i5 not vet conf'mne__~ there is no facility design
or location that could be evaluated in this EIS/EIR for fiscal impacts to the
env/ronment. ~uch~mmcts mS__and' if so,
.would be the~lity o~.,, (lrEIS~/R, pp. 4-~-63 to 4-64,
emphasis added.)
In the first place, 8AUSD believes that, in its prior submittals to the City, it has
adequately demonstrated "the need for new facilities," and it has proposed any number of
facility designs, including, most recently, a K-14 facility, Which could have--and should
have--been evaluated in the FEIS/FEIR in the form of feasible mit/gation measures and
project altemat/ves. Instead of doing this, however, the FEIS/FEIR concluded that:
"Any mitigation for possible fiscal impacts associated with future new fac/l/ties
to accommodate potential indirect student generation ~
of Ire SAUS .D_ because the actual need at this time is s_peculative, and lhere is no
facility design or location for evaluation in this EIS/EIR" (Id., at pp. 4-66 ~o 4-
67, emphasis added.) '
As evidenced by the staff cOmments set forth in Volume 2 of the FEIS/FEIR (see,
Response Lg-I), the City has apparently based the abOve-quoted conclusions on (I) the
provisions of.section 15145 of the CEQA Gu/deI/nes and (2) the court's discussion in
Goleta Union case. Of course, 1o suggest that student generation impacts are too
"speculative for evaluation" and that they can be ignored under section 15145 of the
Guidelines would be to completely ignore the holdings the Goleta Union and E1 Dorado
Union cases-which stand for the exact opposite proposition. Indeed, by claiming that
student generation impacts were too "speculative" to analyze in an E/R, any project
proponent could shirk any and all responsibility for ever discussing or attempting to
mitigate such impacts.
More importantly, the City's attempt to rely on the Goleta Union case/n its effort to sh/fl
the respons~ility for mitigating student generation impacts to SAUSD, rather tha~t itself,
is entirely misplaced. Nowhere in the Goleta Union case d~s it state, or even suggest,
that it is the sole responsibility of the.impacted school district to devise ways to mit/gate
the addition of new students xo be generated by the build-out of a development project
To contrary, that case underscores the absolute necessity for an appropriate E1R to
l~ovide % range of possible mitigation measures relaled to potential physical impacts of
the [development plan]." (37 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1033-I034.)
Unlike the Supplemental El[R, which ',vas under attack in the Goteta Union case, the
FEIS/FEIR in this case contains no statements or Fmdlngs of significant student
generation impacts to SAUSD and prov/des no mitigation measures, other than
unspecified developer fees, to minimize or eliminate such impacts. To date, the CEQA
SAUSD\$chool Impacts leHm'
City Council
City of Tusfin
December 18, 2000
Page ] 1
cases decided.by the California courts which tiave addressed student generation impacts,
such as the Goleta Union and El Dorado Union cases, have not involved a situation in
which a city, county, or local agency which was proposing to approve a new development
project which would generate new students for one or more school districts has had the
ability, as part of a military base closure and reuse process, to make free federal land
available ~o the affected school districts for use as new school sites.
In th/s case, the City has recognized its ability to mitigate (1) the 302 additional students
to be added to Irvine Unified by providing that district Mth 20 acres flor a new school site
and (2) the 1,143 additional students to be added to the Tustin Unified by prov/cl/ng that
district with a total of 60 acres for three new school sites. What is missing here,
however, is the City's recogrfifion of its need to mitigate the 509 (actually 817) adchtional -
studems to be added to SAUSD by provid/ng that d/strict with adequate acreage for new
school sites at MCAS-Tustin. CEQA does not countenance such an omission in the
FEIS/FEIR, and lhe City must correct this glaring deficiency before proceeding to
approve GPA 00-001.
Sincerely,
M. Andriette C'ulbertson
President
MAC/lid
Attachment
cc: Hoa William Cassidy, Jr.
Dr. Edward Hemandez
Dr. A1M/jares
Dr. Don Stabler
John D/dion
Ruben Smith, Esq.
Edmond M. Connor, Esq. '
SAUSD~$cboo! Impara~ letter
Exhibit E
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Public Finance
Urban Economics
Development Services
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FE1S/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon;
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), Public Economics,
Inc. ("PEI") has prepared this response ("Response") to certain staff comments set forth in
Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," prepared by City
staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and
certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ("City") at the public
hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In particular, this Response addresses comments of City
staff regarding the number of new students projected to be generated within SAUSD from
proposed redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-fourths of all
redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of Califomiamincluding a number of
military base closures--on behalf of over 200 local school districts, community college districts,
and county offices of education.
Dwight Berg, principal investigator for this Response, has personally advised over 125 school
districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in
general, and redevelopment in particular. Mr. Berg has a Master of Science degree in Social
Science with an emphasis in Economics, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Economics and
Engineering, all from lhe California Institute of Technology.
820 IA/. Town and Country Road ° Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 ° FAX (714) 647-6232
World Wide Web: hhtpT'/www, pub-econ.com
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 2
Analysis
The FEIS/FEIR relies on the (i) Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the
MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District ("DMC
Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ("DMC") in May 1999, and (ii) Updated
Report School Facility Construction Cost lmpact of Redevelopment (sic) of the MCAS Tustin
Site on the Santa Aha Unified School District ("JCJ Report"), prepared by JCJ Associates in June
1999. Specifically, City staff state that "the DMC Report brackets a .... high and low range of
probable household impacts to the [District, and the ] JCJ Report uses the DMC Report high and
low impact assumptions to identify a range of students.
