Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-ATTACHMENT EATTACHMENT E City Council Resolution No. 14 -12 (Environmental) RESOLUTION NO. 14-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THAT THE FINAL JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN FEIS/EIR), AS AMENDED BY SUPPLEMENT AND ADDENDUMS, IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DA) 2013-003, DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) 13- 03, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2013-002, CONCEPT PLAN 2013-002, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17507, AND DESIGN REVIEW 2013-006 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 375 RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN PLANNING AREA 15 OF NEIGHBORHOOD G OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That Standard Pacific Corporation and City of Tustin have completed and desire to enter into Disposition and Development Agreement 13-03, and Standard Pacific Corporation has submitted a proper application for the development of 375 residential units, a focal park and other neighborhood amenities on approximately 78 acre site currently owned by the City of Tustin within Planning Area 15 of the MCAS Tustin Specific plan. B. That the development application includes the following requests: 1. Specific Plan Amendment 2013-002, an amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to allow guest parking be provided on private local streets. 2. Concept plan 2013-002 to develop 375 residential units and ensure necessary linkages are provided between the development project, the integrity of the specific plan and purpose and intent of the neighborhood is maintained, and applicable city requirements are identified and satisfied. 3. Tentative Tract Map 17507 to subdivide an approximately 78 acre site into 376 numbered lots and 75 lettered lots for the development of 375 single family detached units, a focal park, and other neighborhood amenities. 4. Design Review 2013-006 for the design and site layout of 375 single family detached units, a focal park, and other neighborhood amenities. 5. Development Agreement 2013-003 to facilitate the development and conveyance of an approximate 78 acre site within the boundaries of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. City Council Resolution No. 14-12 Page 2 C. That the site is zoned as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (SP-1) within Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G; and designated as MCAS Tustin by the Tustin General Plan. In addition, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the Air Quality Sub-element of the City of Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be consistent with the Air Quality Sub-element. D. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin An Environmental Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit A has been prepared and concluded that these actions do not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified significant impacts in the FEIS/EIR. Moreover, no new information of substantial importance has surfaced since certification of the FEIS/EIR. E. That in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the checklist has been considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed. II. The City Council hereby finds that the project is within the scope of the previously approved Program FEIS/FEIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15168 (c) and 15162, no new effects could occur and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. ELWYN A. MURRAY MAYOR ATTEST: JEFFREY C. PARKER CITY CLERK City Council Resolution No. 14-12 Page 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Jeffrey C. Parker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 14-12 was duly th passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 18 day of February, 2014, by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: ____________________________ JEFFREY C. PARKER CITY CLERK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 573 -3100 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents: Environmental Impact Statement /Environmental Impact Report (EIS /EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin The following checklist takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. This checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Disposition and Development Agreement 13 -03, Concept Plan 2013 -002, Design Review 2013 -006, Development Agreement 2013 -003, Specific Plan Amendment 2013 -002, and Tentative Tract Map 17507 Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Justina Willkom Phone: (714) 573 -3115 Project Location: Disposition Parcels 113 and 6 is an area bounded by future Moffett Drive to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, Warner Avenue off -ramp to the south, and future Park Avenue to the west within Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G, MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy). Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Standard Pacific Corporation c/o Mr. Sean Doyle 15360 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Description: Disposition and Development Agreement 13 -03, Concept Plan 2013 -002, Design Review 2013 -006, Development Agreement 2013 -003, Specific Plan Amendment 2013 -002, and Tentative Tract Map 17507 for the purpose of developing 375 detached residential units, approximately 6 acres focal park with private recreation amenities, approximately 4 acres of green belt parks, and necessary infrastructures and street system to support the proposed development. C. Surrounding Uses: North: Vacant land East: Jamboree Road South/West: Vacant land Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04 -76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS /EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 -32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ❑Land Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Preparer: JustiVa Willkom,Assistant Director - Planning Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached Date: q'$'13 Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR OUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VILHAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, _ injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XT_ NOTSF, — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Disposition and Development Agreement 13 -03, Specific Plan Amendment 2013 -002, Concept Plan 2013 -002, Design Review 2013 -006, Development Agreement 2013 -003, and Tentative Tract Map 17507 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04 -76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS /EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 06 -43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 -32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS /EIR. The FEIS /EIR along with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addenda and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the MCAS Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (referred to in this document as the Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed and the FEIS /EIR analyzed a multi -year development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the scope of the project covered by the FEIS /EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is approximately 80 gross acres located within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Tustin Legacy) boundaries affecting only Disposition Parcels 1 B and 6. The project site is bounded by future Moffett Drive to the north, Jamboree Road to the east, Warner Avenue off -ramp to the south, and future Park Avenue to the west within Planning Area 15 of Neighborhood G, MCAS- Tustin Specific Plan. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Specific Plan Amendment 2013 -002, Concept Plan 2013 -002, Design Review 2013 -006, Development Agreement 2013 -003, and Tentative Tract Map 17507 are development applications for the purpose of developing 375 detached residential units. The project has been designed to enhance livability by intergrading four (4) distinctive housing style completely connected to a centralized park and greenbelt linkages. The four housing products are as follows: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 2 • Sheldon at Tustin Legacy: is the smallest home type and is bordered by the green belt park on the north, the Warner Avenue off -ramp on the south, the Crawford and the Greenwood housing products to the east and Park Avenue to the west. There are 103 homes ranging from 1,837 to 2,389 square feet and consist of 3 bedrooms 2.5 baths to 5 bedrooms 3 baths. The styles include Santa Barbara, Cottage, Monterey, and craftsman bungalow architectural designs. • Crawford at Tustin Legacy: is a conventional lot program located in both the northwest corner of the community as well as along the eastern boundary adjacent to Jamboree Road and the Warner Avenue off -ramp. Crawford consists of 77 homes ranging in size from 2,419 to 2,711 square feet and configured with 4 bedrooms, loft, and 3 baths to 4 bedrooms, bonus room, (optional bedroom) and 3 baths. The architectural styles include Cottage, Monterey, Santa Barbara, American Classic, and Craftsman Bungalow. • Greenwood at Tustin Legacy: Greenwood consists of 99 homes ranging in size from 2,945 to 3,515 square feet. The homes are configured with 4 bedrooms, loft, den and 3 baths to 5 bedrooms, kid's lounge and 5.5 baths. Each of the homes also has an optional bonus room and /or suite over the garage. A standard "Legacy Room," an extension of indoor to outdoor living space also is provided for each of the homes. The Greenwood styles include Cottage, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and Farmhouse. • Stafford at Tustin Legacy: Stafford consists of 96 homes with wide lots dispersed throughout the northwesterly quadrant of the community on two sides of the centralized park. The homes ranging in size from 3,309 to 3,741 square feet and configured with 4 bedrooms, bonus room and 3.5 baths to 5 bedrooms, bonus room, office, and 4.5 baths. The Stafford homes will also include the "Legacy Room." The homes architectural styles include Cottage, Monterey, Santa Barbara, American Classic, Adobe Ranch, and Stucco Bungalow. The centralized park is approximately 6 acres in size and would be accessible to the residents of the project and the public as a whole. The public portion of the park is designed with community plaza, playgrounds, main lawns for recreation activities, other amenities such as bocce ball courts, basket ball court, picnic areas. The private areas consist of a pool, kids splash and play area, outdoor seating area with built in BBQ, and a club house for residents only. Generally the applications can be described as follows: • Disposition and Development Agreement 13 -03: Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) 13 -03 is between the City and Standard Pacific Corporation (Developer) in which the terms and conditions of the sale of the City - owned property is specified. The terms and conditions address, at a minimum, the following: purchase price, the Developer's Scope of Development, and a defined Schedule of Performance. • Development Agreement 2013 -003: Pursuant to Section 4.2.9 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, prior to issuance of any permits or approval of any entitlements within the Specific Plan area, all private development shall first obtain a Development Agreement in accordance with the State's Government Code and Tustin City Code. The purpose of the Development Agreement is to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 =002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 3 economic risk if development. Accordingly, Standard Pacific has submitted a Development Agreement to augment and further the purpose and intent of the General Plan and Specific Pan, and Final EIS /EIR and will ensure the orderly implementation of infrastructure and development. The Development Agreement also includes schedule of performance, obligations, and phasing triggering mechanism that ensure adequate local and Tustin Legacy backbone infrastructure program are in place to support the proposed development. • Specific Plan Amendment 2013 -002: Table 3 -4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan only allows not more than fifty (50) percent of the guest parking spaces required may be fulfilled with on- street parking on private and public local streets, except where adjoining a publicly accessible park. The proposed project would include a request for an amendment to the Specific Plan to allow 100 percent guest parking be provided on private local streets. • Concept Plan 2013 -002: Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a Concept Plan shall be prepared and submitted concurrent with the submission of a new development proposal. The purpose of a Concept Plan is to ensure: necessary linkages are provided between the development project, the integrity of the Specific Plan and purpose and intent of the neighborhood is maintained, and applicable City requirements are identified and satisfied. Concept Plan 2013 -002 has been prepared and submitted concurrently with the proposal to develop 375 residential units and necessary linkages and integrity of the Specific Plan along with applicable City requirements have been demonstrated through submitted plans. Design Review 2013 -006: Pursuant to Section 4.2.4 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, following or concurrently with submittal and approval of a Concept Plan, individual development shall require Site Plan and Design Review in accordance with the Tustin City Code. Design Review 2013 -006 has been proposed for the project site planning and design. The proposed project design and site layout are consistent with the intent of the Specific Plan and complies with design review criteria prescribed in the Tustin City Code. • Tentative Tract Map 17507: is a subdivision of an approximately 78 net acre site into 376 numbered lots and 75 lettered lots for the development of 375 single family detached units, a focal park, and other neighborhood amenities. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that this Project is within the scope of the Prior Environmental Review and that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), there are no substantial changes in the project requiring major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions to the Prior Environmental Review, or any new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Prior Environmental Review was certified showing that: (1) the project will have any new significant effects; (2) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe; (3) mitigation measures or alternatives previously determined to be infeasible will now be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (4) mitigation measures or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 4 alternatives considerably different from those previously analyzed would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the City declined to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The development of residential units within Planning Area 15 were considered within the FEIS /EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR are incorporated with approval of the project. All exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 2.17.3(A) — Urban Design Guidelines for Residential Development of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and the Landscape Concept Section 2.17.2 as it relates to Park Avenue and future Moffett Drive. The proposal includes Design Review and Concept Plan application, which requires that the Planning Commission and City Council review and ensure the design of the project, if approved, is found to be cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3(A) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No new impacts nor substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 5 refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendumss and Supplemental; and applicable measures will be required to be complied with as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -58 through 3- 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Pages 2 -115 though 2 -165, Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111) Tustin General Plan AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non - agricultural use? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. As documented in the FEIS /EIR, the project site is part of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan that contained 702 acres of farmland. The FEIS /EIR concluded that there would be no viable long -term mitigation to off -set the impact of converting farmland on MCAS Tustin to urban uses. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR. However, the FEIS /EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related impacts to farmland were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 6 Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -83 through 3 -87, 4 -109 through 114) and Addendums (Page 5 -3 through 5 -8) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111) Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. As documented in the FEIS /EIR, the project is part of a larger reuse project at Tustin Legacy that was projected to result in air quality impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. The site is presently not in use. The project applicant proposes to construct within the maximum allowable density of the site. Therefore, no significant impact beyond what was analyzed in the adopted FEIS /EIR is anticipated. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR. However, the FEIS /EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 7 mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -143 through 153, 4 -207 through 4 -230 and pages 7 -41 through 7 -42) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111) Table 2, 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook Tustin General Plan IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIS /EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS /EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact jurisdictional waters /wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters /wetlands. The project site has been surveyed, and turtles were captured and moved off the site to another location as directed and overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game. Since that time, all former Marine Corps base drainage channels in the area were removed and graded by the former owner of the property with the required 401, 404 and 1601 permits issued by Fish and Game, Army Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 8 Corps of Engineers, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Consequently, the proposed project would not affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -75 through 3- 82, 4 -103 through 4 -108, and 7 -26 through 7 -27) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -38 to 3 -54). Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. It should be noted that the former MCAS Tustin contained two National Register listed blimp hangars, and several concrete or asphalt blimp landing pads that were considered historically or culturally significant, pursuant to the federal Section 106 process conducted at the site. Through the Section 106 process, these facilities were identified as part of a discontiguous Historic District. The Navy, State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO), and Advisory Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement (attached as part of the EIS /EIR) with City of Tustin and County of Orange as invited signatories that allowed for the destruction of the blimp pads. The EIS /EIR noted that it may not be financially feasible to retain the blimp hangers and there may be irreversible significant impacts. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Consistent with the above referenced agreement, the previous owner of the property removed the blimp pad from the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 9 project site and leveled the property. However, no portion of the previously existing blimp landing pads nor the existing blimp hangars are located within the project site boundary. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA -ORA -381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of mitigation measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -68 through 3- 74, 4 -93 through 4 -102 and 7 -24 through 7 -26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -38 to 3 -54). Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. • Strong seismic ground shaking? • Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? • Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 10 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIS /EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would "include non - seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high- intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." However, the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin also concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation /Monitoring Required. As identified in the FEIS /EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -88 through 3- 97, 4 -115 through 4 -123 and 7 -28 through 7 -29) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -38 to 3 -54). Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 11 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. In addition, construction and residential uses would not emit hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy conveyed the property in 2002 as unrestricted and suitable for residential reuse. In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within a flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft - related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is also not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of household hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 12 previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS /EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages (3 -106 through 3- 117, 4 -130 through 4 -138 and 7 -30 through 7 -31) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), MCAS Tustin Tustin General Plan. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The project design and construction of facilities to fully contain drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of the project and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 13 submitted /approved Water Quality Management Plan. No long -term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed housing project will also not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100 -year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: As identified in the FEIS /EIR, compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -98 through 3- 105, 4 -124 through 4 -129 and 7 -29 through 7 -30) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111) FEMA Flood Map (2009) Tustin General Plan Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map (2011) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Physically divide an established community? a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 14 The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan and the number of dwelling units proposed by the Project is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 15, which contemplates the development of 1,214 dwelling units in total. The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council approved the Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed project complies with Planning Area 15's development standards for residential units as noted in Sections 3.9.2.E and 3.9.2.F of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed Project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan as identified by the adopted FEIS /EIR. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -3 to 3 -17, 4 -3 to 4 -13 and 7 -16 to 7 -18) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111). Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. Chapter 3.9 of the FEIS /EIR indicates that no mineral Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 15 resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -91) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111). Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIS /EIR indicates that full build -out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptorsmould exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 16 land use categories in the Noise Elements of the Tustin General Plan. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Exterior Noise Impact Study for the project that indicates certain noise barriers (sound walls) would be required along Jamboree Road to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard (Attachment 1 - Exterior Noise Analysis for Legacy Parcel 1 B and 6A (Tentative Tract Map 17507 dated March 6, 2013). For interior noise, a future study is recommended to address the interior noise level when architectural drawings are available and prior to issuance of building permits. This is consistent with Mitigation Measure N -3 identified in the FEIS /EIR which requires plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity be submitted for review and approval prior to building permits being issued. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans Exterior Noise Analysis for Legacy Parcel 1B and 6A (Tentative Tract 17507) dated March 6, 2013 by Mestre Greve Associates FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -154 to 3 -162, 4 -231 to 4 -243 and 7 -42 to 7 -43) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111). Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 17 with the approved Specific Plan and the number of dwelling units proposed is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 15, which contemplates the development of 1,214 dwelling units in total. Additionally, the proposed project site is vacant and will not displace people or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -18 to 3 -34, 4- 14 to 4 -29 and 7 -18 to 7 -19) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111). Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The site is currently vacant. Development of the site would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking /hiking trails. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations existing and planned in the area surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 18 Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non - residential uses, etc. Development of the site would increase the need for police protection services. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions such as visibility, lighting, emergency access, address signage are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The proposed project is located within Tustin Unified School District (TUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan would provide two 10 -acre sites for elementary schools and a 40 -acre high school site to serve the growing student population within its district. Based on the student generation factors of 0.29 per unit for grades K -5; 0.127 student per units for grades 6 -8; 0.153 student per unit for grades 9 -12, and the potential of 2,585 dwelling units developed within the TUSD boundaries, the adopted EIS /EIR noted that reuse development would generate approximately 750 students for grades K- 5, 328 students for grades 6 -8, and 395 students for grades 9 -12 for a total of 1,473 students. The TUSD will receive its statutory school impact fees per Senate Bill 50 from the proposed residential development of the site. As a condition of approval for the project, the developer will be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of the building permit. In summary, no new additional students are anticipated beyond what was considered in the FEIR/EIS for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS, Tustin, and in any event, City required mitigation is limited by State law to requiring payment of the SB 50 school impact fees. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan /Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS /EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to public services. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. MitigatiorWonitoring Required. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 19 Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -47 to 3 -57, 4- 56 to 4 -80 and 7 -21 to 7 -22) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111). Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed project includes centralized park is approximately 6 acres in size and would be accessible to the residents of the project and the public as a whole. The public portion of the park is approximately 5 acres in size and designed with community plaza, playgrounds, main lawns for recreation activities, other amenities such as bocce ball courts, basket ball court, picnic areas. The private recreation area is approximately .8 acre in size consist of a pool, kids splash and play area, outdoor seating area with built in BBQ, and a club house for residents only. Also, 3.8 acres of greenbelt parks equipped with walking trails, benches, picnic niche with tables, and lawn play area. The proposed project not only provides recreational to its future community residents but also provided additional recreation areas for overall Tustin residents. Additionally, the Reuse Plan process included public conveyance of city parks and an Urban Regional Park; as such individual developers were relieved of the requirement to dedicate land for park purposes. The project is not anticipated to increase the use of other existing neighborhood or regional parks such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 20 Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3 -47 to 3 -57, 4 -56 to 4 -80 and 7 -21 to 7 -22 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111) Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan and the number of dwelling units proposed is under the maximum development threshold for Planning Area 15, which contemplates the development of 1,214 dwelling units in total. The FEIS /EIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The FEIS /EIR identified the trip generation resulting from implementation of the original Specific Plan and Addendum to create an overall Average Daily Trip (ADT) of 216,445 trips. The Specific Plan also established a trip budget tracking system for each neighborhood to analyze and control the amount and intensity of non - residential development by neighborhood. The tracking system ensures that sufficient ADT capacity exists to serve the development and remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed project would not exceed the trip budget analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and its Supplemental and Addendums. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers has prepared the Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed project dated April 2, 2013 (Attachment 2) to identify and evaluate how the traffic impacts from the proposed project differ from the original analysis as presented in the FEIS /EIR. According to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, a maximum of 1,214 residential dwelling units is permitted within Planning Area 15 with an established trip budget of 10,287 ADTs. Within the project site a total of 420 units consist of 258 low density residential and Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 21 162 medium density residential were analyzed and assigned with 3,765 ADTs. The proposed project has a total of 375 units and consists of 272 low density residential and 103 medium density residential with projected 3,427 ADTs. Given this comparison, the proposed project is well within the trip budget established for the project site. The study has shown that the proposed project has not resulted in new significant impacts that would require mitigation. Moreover, the proposed on -site circulation system is found to provide adequate capacity in accordance with the performance criteria applied to the project. The City's Traffic Engineer also has reviewed the analysis and concurs with the conclusion the study. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to traffic. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation Submitted Plans Trip Generation Assessment for the Proposed Tustin Legacy Disposition Planning Area (PA) 1B and 6A Residential Project, Neighborhood G South — PA 15 of Tustin Legacy Specific Plan dated April 2, 2013 by Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3 -118 through 3- 142, 4 -139 through 4 -206 and 7 -32 through 7 -41) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111). Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 22 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project is for a development of 375 detached residential units within the residential core of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. The proposed use is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. The FEIR/EIR analyzed residential development on the proposed site, which is consistent with the proposed project. Development of the site would require on -site improvements and off -site infrastructure improvements to utilities and roadway systems, including design and construction of improvements on Park Avenue and Moffett Drive. In addition, certain public infrastructure will be constructed by the applicant which may include storm drain, domestic water, reclaimed water, sanitary sewer, and dry utility service systems necessary to serve the site, and landscape and irrigation on in the public right -of -way. Also, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of wastewater treatment. The number of proposed units can be supported by the Irvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer services. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15,162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effects or mitigation measures or alternatives that were not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental or Addendums were certified as completed. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations Submitted Plans FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3 -35 through 3- 46, 4 -32 through 4 -55 and 7 -20 through 7 -21) Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 23 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -100 through 3 -111). Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIS /EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS /EIR, the Supplemental and Addendums previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS /EIR. Mitigation measures were identified in the FEIS /EIR to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 5 -4 through 5 -11) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3 -144 through 3 -154). Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible Evaluation of Environmental Impacts DDA 13 -003, DA 2013 -003, SPA 2013 -002, CP 2013 -002, DR 2013 -006, and TTM 17507 Page 24 would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS /EIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. Exterior Noise Analysis for Legacy Parcel 1B and 6A (Tentative Tract 17507) City of Tustin, California Project #535101 -0300 March 6, 2013 Prepared For: Standard Pacific Homes 15360 Barranca Parkway Irvine, CA 92618 Prepared By: MLCM6 Fred Greve, P. E Mike HoIntz, 1NCE Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown 27812 El Lazo Road Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 949 - 349 -0671 Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown SUMMARY EXTERIOR NOISE- ANALYSIS FOR LEGACY PARCEL 1B AND 6A CITY OF TUSTIN EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION Legacy Parcel 1B and 6A Project #535101 -0300 The results of the analysis indicate_ that . in order to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. noise barriers will be re€Luirecl along Jamboree. Road. The noise barrier locations and heights required in order for the project to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard are listed in Table S1 and shown in Exhibit S1. Table S1 REQUIRED FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER HEIGHT,, AND LOCATIONS ALONG JAMBOREE "d OAD LOT REQUIRED TOP -OF -WALL ELEVATION Approximate Wall Height (ft) Lot 140 79.0 1.0t Lot 139 79.0 1.0t Lot 136 77.4 2.4t Lot 131 75.7 3.7t Lot 129 74.0 5.Ot Lot 127 73.2 6.2t Lot 1 1- -5 723 7.3t Lot 122 70.3 9.3t Lot 120 69.8 10.8' Lot 118 69.8 10.81 Lot 117 65.5 7.5 ° Lot 113 65.6 10.7" Lot 109 64.7 10.5 Lot 101 63.3 10.0 Lot 97 63.1 9.4 Lot 89 62.2 8 -7 °- Lot 77 61.1 7.1 , f - Denotes approximate height above road elevation * Denotes approximate height above pad elevation Page 1 of 9 441 Barrier - ----- - Loca on T.OM. = 79.0 XX• required Top-of-Wall Elevation T.O.W. A 77 )i Existing 4, (approx 2.4') wall IV T.O.W. = 75.7 (approx 3.7') S T.O.W. 74.0 (approx 5.0') *' J; T.O.W. = 73.21 (approx 6.21) Exisbng f T.O.W. = 723 (approx 73") I T.O.W. = 703 (approx 9-3') T.O.W. 69.8 > (approx 10.8') M T.O•. = 69S (approx 10.51*1 -�_ -_-- ,>: o, ����� ' 6.5 O.W. 5 I (a pprax 7511 u1 r -"5 LV I T.O.W. 633 10.0') va T.O.W. 63.1 (approx 9A') T.O.W. = 621 (approx 8.7') T.O.W. 61 1 (approx 7.11) W&HMestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brawn p 1* = 6 10 -71 6 ; T.O.W. = 64.71 (approx 10.5') I Exhibit Sif Noise Barrier Requirements M� { Mestre Greve Associates Legacy Parcel iB and 6A J Division of Landrum & Brown Project #535101 -0300 The critical figures from a noise standpoint are the eventual tap -of -wall zlevations. These elevations can be achieved using natural topography, berms, walls, or a combination thereof. The required top -of -wall elevations arc shown at several locations along Jamboree Road. The tap- of -ws ,ill elevations shall progress in a linear manner between these Specified points. The heiirhts of the existing portion of the soundwall should be checked to confirm that they meet or exceed the requirements. According to the Tustin Noise Element, balconies at single - family residences are exempt from thc. 65 CNEL extrrior noise standard. Therefore, balcony barriers will not be required. INTERIOR NOISE With the exterior mitigation measures Specified in in this report, first floor exterior building Surfaces in the project will be exposed to noise levels; of less than 65 CNEL, and therefore, will require less than 20 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, with the noise barriers specified.in this_ report, all first floor rooms arernjected to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard without building upgrades. Second floor building surfaces along Jamboree Road will be exposed to a maximum noise level of about 74.1 CNEL. Therefore, second floor rooms will require at least 29.1 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations are needed for building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dB, A future study will be needed to address the interior noise levels when architectural drawings are available and prior to the issuance of building_ permits. This is a very high noise reduction requirement. From past experience, it is likely that substantial building upgrades will be needed. The upgrades will probably include increased glass thickness for windows and sliding glass doors, weather- stripping for all exterior doors, and baffles for the attic vents. ADEQUATE VENTILATION Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise suindard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable California Building Code. Adequate ventilation is likely to be required for the homes along Jamboree Road, along Park Avenue, and along the ramp connecting southbound Jamboree Road to Park Avenue. The exact ventilation „requirements can be determined in the final study. Page 2 of 9 ;1 Mesrre Greve Associates Legacy Parcel 1B and 6A '- Division of Landrum & Brown Project #535101 -0300 EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS FOR LEGACY PARCEL 1B AND 6A CITY OF TUSTIN 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpo%c of this report is to demonstrate compliance of Legacy Parcel 1 B and 6A (Tentative Tract 17507) with the noise related `Conditions of Approval' placed on the project by the City of Tustin. The project calls for the development of single- family homes_ The project is located in the City of Tustin, as shown in Exhibit 1. The site plan is shown in Exhibit 2. The project will be impacted by traffic noise from Jamboree Road. (Park Avenue, Legacy Road, Moffett Avenue, and the ramp Ieading from Jamboree southbound to Park Avenue are not expected to have a significant noise impact on the project). This report specifies any mitigation measures necessary to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, and addresses the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Site plan and grading information was obtained from the "Wall and Fence Plan for Disposition Parcel I B & 6A" by Valley Crest Design Group, February 2013. 