Based on the DMC and JCJ Reports, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin will generate only 82 to 509 new students for SAUSD. As further support for this
conclusion, City staff refers to a report prepared by PEI in July 1996 for SAUSD, entitled
"Analysis of the Impact of MCAS-Tustin Reuse Plan on Santa Ana Unified School District"
("1996 PEI Report"), in which PEI projected an impact of 404 new households and 272 new
students.
City staff fails to disclose that the 1996 PEI Report utilized student generation factors which are
now out-of-date, and were not used by JCJ in calculating the figures, reported in the FEIS/FEIR.
The 1996 PEI Report used 0.673 K-12 students per household, which in 1998 the District
updated to 0.93 K-12 students per household, the factor used in the FEIS/FEIR. In January
2000, the District updated the factor to 0.995 K-I 2 students per household--an increase of about
7 percent. For purposes of this letter and for the sake of comparison, all figures from the 1996
PE1 Report have been adjusted to reflect the 1998 student generation factor utilized in the
FEIS/FEIR except where noted. Using the 1998 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report
would have shown a projected impact of 377 new students. (Using the 2000 student generation
rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 402 new students.)~
In referring to the 1996 PEI Report, City staff also fails to disclose the true purpose for which
that report was prepared. Specifically, the 1996 PEI Report was prepared to identify the
minimum number of students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin, in a manner consistent with the requirements proposed at the time regarding how
mitigation payments by the redevelopment agency for MCAS-Tustin should be determined.
City stafl did nole that the 1996 PEI Report was based on the City's original estimate that 26,180 new
on-site jobs will be crealed at MCAS-Tuslin. ~ the 1996 PEI Report had been based on the revised estimate of
24,852 new jobs utilized in the FEIS/FEIR, the revised number of new students would be slightly less lhan the
amounts shown above.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 3
The 1996 PEI Report was prepared one and one-half years before the initial draft of the EIS/EIR
was prepared, when the City of Tustin was claiming that the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin would have no direct or indirect impact on SA USD. The 1996 PEI Report utilized
a conservative methodology to demonstrate that even under a "best case" scenario from the City's
point of view, redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin would generate at least 377 new students in
SAUSD, resulting in a significant impact that the City needed to address in the ElS/EIb.2
Although a "worst case" scenario is required to be examined in preparing an EIR, the 1996 PEI
Report was not intended to serve that purpose. Indeed, that task was left to the City's
consultants. IfPEI had been asked to develop a "worst case" scenario, the projections would not
only have been much higher than the projections set forth in the 1996 PEI Report, they would
also have been considerably higher than the projections from the DMC and JCJ Reports that were
incorporated within the FEIS/FE[R.
The fact of the matter is that in presenting a "worst case" scenario, the FEIS/FEIR greatly
understate the true range of new students that would be generated by the proposed
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the FEIS/FEIR's ignoring certain basic
economic principles related to job growth in Orange County, and misinterpreting or misapplying
other economic data. As more fully explained below, if the FEIS/FE[R is corrected to properly
apply such principles and data, the range of new students that would be generated by the
proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would increase by approximately a factor of 10: from the
current projections of 82 to 509 new students, to a revised projection of 741 to 5,581 new
students.
The FEIS/FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to
Orange County:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will generate only
82 new students for SAUSD. This projection is based on the following assumptions: (i) 90
percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin will involve firms which simply
relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) all such jobs will involve the same employees as
previously, and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be
The term "significant impacl" appears to be applied differently by PEI than by the City of Tustin. PEI
deems significant any students generated over and above SAUSD's existing student capacity (based on State
guidelines.) The City does not identify any objective cfileria lo be used in determining "significant," other Iran to
suggesl lhat, ff enough students were generated lo fill an entire grade school, middle school, or high school, then
the student generation impact would be deemed "significant" trader CEQA. PEI is not aware of any such standard
beivvg used in California to gauge the significance of estimated increases in student enrollment.
January 16, 2001 :
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 4
closer to their place of work. However,
reasons.
these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four
First, the FEIS/FEI~R ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be created
on-site at MCAS-Tustin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not possibly be
"relocated" from somewhere else in the County ((FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.). The regional and
community parks, the golf course, the learning village, the housing facilities are unique land uses
which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that
relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS/FEIR rather than
an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional park, or other similar facility will actually be
relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected
in the FE1S/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas designated
as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to
create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere in the County.
However, many of the jobs associated with the retail, wholesale, and discount businesses that are
also projected for these land use areas will be new to the County. lndeed, at least some of these
jobs will be "big box" retail establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses
are most likely to open new stores at MCAS-TusIin to serve areas that they did not previously
serve (including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEIR projects will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/FEIR fails to provide ar~y credible data to substantiate its claim that only 10%
of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could'' be new to Orange County, i.e., that 90 percent of such jobs
would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated that this claim is based on
interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff economists at certain companies and
agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically identify any person interviewed or, more
importantly, what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to
make in arriving at this 90 percent figure. No verifiable information regarding these supposed
responses is provided in the FEIS/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply
relocate from elsewhere within the County, but that such relocation will not have any impact on
SAUSD. In so doing, the FE1S/FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban
economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin will be
occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but whose former
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 5
homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim would be inappropriate
since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "backfilled" by new occupants.. The
FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
residential uses.
However, the FEIS/FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when commercial/industrial space
previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms
new to the County (or by other firms that move from elsewhere in the County, which in turn
vacate space filled by firms from outside the County).3
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FEIS/FEIR implicitly assumes
that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to
MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this assumption is just as inappropriate
for non-residential uses as for residential uses. Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at
MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still be
substantial net additional impacts on total County employment. However, the FEIS/FEIR fails to
consider these additional impacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors as the
number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii) unemployed, or (iii)
not in the labor force. However, in claiming'that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will
be filled by persons who already have jobs in the County, the FE1S/FEIR not only ignores the
backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems
highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the
County than there are employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and
labor force participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere
in Orange County, the FEIS/FEI]K also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold
New jobs lead to migration of new workers to fill these jobs, and migrating employees may follow or
precede local job creation. In its report "Causes of Growth and Possible Control measures in the San Diego
Region (Agenda Report No. R-83, September 11, 1987), the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG")
states that "many of these labor-force dependent migrants are lured Io the.., area by non-economic factors such as
climate and environment. But without a job or at least the prospect of one, they would not migrate here, or after
arrival, would be unable to afford a permanent stay." Moreover, migration impacts are relevant even "ff all new
jobs went to local workers," in which case "migrants would simply 'back-fill' a large share of lhe jobs vacated by
local residents, i.e., take the existing 'Group A' jobs vacated by current residents who take new jobs, or fill existing
'Group B' jobs vacated by current residents who fill the 'Group A' jobs, and so on."
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 6
those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work. City staff claims
that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is
negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the
amount of relocating workers that they deem to be "negligible."
In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent--compared to the City's
figure of 10 percent-- is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the range of new
jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100 percent is an
appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent figure still appears
highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County, it
assumes that either one-half of the old space will not be backfilled, and/or one-half of the new
on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously
unemployed or not in the labor force. Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50
percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR as a low end
measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange
County.
The FEIS/FE1R fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEI~ properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined total of
0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on-site firms (indirect
jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs). However, Method #1 of
the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such indirect or induced jobs (DMC
Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect employment
that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the intent of Method
#1. However, this results in the anomalous situation in which Method #2, which includes direct
and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates fewer impacts than Method #1, which ignores
multiplier effects.
If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a range of
impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier effects result
from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method #1 because it uses
total on-site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness of Method #1 for
bracketing impacts.4
Perhaps failure lo acknowledge this point in the FEIS/FEIR and related staff reports, is 'based on confusion
by staff regarding the meaning of "direct impacts." On the one hand, staff uses "direct" Io refer lo student
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 7
In addition, City staff has stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 . . . would result in
identical . . . conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as "direct
employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of on-site jobs (as
currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the previous page) rather than 10
percent as shown in Method #2.
If the same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method //2 is applied to
Method #1, the number of new students generated within SAUSD increases by 60.5 percent, i.e.,
from 509 new students to 819 new students based on 1998 student generation.factors (876 new
students based on 2000 student generation factors--see Alternative Method A below).
The FEIS/FEIR improperly utilizes the "HousehoM Capture" figure from 0CP-96 in each of
its Methods:
The FEIS/FEIR references the following statistic from OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing growth in
Orange County from 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Aha." In each of the two
methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD, the FEIS/FEIR
misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers taking the new jobs
created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns and (ii)
housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent
on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of homes being created
elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent figure from OCP-96, which estimates the
percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Aha between 2000
and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at
MCAS-Tustin and establish new households in Santa Aha.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail, clerical,
warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best. However,
housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-family housing that
will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs
generation impacts of on-sile housing, and "indirecl" lo refer 1o studenl impacts of generaled by job crealion. On
lhe other hand, slaff uses "direct" to refer lo flmse on-site jobs that have multiplier effecls, and "indirect" to the
multiplier effects lhemseh, es (which in fact include "indirect" impacts--off-site jobs created by firms witlfin the
region lhal sell lo or buy from on-site firms~and "induced" impacts--off-site jobs crealed by firms within the
region that produce or sell goods and services demanded by new employees).
January 16, 2 O01
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 8
(FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable
housing in other areas and communities near MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important
that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are likely to establish
new households in Santa Aha account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other
communities around MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns--and by inference,
housing affordability--Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96 for
estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Aha. Census data
from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45,414 workers (25.49 percent) also live
in Santa Aha. In other words, 25.49 percent ofjobs in Santa Ana are filled by workers who found
Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing.
Census data also show that of 1,123,048 jobs in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent)
live in Santa Ana.s
Since MCAS-Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that a similar
percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In other words, it is
prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent of workers will
reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns,
and by inference, housing affordability. Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and
(E) below, the figures of 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent derived from the 1990 Census have been
substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP-96.
Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be generated in
SA USD by redevelopment of MCA$- Tustin:
Alternative Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 from the FEIS/FEI~
modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC Report included in its
Method //2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method//1. The number of indirect or induced jobs
that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the
FE1S/FEIR. (FE1S/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By simply including the number of new students that will
be generated by these indirect or induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR's projection of 509 new students
increases to 819 with 1998 student generation rates (876 students with 2000 student generation
rates).