20 CITY OF TUSTIN NOISE STANDARDS The City of Tustin specifies outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses. Both standards are based upon the CNEL index. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) is a 24- hour time- weighted annual average noise level based on the A- weighted decibel. A- weighting is u frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human car. Time - weighting refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain noise - sensitive time periods is given more significance because it occurs at these times. In the calculation of CNEL, noise occurring in the evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) is weighted by 5 dB, while noise occurring in the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a,m.) is weighted by 10 dB. These time periods and weighting factors are used to reflect increased sensitivity to noise while sleeping, eating, and relaxing. The City of Tustin has adopted an exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL for an observer in the private exterior living areas. (According to the Tustin Noise Element, balconies at single- family residences are exempt from the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard). In addition, the City uses an interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. Page 3 of 9 ��Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Exhibit Vicinity Map 1 L,gC.ACY .r �+i '1' n `'ter',"*. � �.t.��,+_•�°� -'1 ,,q t. - - - = -_ _ " - ..�,�•> OL ff �� x• •}'� 1 - ' °_�� ��.�,� `X� .r_TM31tFd , T � ' s � 1]'�4' 3 � 'j 9 `k 1 J -•tee' Y I' r � -{�, ' I' i •�,�1![• ;�1 7 1 � �._ ¢r�_,e��^ \"`�! ..f7Q i � � �k ��•~ —`�4� � 111 � V. 4 �' 1r r� ,3 =1 - '�-= -_ 'sal+' ^'"_" •�� e /��� + .. ik S.�`f'`'+.� 4��•� gCyi�..�t I��,7Sr ,r tljrt �•j-,��' 1i } LULL:: TIP �,- .: r�. Y .yp ., �, h ter I r. P. Mestre Greve Associates —whe—H Division of Landrum & Brow+ 0 �i�y �I I L Exhibit 2 Site Plan —whoMestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown 3.0 METHODOLOGY Legacy Parcel 1B and 6A Project #535101 -0300 The traffic noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Admini,,tration (`THWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model ", FHWA -RD -77 -108, December 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level ". A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall /berm) is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent upon the geometry between the noise source, the barrier, and the observer. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between the noise source and the observer is interrupted by the barrier. As the distance that the noise must travel around the noise barrier increases, the amount of noise reduction increases. The FHWA model was also used here in computerized format to determine the required barrier heights. 4.0 NOISE EXPOSURE The future traffic volumes for Jamboree Road, Park Avenue, and the ramp leading from Jamboree Road southbound to Park Avenue were obtained from Mr. Doug Anderson at the City of Tustin Traffic Engineering Department on September 5, 2012. The traffic volumes, projection year, vehicle speeds, and roadway grades used in the CNEL calculations are presented below in Table 1. The differing projection years presented are the data available from the City. Table i FUTURE TRAFFIC VOLUMES, PROJECTION YEARS, SPEEDS, AND ROADWAY GRADES PROJECTION TRAFFIC ROADWAY YEAR VOLUME SPEED GRADE Jamboree Road 2035 88,000 65 <317r Park Avenue 2025 6,000 35 <3 %. Ramp 2030 6,000 45 <3°/. The traffic distribution that was used in the CNEL calculations is listed below in Table 2. This arterial traffic distribution estimate was compiled by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, and is based on traffic counts at 31 intersections throughout the Orange County area. Arterial traffic distribution estimates can be considered typical for arterials in Southern California. Page 4 of 9 Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Table 2 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION PER TIME OF DAY IN PERCENT OF ADT Legacy Parcel IS and 6A Project #535101 -0300 VEHICLE TYPE DAY EVENING NIGHT Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.34 Medium Truck 1.16 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Using the assumptions presented above, the future noise levels were computed. The results are listed in Table 3 in terms of distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours. These represent the distances from the centerline of each roadway to the contour value Shown. Note that the values given in Table 3 do not take into account the effect of intervening topography that may affect the roadway noise exposure. Topographic effects are included in the noise barrier analysis section (Section 5.0) of this report. Table 3 DISTANCE TO NOISE CONTOURS FOR FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS DISTANCE TO CONTOUR (FEET) ROADWAY -70 CNEL- -65 CNEL -60 CNEL- Jamboree Road Park Avenue Ramp 207 446 961 RW 30 64 RW 45 97 Contour distances in this table are based on the centerline of the roadway representing the noise source. RW — Indicates contour falls within the roadway right -of -way. The nearest rear yard area is approximately 81 feet from the centerline of Jamboree Road. At this distance, rear yard 76.1 CNEL. The nearest rear yard area is approximately 70 feet from the centerline of Park Avenue. At this distance, rear yard observers along Park Avenue would be exposed to unmitigated traffic noise levels of about 59.5 CNEL. The nearest rear yard area is approximately 90 feet from the ramp connecting southbound Jamboree Road to Park Avenue. At this distance, rear yard observers along the ramp would be exposed to unmitigated traffic noise levels of about 60.5 CNEL. Page 5of9 I mfi Mestre Greve Associates Legacy Parcel 1B and 6A Division of Landrum & Brown Project #535101 -0300 5.0 EXTERIOR NOISE MITIGATION The exterior living areas in the project must comply with the City's 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. For the exterior living areas that are exposed to noise levels greater than 65 CNEL, sonic form of noise mitigation is required. An effective method of reducing the traffic noise to acceptable levels is with a noise harrier. Representative cross- sections along Jamboree Road (see Appendix for analysis data) were analyzed utilizing the FHWA Model to determine the necessary noise barrier locations and heights. The results_of.the_analsis indicate-that-in-order- to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard, noise barriers will be required along Jamboree Road - The noise barrier locations and heights required in order for the project to meet the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard are listed in Table 4 and shown in Exhibit 3. Table 4 REQUIRED FIRST FLOOR EXTERIOR LIVING AREA NOISE BARRIER HEIGHTS AND LOCATIONS ALONG JAMBOREE ROAD t - Denotes approximate height above road elevation * - Denotes approximate height above pad elevation Page 6of9 REQUIRED Approximate LOT TOP -OF -WALL ELEVATION Wall Height (ft) LLA 1 0 79.0 1.0t Lot 139 79.0 1.0t Lot 136 77.4 2.4t Lot 131 75.7 3.7t Lot 129 74.0 5.0T Lot 127 73.2 6.2.1 Lot 125 72.3 7.3t Lot 122 70.3 93t Lot 120 69.8 10.81 Lot 118 69.8 10.st Lot 117 65.5 7.5* Lot 113 65.6 10.7* Lot 109 64.7 10.5* Lot 101 63.3 10.0* Lot 97 631 9.4* Lot 89 62.2 8.7* Lot 77 61.11 7.1 * t - Denotes approximate height above road elevation * - Denotes approximate height above pad elevation Page 6of9 Barrier Location V.