By comparison, lhe 1990 Census also demonslrales thal of the 33,531 people who work in Tustin, only
5,789 (17.26 percent) also live in Tustin. The facl fha! the number of workers who live and work in Santa Ana is
more than eighl percentage points higher than the number that work ,and live in Tuslin suggesl fha! housing is
more affordable in Santa Ana than in Tustin--and as a result, lhat Santa Ana would draw relatively more of the
workers from MCAS-Tustin.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 9
Alternative Method (B): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC
Report used to estimate the number of jobs created 'at MCAS-Tustin that would be new to
Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 7.24 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for
the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new household created by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These two modifications cause
the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase
by a factor of nine from 82 to 741 new students with 1998 student generation rates (793 students
with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (C): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 7.24 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS~Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 3 from 509 to 1,482 with 1998 student generation
rates (1,585 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created
at MCAS-TusIin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 25.49 percent
figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within
SAUSD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 32 from 82 to 2,192 new
students with 1998 student generation rates (2,791 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method ('E): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEISFFEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 25.49 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will reside within SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of more than 10 from 509 to 5,217 new students with 1998
student generation rates (5,581 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Conclusion
In conclusion, by making reasonable modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new
household estimates set forth in the FEIS/FEIR are based, a more credible range of estimates
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page ]0
emerges to better define the student generation impacts on SAUSD which will be caused by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. The current "best case" and "worst case" scenarios set forth in
the FEIS/FEIR (i.e., 82 to 509 additional students) are simply not credible and should be revised
upward (i.e., to 741 to 5,217 students based on 1998 student generation factors (and to 793 to
5,581 new students based on 2000 student generation factors) in light of the points discussed
above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
Dwight°E Berg,
Consultant
attachment
K:\SANTA AN.USDX~IRRESP5.SAM
--
Exhibit F
San . Ana Unified hool District
'FACILITIES PLANNING Al Mijares, Ph.D., Superintendent
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
January 16, 200i
Re: GPA-O0-O01; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS- Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
At the request of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, the attorneys for the Santa Aha Unified
School District ("SAUSD") and the Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD")
[hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as lhe "Districts"], I have been
asked to submit this letter in response to certain comments set forth in Atlachments 5 and 6 to the
"Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," which has been prepared by the
Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment
No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") and the certification of the related FEIS/FEIR by the City Council
of the City of Tustin (the "City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001.
I am currently employed as a facilities planner in the Facilities Plmming Department of
SAUSD, and I am presently completing my doctoral studies at the School of Social Ecology at
the University of California at Irvine. Prior to working for SAUSD, I provided planning services
for the Cities of Westminster and Long Beach. My present duties include the coordination and
administration of facilities planning activities related to new school construction, renovation of
existing schools, and other support activities. A large portion of my current workload involves
the acquisition of land for the new school facilities, which SAUSD desperately needs. My work
in this area has included research regarding the feasibility of developing new schools at the
Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin").
In the Agenda Report prepared for the public hearing to be held on GPA 00-001 on
January 16, 2001, staff continues to assert that the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will neither
(1) generate any significant adverse impacts on public services and facilities within the two
Districts, nor (2) necessitate the City's adoption of any mitigation measures to minimize such
adverse impacts by, for example, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be set aside
as new school sites for SAUSD and RSCCD. I do not believe that the City has properly assessed
the significant environmental effects associated the reuse of MCAS-Tustin, particularly with
respect to impacts on public services and facilities affecting the Districts.
In order to properly assess the "significance" of such environmental impacts, the City
should consider all of the letters, testimony, and other materials submitted to date on behalf of the
1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 92701-6322 (714) 480-5357
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Nadia Maria Davis. President · Nalivo Lopez, Vice President
Sai Tinajero, Clerk · Rosemarie Avila, Member · John Palacio, Member
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 2
Districts with respect 1o the FEIS/FEIR, as well as the following additional facts which I have
extrapolated from SAUSD's records and files:
(1) SAUSD has a student population which is 96% minority and is
characterized by limited English language proficiency at a rate about three times that of
the State and Orange County as a whole. About two-thirds of SAUSD's students reside
in households with incomes at or below the federal poverty level. SAUSD experienced
explosive enrollment gro~vth during the latter 1980s and early 1990s. Though the pace of
enrollment growth has moderated in recent years, the State Class Size Reduction program
that emerged suddenly in mid-1996 put additional stress on SAUSD's already
overcrowded facilities, as classrooms had to be subdivided to accommodate no more than
20 students in the first and second grades throughout the District. To accommodate all of
the school facilities needs, SAUSD has acquired over 400 portable classrooms and
operates most of its elementary and intermediate schools on year-round schedules;
(2) Enrollment counts at SAUSD rose sharply through 1990 and the
composition of its student population has changed markedly. To date, virtually all
students enrolled in SAUSD are members of one or another racial/etlmic minority (with
Latinos comprising almost 92% of all students). Socioeconomically, nearly two-thirds
qualify for free lunches; 71% possess limited English language skills; 40% are
immigrants;
(3) At the elementary level, nearly four students in five are limited English-
proficient ("LEP"), and in many of SAUSD's elementary schools, LEP students
collectively speak at least five separate primary languages, pnncipally Spanish.
Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that particular neighborhoods may be evolving
differently. In community meetings held in connection with the preparation of the FMP,
SAUSD's consultants heard accounts of areas where young families with children often
rent homes formerly occupied by older "empty nesters," extended families often pool
resources to buy homes, and many families who cannot afford separate dwellings often
"double up" in the same residence;
(4) California is a major entry port into the United States, and Santa Ana and
its schools are a conspicuous front doorstep into American society. Many families who
children attend SAUSD are newly legalized residents, the natural aftermath of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"). Under the IRCA, some 66,000 persons
in Santa Ana applied to legalize their status--one of every 46 applicants nationwide in a
city inhabited by l/1000th of the nation's population. According to a 1994 American
Housing Survey, 87% of households in Santa Aha with children send them to the City's
public schools (vs. 81% for Orange County as a whole). Most transfers into SAUSD are
children of parents holding jobs in Santa Ana, for whom convenience is a factor;
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
'January 16, 2001
Page 3
(5) In recent years, scores of Mexicans immigrants from the community of
Granjenal, for example, have settled in Santa Ana, essentially re-creating the community
and supplying the next generation of more educated young adults. More recently, nearly
one-fifth (4,417) of the 23,068 refugees coming to Orange County between 1990 and
1994 settled in Santa Aha. The pattern of settlement of California's new immigrants
resembles that of earlier immigrants. As before, the majority settled in a handful of
California counties to join their family and friends. The distinctiveness of Orange
County is its increasing popularity as an intended designation of residence for
immigrants;
(6) Immigrant communities, once established, become conspicuous
designations for future immigrants with common origins (as lhe movement from
Granjenal to Santa Aha exemplifies). Newcomers eager to settle near kin and friends
manage to secure accommodations, doubling up and pushing levels of residential density
(persons per household) even higher. The household configuration of Santa gaza's
population is distinctive. Residential density is exlraordinarily high, yet continues to rise.
Persons per household in 1997 averaged 4.19, far above any other city in Orange County;
and
(7) Santa Ana's population is conducive to future school enrolhnents. First,
30% of the population is under 18, well above the corresponding figure for the rest of
Orange County or California. Second, a disproportionate share of Santa Ana's population
is within the childbearing ages (18-44 years). Santa Ana's age structure (conducive Io
future enrollments) and its surrounding setting (permeated by public school enrollment
growth) are two distinctive features bearing on its future.
In addition to the above-listed facts, the new Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City of Santa Aha, which was adopted in December 2000, contains the following relevant facts:
(1) Household Size. During the 1990s, there was an increase in average
household size from 4.1 to 4.3 persons per household in Santa Aha;
(2) Age Distribution. During the 1990s, the preschool (under 4) and prime
working (25-54) age groups added 9,000 and 15,000 persons respectively while all other
age groups showed a decline or a very small increase;
(3) Ethnicity. The City's Hispanic population increased from about 65% of
the total in 1990 to 68% in 1997. The Asian population increased from 9% to 10%
during this same period, while the non-Hispanic White and African American populations
showed a net decline. (Housing Elements, p. A-27.)
Attached hereto as Exhibits "I" through "4" are three charts and one table which 1 have
prepared as follows:
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 4
(1) Exhibit "1" is a chart entitled "Average School Enrollment," which
compares the average enrollment of the elementary, middle, and high schools for the
SAUSD, the Tustin Unified School District, and the Irvine Unified SchoOl District.
Exhibit "A" was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department
of Education and the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS-Tustin;
(2) Exhibit "2" is a chart entitled "Housing Estimates, Jan. 1,2000," which
compares the average number of persons per household for the Cities of Santa Ana,
Tustin, and Irvine and the County of Orange. Exhibit "B" was prepared based on
information obtained from the California Deparlment of Finance;
(3) Exhibit "3" is a chart entitled "Comparison of SAUSD School Densities
With California Department of Ed. Recommended Average Student Per Acre," which
compares the average number of students per acres for elementary, middle, and high
schools in the SAUSD to the recommended averages for such schools. Exhibit "C" was
prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Education;
and
(4) Exhibit "4" is a table entitled "SAUSD Enrollments, Acreage, and
MTYRE Info.," which summarizes lhe number of students, the size in acres, the number
of students per acre, and the type of multi-track year round education ("MTYRE"), if any,
for each school in the SAUSD. The table also provides average information for the all
elementary, middle, and high schools in the District, as well as the District as a whole.
Exhibit "4" was prepared based on the SAUSD's own data.
.,
Hopefully, the data provided above, as well as the charts and table enclosed here~vith,
will assist the City in reevaluating the enviro~nental impacts associated with the City's Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin and will enable it to conclude that (1) the project will have significant
adverse effects on minority populations seeking to avail themselves of public services and
facilities with the two Districts and (2) such impacts need to be adequately mitigated by, among
other things, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be used for new school sites for
the Districts.
Very truly yours,
Colette Marie McLaughlin
Planner, SAUSD
EXHIBIT "1"
E
E
EXHIBIT "2"
Housing Estimates, Jan. ,, 2000
b.U
4.5 .-
4.0 ....
3.5
· . :.:.;._-.... ;%-.
3.0 ...... :::,:.,...~,,.:
· ,X-,~,z,,
:..'.~¢,-~.:
2.5 ........ ,-,,,,,
2.O_ -
'
[. ,.'.4..
~z" '.'.'¢.'-' :'~.
1.5 - ~,.., ,.
1.0 - .~..-.~ :,:,:
'.;'.'..
-- ..- ', '.';
0.5 - ,-,,, ,-~,-_~.
, ,', ,';
...,,~; ~,:.,.
Persons/Household
Irvine 2.9
Santa Ana 4.3
~Tustin 2.9
:3.1
Orange County ..
http : l lwww. dof. ca. go v lhlmllDemogr aplE- 5t e xt.hl m
EXItlBIT "3"
~E
~E
E~
, ,
'7- r--- o
::Z) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >
(_.)~
EXHIBIT "4"
SAUSD
School
Adams
Carver
Davis
Diamond
Franklin
Fremont
Garfield
Grant*
Greenville
Harvey
Heninger
~ver
Jackson
Jefferson
Kennedy
King
Lincoln
Lowell
Madison
Martin
Monroe
te Vista
Pico
Remington
Romero-Cruz
Roosevelt
Santiago
Sepulveda
Taft
Thorpe
Walker
Washington
Wilson
Total K-5
Carr
Lathrop
:Arthur
:Fadden
Mendez*
Sierra
Spurgeon
Villa
Willard
Total 6-8
Century
Chavez
iddle College
Mountain View**
Saddleback
Santa Ana
Valley
Total 9-12
Info.