- XX.X -required Top -of- 'Viral! Elevation _ I'' I I . i. Existing JP le L� E 0 �t � }r- ---� • 1_�� !�� fib, � �y w I T.O.W. = 61,1 (approx 7.1') Mestre Greve Associates �7 Glvislon of Landrum & Brown 0_'� r1: .loin Existing d/ Wall >y T.O.W. = 633 (approx 10A') T.O.W. =63.1 r� (approx 9A') T.O.W. = 62.2 (approx 8.7') T.O.W. = 79.0 (approx 1A') T.O.W. = 77 (approx 2A') T.O.W. = 75.7 (approx IT) T.O.W. = 7 4 A (approx 5A') T.O.W. = 73.2 (approx 6.21) T.O.W. = 723 (approx 73') T.O.W. = 703 (approx 93') H T.O.W. = 69.8 (approx 10.8') T.O.W. = 69.8 (approx 10.8') T.O.W. = 65.5 (approx 751) T.O.W. = 65.6 (approx 10.71) T.O.W. = 64.7 (approx 105') E hib t 3 Noise Barrier Requirements -hEMestre Greve Associates Legacy Parcel 1B and 6A Division of Landrum & Brown Project #535101 -0300 The critical figures from a noise standpoint are the eventual top -of -wall elevations. These elevations can be achieved using natural topography, berms, walls, or a combination thereof. The required top -of -wall elevations are shown at several locations along Jamboree Road. The tap -of -wall elevations shall progress in a linear manner between these specified points. The heights of the existing portion of the soundwall should be checked to confirm that they meet or exceed the requirements. According to the Tustin Noise Element, balconies at single- family residences are exempt from the 65 CNEL exterior noise standard. Therefore, balcony barriers will not be required. 6.0 INTERIOR NOISE The project must comply with the City of Tustin indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL, To meet the interior noise standard, the buildings must provide sufficient outdoor to indoor building attenuation to reduce the noise to acceptable levels. The outdoor to indoor noise reduction characteristics of a building are determined by combining the transmission loss of each of the building elements that make up the building. Each unique building element has a characteristic transmission loss. For residential units, the critical building elements are the roof, walls, windows, doors, attic configuration and insulation. The total noise reduction achieved is dependent upon the transmission loss of each element, and the surface area of that element in relation to the total surface area of the room. Room absorption is the final factor used in determining the total noise reduction. With the exterior mitigation measures specified in Section 5.0, first floor exterior building surfaces in the project will be exposed to noise levels of less than 65 CNEL, and therefore will require less than 20 dB exterior to interior noise reduction in order to meet the City's 45 CNEL interior noise standard. With construction practices common in California, residential buildings achieve outdoor to indoor noise reductions of at least 20 dB. Therefore, with the noise barriers specified in this report, all firwt floor rooms arp4ro, jected to meet the Cit ,'s 45 CIV_EL_ interior noise standard without buildin _ upgrades. Second floor building surfaces along Jamboree Road will be exposed to a maximum noise level of about 74.1 CNEL. Therefore, second floor rooms will require at least 29.1 dB noise reduction in order to meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard. Detailed engineering calculations are needed for building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dB. A_future study will be needed to address the interior noise levels when architectural drawings are available, and prior to the issuance of building permits. This is a very high noise reduction requirement. From past experience, it is likely that substantial building upgrades will be needed. The upgrades will probably include increased glass thickness for windows and sliding glass doors, weather- stripping for all exterior doors, and baffles for the attic vents. Page 7 of 9 ��Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown 7.0 ADEQUATE VENTILATION Legacy Parcel 1B and BA Project #535101 -0300 Since the noise attenuation of a building falls to about 12 dB with windows open, all buildings exposed to noise levels greater than 57 CNEL will meet the 45 CNEL interior noise standard only with windows closed. In order to assume that windows can remain closed to achieve this required attenuation, adequate ventilation with windows closed must be provided per the applicable California Building Code. Adequate ventilation is likely to be required for the homes along Jamboree Road, along Park Avenue, and along the ramp connecting southbound Jamboree Road to Park Avenue. The exact ventilation requirements can be determined in the final study. Page 8 of 9 MC Mestre Greve Associates Division of Landrum & Brown Legacy Parcel IS and 6A Project #535101 -0300 APPENDIX CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS DATA USED TO DETERMINE EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS P =1g. � 9 of 9 ■� � � �G �vro it L S 4� F V C yg Af L 2 G �n�RBe:d:eg��a�$R �aa�d�aaaaaaa�� i9oil °y+ a W <9 :•'i Q .tom ^1 a �„ p4 -d �33.d3'kd3' :33 33 33 33.3 ';d 3I R3 �3 333 '3 #3 d3 r a H 8• 8q 'a F° 8� 8� 8^ ' P a B� Aq as � r• OS 4r qn qri 0- 'qe q0h of .ee c ao 1p ,:ee 4.hn eqr qr iVG^ '.Q�i q" q°4 � qh .0 0 ilr 1. 1 'q - „r3 0- y QN�. o_ C��„ O_ �QP o_'KIn Grp qe qo c. i �t P 3 Y Ow OO O+ O O .Oh � �On Ow 'Ow I • O :D Ow O Ot. VI li h `tiM{ a MM Mr. �M �nh Yrh �Mti'. 'SgF n ,P`P � hen 'ti M� titi Hhr '4'q 'hh 1l �1Mh ry '9 ^I n� 4q I `�,t, C C C C RC RO QC O 4 1•t ^I'� �h'i x^1'9 RC i. April 2, 2013 Engineers &Planners Traffic Transporlalian Mr. Sean Doyle, Project Manager Parking Standard Pacific I lorries Southern California Coastal Linscott, Law & 15360 Barranca Parkway Greenspan, Engineers Irvine, CA 92618 1580 Corporate Drive Suite 122 LLG Rcicrence: 2.12.33 t 6 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.641.1587 T 714.641.0139 r Subject Trip Generation Assessment for the Proposed Tustin Legacy www.ilgangineers.com Disposition Planning Area (PA) 1B & 6A Residential Project Neighborhood G South — PA 15 of the Tustin Legacy Specific Plan Pasadena TLIS.in, California Casts Mesa San Diego Dear Mr_ Doyle: La s Vegas As requested, Linscott, Lai% & Greenspan, Engineers (L1,G) is pleased to submit this Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed Tustin Legacy residential project to be development by Standard Pacific Homes. The Project site is an 82.4f acre vacant parcel of land that is generally located west of Jamboree Road, north of the Jamboree Road on /off ramp, cast of the future extension of Part. Avenue, and south of the future extension of Moffett Avenue in the City of Tustin, California. This assessment focuses on the potential trip generation associated with the development of up to 375 residential dwelling units with within Planning Area (PA) 15 of the Tustin Legacy .SI)ecifrc Plan / Reuse Plan for Marine Colhti Air .Motion (MCAV) Tustin. Consiwtent with Chapter 3: Land Use and Development / Reuse Regulations of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan, the trip generation analysis is based on the information contained in Appendix P'to they PWISIEIR for the DhlN)sar1 and Rerrse of the Marine Corps Air- Vlation (A1C,48) Tustin — Final Traffic Technical Rcpori. darled November 1999 and the Legacy Park of Tustin Legacy Neighborhood G Inlernal Philip M linsco2 PE a 4 w : Circulalion Arnrlj:5is, dance July 2009, both of which were prepared by Austin -Foust Jack Greenspa4PE'F. Associates, Inc. The information contained in the "Neighborhood G' traffic analysis wdfamA law, PE 0%1 was used to