Enroli. ..lents, Acreage, and
I I [ MTYRE (mul~i-~rack
10/99 CBEDS Acres Students per acre year round education)
856 6.75 127 4 cycles
780 4.03 194 4 cycles
780 4.75 164 4 cycles
935 5.58 168 4 cycles
1,042 3.69 282 4 cycles
643 2.53 254 1 cycle
1,124 2.88 390 4 cycles
1,106 4.99 222 4 cycles
337 2.75 123
986 6.5 152
595 5.5 108
1,088 6.69 163 4 cycles
1,208 4.47 270 4 cycles
1,233 9.52 130 4 cycles
966 9.64 100
970 6 162 4 cycles
1,056 4.98 212 4 cycles
1,306 9.53 137 4 cycles
1,056 5.12 206 4 cycles
1,281 6.12 209 4 cycles
993 6.81 146 4 cycles
9O6 6.6 137
921 9.98 92 4 cycles
948 8.86 107
948 4.27 222 4 cycles
575 4.05 142
431 2.3 187 4 cycles
1,177 5.57 211 4 cycles
1,106 8.97 123
940 5.44 173 4 cycles
1,153 10 115
763 6.67 1.14
914 7.1 129 '4 cycles
1,327 8.63 154 4 cycles
1,164 3.86 302 4 cycles
33,614 211.13 159.2
1,833 25.22 73 4 cycles
1,779 7.65 233 4 cycles
1,236 10 124
1,748 24.18 72
1,3OO 12 1 O8
1,010 11.84 85 2 cycles
1,573 19 83 2 cycles
1,168 11.25 104
1,623 9.79 166
13,270 130.93 101.4 the number below is
2,707 24.99 108 students per acre
243 2.47 98 adjusted by adding
236 0 NA students from new
240 2.44 98 schools and
2,986 36.44 82 excluding students
3,449 24.3 142 from schools that
2,829 50.02 57 share facilities
12,690 140.66 90.2 .
Total All Grades 57,937 482.72 122.9
* new schools: counts are excluded from total enrollmenl but are included in adjusled students/acre
student enrollment count has been excluded from adjusted students/acre
Exhibit G
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Public Finance
Urban Economics
Development Services
January 16, 2000
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Rancho Santiago Community College District ("CCD"),
Public Economics, Inc. ("PEI") has prepared this resporkse ("Response") to certain staff
comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager,
William Huston," prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General
Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of
the City of Tustin ("City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In
particular, this Response addresses comments of City staff that "there is no feasible way
to evaluate indkect impacts" of MCAS-Tustin on the CCD.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-
fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California-
including a number of military base closures-on behalf of over 200 local school districts,
community college districts, and county offices of education.
Dante Gumucio, CEO of PEI, has personally advised over 200 school districts and
community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in gen.eral,
and redevelopment in particular. Mr. Gumucio has over 20 years academic and
consulting experience. He has been on the full-time economics faculty at California State
University, Fullerton (and taught part-time at Chapman University), where his classes
820 W. Town and Country Road ° Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 * tAX (714) 647-6232
World Wide Web: hhtp;//www, pub-econ.com
Mx. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 2 of 10
included urban economics, benefit-cost analysis, public finance, and mathematical
economics, as well as classes in the MPA and MBA programs. He has also taught in the
University extension at the University of California, lrvine, including courses in the
EConomic Fundamentals of Planning and Development and Financial Aspects of
Planning. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Economics and has a Master of Science degree in
Economics, both from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a Bachelor of Science
degree in Economics from Brigham Young University.
Backl~round
In comments submitted on November 28, 2000 on the CCD's behalf by Connor, Blake &
Griffin ("Connor"), that firm noted that the FEIS/FEIR contains no analysis of the
number of credit or non-credit students that will be added to the CCD due to
redevelopment ofMCAS-Tustin. In its response to Connor's comments, City staff stated
that "there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts [of job creation] on the [CCD].
Moreover, City staff also stated that "there is no universally recognized methodology for
projecting indirect impacts [of job creation] on a community college district." The first
statement is incorrect and the second statement is irrelevant.
Just because student generation factors are expressed relative to residential dwelling units
(" DUs") or resident population within a school district does not mean that it is infeasible
to project the impact on student generation of non-residential development. To the
contrary, K-12 districts typically levy developer fees on non-residential development
based on a fee justification analysis which demonstrates a rational and substantial nexus
between non-residential development and employment, migration, household formation,
and K- 12 student generation.
Just because community college districts do not levy or have to justify developer fees
does not mean that there is not a similar rational and substantial nexus between non-
residential development and employment and generation of community college students.
lndeed, program EIRs prepared for redevelopment plans, program EIRs prepared for
general plans and specific plans, and various project EIRs have attempted to quantify the
impacts of development on community college districts. And many such impact reports
include not only the impact of non-residential development, but the impact of both dh'ect
and indirect/induced non-residential development.
The City attributes its position regarding the lack of a universally recognized
methodology for estimating impacts on community colleges to the City's environmental
consultant, Cotton and Beland and Associates C'CBA"). PEI is quite certain that it has
reviewed E1Rs prepared by CBA which do estimate the impacts of future development on
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 3 of 10
community college districts. And PEI does not know why such impacts were excluded
fi.om the FE1S/FEIR for MCAS-Tustin. However, even if CBA had never included such
impacts in EIRs for other projects (which PEI believes not to be the case), there are a
number of other environmental firms which have included such impacts in their
environmental documentation, and which use similar methods in doing so.
However, even ff there were not one single, universally recognized methodology for
estimating such impacts, what is required by CEQA, as well as by case law and the State
and federal constitutions is not universality, but rationality. One such rational method is
used by the California State Department of Finance and the State Chancellor's Office for
California Community Colleges. This method involves applying "credit enrollment rates"
to projected future populations over the age of 18 within a college district's (primary)
"service area." Following is an analysis prepared by PEI in conjunction with Rancho
Santiago CCD staffwhich utilizes this very method.
Analysis
In projecting the impact on household formation of on-site employment at MCAS-Tustin,
the FEIS/FEIR relies on the Updated Report on the Indirect ]mpact of Redevelopment of
the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District
("DMC Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ("DMC") in May 1999. Had
student generation rates available from the CCD for college credit and adult education
enrollment been combined with household projections from the DMC Report, the
FE1S/FEIR could have included estimates of enrollment impact on the CCD.
Unfortunately, no such impacts were estimated.
As shown in Exhibit 1, the CCD's combined credit/adult education student enrollment
rate is 0.1392 students per service area population. PEI and the CCD have used
household projections contained in the FEIS/FE1R to project future student generation for
the CCD fi.om redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. However, household projections in the
FEIS/FEIR were for Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), which has a smaller
geographic area and resident population than the CCD. Hence, PEI and the CCD have
adjusted household projections for SAUSD for some scenarios to reflect the CCD's larger
area.
However, the FEIS/FEIR greatly understates the true range of new households that will
be generated within SAUSD by reuse of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the
FEIS/FEIR's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange
County, and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data. As more fully
explained below, if the FEIS/FEIR is corrected to properly apply such principles and
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 4 of 10
data, the number of new households within the boundaries of the CCD generated by reuse
of MCAS-Tustin would range from 880 new households to 6,602 new households, which
would increase student enrollment in the District by 303 to 2,270 new community college
students.
The FEIS/FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will be new
to Orange County:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will
generate only 88 new households within SAUSD. Tlfis projection is based on the
following assumptions: (i) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin
will involve firms which simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) all such
jobs will involve the same employees as previously, and (iii) none of these same
employees will relocate their residence in order to be closer to their place of work.
However, these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four reasons.
First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be
created on-site at MCAS-Tustin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not
possibly be "relocated" fi.om somewhere else in the County (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18). The
regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village, and housing facilities
are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses
which might house tenants tha! relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an
oversight of the FEIS/FEIR rather than an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional
park, or other similar facility will actually be relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this
oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected in the FEIS/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas
designated as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land
uses are projected to create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate
from elsewhere in the County. However, many of the jobs associated with the retail,
wholesale, and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will be
new to the Coumy. lndeed, at least some of these jobs will be "big box" retail
establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses are most likely to
open new stores at MCAS-Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve
(including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEIR project will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that
only 10% of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could" be new to Orange County, i.e., that 90
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 5 of 10
percent of such jobs would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated
that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff
economists at certain companies and agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically
identify any person interviewed or, more importantly, what questions such persons were
asked or what assumptions they were asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure.
No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in the
FEIS/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin
simply relocate fi.om elsewhere within the County, but that 'such relocation will not have
any impact on SAUSD. In so doing, the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon
known to urban economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin
will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but
whose former homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim
would be inappropriate since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "back-filled"
by new occupants. The FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill
phenomenon when it comes to residential uses.
However, the FEIS/FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when
commercial/industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space
is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that move
from elsewhere in the County, which in turn vacate space filled by firms fi.om outside the
County):
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FEIS/FEIR implicitly
assumes that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that
allegedly relocate to MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this
assumption is just as inappropriate for non-residential uses as for residential uses.
Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the
County (which we dispute) there will still be substantial net additional impacts on total
County employment. However, the FEIS/FEIR fails to consider these additional impacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors
as the number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii)
unemployed, or (iii) not in the labor force. However, in claiming that 90 percent of the
new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will be filled by persons who akeady have jobs in the County,
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 6 of 10
the FEIS/FEIR not only ignores the backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these
factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems highly unlikely given that Orange
County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the County than there are
employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and labor force
participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from
elsewhere in Orange County, the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the
workers who hold those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place
of work. City staff claims that lhe number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be
closer to their place of work is negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to
support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be
"negligible."
]n light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent-compared to the
City's figure of 10 percent is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the
range of new jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100
percent is an appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent
figure still appears highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocaled from
elsewhere in the County, it assumes that either one-half the old space will not be
backfilled, and/or one-half the new on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously
employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force.
Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50 percent is substituted for the
10 percent figure used in Method #2 of the FEIS/FE1R as a low end measure of the
percentage of jobs projected 1o be filled by employees who are nexv to Orange County.
The FEIS/FEIR fails to include indirect and induced jobs bt all of its Methods:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined
total of 0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on-site
firms (indirect jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs).
However, Method #1 of the FE1S/FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such
indirect or induced jobs (DMC Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect
employment that would occur from implementation of the project," while lhat was not the
intent of Method #1. However,' this results in the anomalous situation in which Method
#2, which includes direct and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates ftnx,er impacts
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 7 of 10
than Method #1, which ignores multiplier effects.
]f the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a
range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier
effects result from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method
#1 because it uses total on-site employment, not dkect impacts, invalidates the usefi~lness
of Method #1 for bracketing impacts.
In addition, City staffhas stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 ... would result
in identical.., conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as
"direct employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of
on-site jobs (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the
previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown h~ Method #2.
]fthe same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method #2 is applied
to Method #1, the number ofnew students generated within CCD increases from 188 new
students to 303 new students
The FEIS/FEIR improperly utilizes the "ltousehold Capture" figure from 0CP-96 in
each of its Methods:
The FEIS/FEIR references the following statistic fi-om OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing
gro~4~h in Orange County from 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Ana." In each of
the two methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students wilhin SAUSD,
the FE1S/FEIR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers
taking the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa' Aha.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns
and (ii) housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is
directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the
number of homes being created elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent
figure fi-om OCP-96, which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide
that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to
the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin and establish new
households in Santa Ana.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail,
clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best.
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 8 of 10
However, housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-
family housing that will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the
workers who fill these types of jobs (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling
these jobs will need to find affordable housing in other areas and communities near
MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important that the data used to estimate the
number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are likely to establish new households in Santa
Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around
MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns-and by inference,
housing affordability-Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96
for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana.
Census data from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Aha, 45,414 workers
(25.49 percent) also live in Santa Ana. In other words, 25.49 percent of jobs in Santa
Ana are filled by workers who found Santa Aha to be within a reasonable commuting
distance and to provide affordable housing. Census data also show that of 1,123,048 jobs
in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent) live in Santa Aha.
Since MCAS-Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that
a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In
other words, it is prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent of workers will reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically
to identify commuting patterns, and by inference, housing affordability.
The boundaries of the CCD include all of SAUSD. The comparative size of the two
districts is indicated by their respective assessed valuations, which in FY 2000-01 totaled
$35.2 billion for the CCD and $15.5 billion for the SAUSD. Nonetheless, PEI and CCD
staff have adjusted the Census-based estimates for SAUSD of 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent by much less than the relative difference in assessed values. The adjusted
estimates for the CCD conservatively range fi.om 9.5 percent to 30 percent. Accordingly,
in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and (E) below, the figures of 9.5 percent and 30
percent derived by adjusting the 1990 Census for SAUSD have been substituted for the 4
percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP-96.
Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be
generated in CCD by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin
Alter?mtive Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 fi.om the
FE]S/FEIR modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 9 of 10
Report included in its Method #2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method #1. The
number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same
number that is estimated by the City in the FEIS/FEIR. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By
simply including the number of new students that will be generated by these indirect or
induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR would ha',,e a projection of 303 new CCD students.
Ahernative Method ~): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent
figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin
that would be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 9.50 percent figure
derived fi.om the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will
locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students
generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 359.
Alternative Method (C)' This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the
FE1S/FE]R with two modifications. First, Jt includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 9.50 percent figure to
estimate the nmnber of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.that
will locate xvithin CCD. These two modifications cause the projected numbei' of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 719.
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the
number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it
substitutes the 25.49 percent figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure
utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within CCD. These two modifications
cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-
Turin to increase to 1,135.
Alternative Method (E): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 30.00 percent figure to
estimate the number of new household created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that
will locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 2,270.
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 10 of 10
Conclusion
]n conclusion, the preceding analysis demonstrates that it is feasible to estimate the
indirect impacts on the CCD of job creation at MCAS Tustin. Moreover, such estimates
can be prepared using a fah-ly standard estimation methodology. By making reasonable
modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new household estimates set forth
in the FE]S/FE]R are based, and combining these with the CCD's student enrollment
rates, a more credible range of estimates emerges to better define the student generation
impacts on CCD which will be caused by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. "Best case"
and "worst case" scenarios of 303 to 2,270 students should be set forth in the FE]S/FE]R
in light of the points discussed above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
at t a chment
Attachment 5
Minutes from the October 28, 2002
Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment 6
Planning Commission Resolution No.
3848 Recommending City Council
Approval of Zone Change 02-006
RESOLUTION NO. 3848
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 02-006, AMENDING
THE TUSTIN ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) AND AMENDMENT OF THE
TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ADD SECTION 9246 ESTABLISHING
THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN) ZONING REGULATIONS.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin ("City") does hereby resolve as follows:
!. The Tustin Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A.
Madne Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin has been determined surplus to the
needs of the federal government and has bccn 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,
a.
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,
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution 00-90 that
certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin,
and adopted Resolution 00-91 that adopted General Plan Amendment 00-001
establishing a MCAS Tustin Specific Plan general plan land use designation
for the Tustin portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre
property in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
Resolution No. 3848
Page 2
D.
E,
F,
G,
H.
California State law allows a City to adopt a specific plan for the systematic
implementation of the General Plan and to provide comprehensive direction for
the development type, location and intensity of uses, design and capacity of
infrastructure, design guidelines, and other planning activities. The closure of
MCAS Tustin and implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
necessitates the amendment of the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City Code;
and,
The Tustin Planning Commission has received a request to consider and make
a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on the proposed Zone Change 02-
006 that is intended to amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and
Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and
amend the Tustin City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations that will apply to
future development within the Specific Plan area.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan project, evidenced by the proposed zone
change project was evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR. No additional
environmental analysis or action is required prior to City action on the
proposed project.
On October 28, 2002, 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 Zone Change 02-006; and
The Tustin Planning Commission has received, reviewed and considered the
proposed Zone Change 02-006, the testimony, evidence and comments made
at the publiC hearing 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 Zoning
Map and Tustin City Code be amended prior to implementing actions that
will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes.
,
That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02-006, an amendment
of the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and an amendment to
the Tustin City Code to establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
(SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65451
of the California Government Code.
1
That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will
result in the systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and will
serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development of
compatible uses of the subject property in a manner that will not be
Resolution No. 3848
Page 3
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in or adjacent to the former MCAS Tustin
property.
4. Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been
considered.
.
That Zone Change 02-006 and establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan, as
most recently amended in February 2002 in accordance with Section
65454 of the California Government Code.
6. Administration of the MCAS Tustin Spec!ftc Plan is thoroughly integrated
into the City's development processing system.
I1.
The Tustin Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Tustin City Council
approve Zone Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City
Code as identified in "Exhibit 1" attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held
on the 28th day of October 2002.
Planning Commission Secretary
_,~. E~~V. KOZAK
Chairper~fn
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3848 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
28th day of October, 2002.
Planning Commission Secretary
Mcas~pc~cso3848.doc