establish a trip budget for the Project site. According to the MCAS Tustin Pal"11dlmsan,P1 Legacy Specific Plan. a maximum of 1,214 residential dwelling units various land use JchnPK*W%1E DaW 5.Shender,PE types (i.e. low density residential) is permitted within PA 15 (also identified as ,ohnABoarman,PE Neighborhood G), with an established trip budget of 10,287 average daily trips ClareM.lnok-Jaeget PE Richard E 6arrava. PE Will Matiarry, PE A-. ra2M CaCe17 1.dad 1666 Mr. Scan Doyle April 2, 2013 Pa;e 2 (ADT's)_ Although the total n~sidential unit count remained at 1,214 dwelling units, the mix of residential land use types assessed in the "Neighborhood G" traffic analysis resulted in an amended ADT budget of 10,456 ADT of which 3,165 ADT is attributable to the residential development within the Project Site. To ensure consistency with the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan as well as the findings and recommendations of the "Neighborhood G" traffic analysis, a comparison of the project's ADT potential with its allocation of the established neighborhood ADT trip budget has been prepared. Per the specific plan, this comparison is essential "to document ADT status as it is impacted by each development project so that sufficient roadway capacity remains to accommodate later projects." Project Description Based on review of the Project g1te plan dated March 27, 2013 and information prop ided by Standard Pacific Homes. the proposed Project includes the development of 375 residential units within the southerly portion of Planning Area (PA) 15 of the MCAS Tustin Legacy Specific Plan. Attachment 1 presents the overall site plan for thc: proposed Project, as prepared by Tait. Review ofAllachnien11 indicates that primary access to the Project site will be provided via the proposed signalized intersection of Park Avenue at Legacy Road, with secondary access provided via three (3) fill access unsignalized intersections, one located on Park Avenue at "A Street ", between the Jamboree Road Ramps and Legacy Road. and two located on Moffett Avenue, east of Park Avenue at "D Street" and "C Street. It should be noted that the proposed access configurations are consistent with those assumed in the "Neighborhood G" traffic analysis. Table 1, located at the rear of the letter report. presents the development summary for the proposed Project as well as the anticipated residential development totals assumed for the Project site within PA 15 — Neighborhood G South. As shown in Table 1, the residential development totals allocated for the Project site, as documented in the "Neighborhood G" traffic analysis, totals 420 units that consists of 258 low density residential (LDR) dwelling units and 162 medium density residential (MDR) dwelling units, whereas the proposed Project includes construction of 375 units that consists of 272 LDR dwelling units and 103 MDR dwelling units. Mr. Sean Doyle April 2, 2013 Page 3 Project Traffic Generation Forecast Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one -way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation factors and equations used in this analysis are based on information found in Appendix F to the FEIS /FIR fr�r the Dislmsal and Reuse of the Alarine Crops Air Station (MCA,S) Tustin Final Traft Technical Report, datecl November 1999 or the Legaq, Prrrk of Tustin Legacy Neighborhood G Internal Circidalion Ar acysi.s, tlafecl Ju1j, 2009. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation rates used in forecasting the impact of the proposed Project as well as the trip generation potential. As shown in middle portion of Table 2_ the proposed Project is forecast to generate 3,427 daily trips, with 270 trips (65 inbound, 205 outbound) produced during the AM peak hour and 358 trips (234 inbound, 124 outbound) produced during the PM peak hour. A review of the lower portion of this table indicates that Project site allocation trip budget within PA 15 — Neighborhood G South totals 3,765 daily trips, with 297 trips (70 inbound, 227 outbound) occurring during the AM peak hour and 391 trips (259 inbound, 132 outbound) occLrrring during the PM peak hour. Comparison of the proposed Project's daily trip generation potential of 3,427 ADT with that of the project site trip budget of 420 residential dwelling uses established by the "Neighborhood G" traffic analysis indicates that the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 338 fewer trips on a daily basis. Further, comparison of the Project site trip budget within PA 15 - Neighborhood G South with that of the proposed Project shows that the trip generation potential of the Project is well within the mitigated "trip budget" established for the site as evaluated in the "Neighborhood G" traffic analysis, with 27 fewer trips generated during the AM peak commute hour and 33 fewer trips generated during the critical PM peak commute hour. Conclusion Given the results of the trip generation forecast comparison, we conclude that the proposed Project is well within the trip budget established for the Project site within PA 15 - Neighborhood G South as identified in the Legacy Park qf Tustin Legacy Neighborhoocl G Internal Circulation Anal}sis, dated .lily 2009, pit pared by Auslin- Foust Associates, Inc. Further, the findings and recommendations of the "Neighborhood G" traffic analysis rernain valid. Mr. Scan Doyle April 2, 2013 page 4 * * * * x k We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this investigation. Should you have any questions regarding this analysis, please call us at (949) 825 -6175, Sincerely, Linscott, L-aw & Greenspan, Engineers Richard E. Barretto, Y.E. Principal cc: file Attachments TABLE 1 P "OJECT DEVE: OPMENT SUMMARY TUST N LEGACY DISPOF:i7ON PA 1 B & 6A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NEIG i }ORHOOD G :. OUTH — PA 15 OF THE TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN .Notes. • SE = square fuotofdcvcktpn nt t Source 1.egnc} Pr+Fkgf�i+st��l.egac� h'righhtrrh+mtf [; lnle�u+t!('rrCrdatrarRr+t+lysiS duletllufj NJ�9S; p+t�tArc�fl+} �truu+rl o+r�rt}.sux�trtrs, #+z z ApjxitdtA 1"O Usetrodh7l; Ge+ rer al+ on, TtfcAnaly sts7ates (1AL) 79,81,8285 0+roziA90. Source- Overall Site Plan prepared b? Tait and confirmed by Standard Pacific Ilornm Product type 70' x75', SO' x 100' and 4(p` x 92' art mssumcd In I.DR, while the Carriage Court product is assumed to he MI)R. (2) (f) Proposes! Site Alloev t Project MCAS Specific Plan Developme, t Development Planning Area (PA) Residential Land Use Type Totals' Totals A'eis_hhorhood G Sbuth PA 15 Low Density Residential (LDR: 1- 7 DU /Acre) 258 DU '7' DU Medium Density Residential (MDR: 8 15 DU,.Acre) 162 DU 10 DU Medium High Density Residential (MHDR: 16 -25 DU/Acre) -- Totals 410 D I .Notes. • SE = square fuotofdcvcktpn nt t Source 1.egnc} Pr+Fkgf�i+st��l.egac� h'righhtrrh+mtf [; lnle�u+t!('rrCrdatrarRr+t+lysiS duletllufj NJ�9S; p+t�tArc�fl+} �truu+rl o+r�rt}.sux�trtrs, #+z z ApjxitdtA 1"O Usetrodh7l; Ge+ rer al+ on, TtfcAnaly sts7ates (1AL) 79,81,8285 0+roziA90. Source- Overall Site Plan prepared b? Tait and confirmed by Standard Pacific Ilornm Product type 70' x75', SO' x 100' and 4(p` x 92' art mssumcd In I.DR, while the Carriage Court product is assumed to he MI)R. TABLE 2 PROKCT TRIP GENERATION FORECAST COMPARISON TUSTIN LEGACY DISPOSITION PA 1 B & 6A RESIDENTIAL PRO1 CT NEIGHBORHOOD G SOUTH — PA 15 OF TFIL TUSTIN LEGACY SPECIFIC PLAN Wim . TF."101M S1-TFk1?vx6; r 1,0005 • k Flu t__�� trhue�!` m�reif7' trsfr+ tt �guc�14' eighhnrhualGlydc�rur#{' �trk, riva. 4rrdijsis, duA�dJ�lj2txDi►. tax�ryverli +y,�rxTn:r- Fi�us�AualrNestm- ANN Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Project Description /Land Use T,,,, D ly I nre Exit Total Enter Exit Total Trip Generation Factors: "r • LDR 1 -7 DU /acre: (TWDU) 9.57 019 0.,6 0.' 0.65 0.36 1.01 • MDR 8 -15 DU /acre: (TF/DU) 8.00 0 0.51 0.64 0.56 0,24 0,80 • MHDR 16 -25 DU /acre: (TE/DU) 6.63 1 00 0 0. 0,42 0.20 0.62 Trip Generation Forecast: Proposed Proiex7 + LDR 1 -7 DUlacre: (272 DU) 2,603 52 152 204 7 99 275 MDR 8 -15 DU /acre: (103 DU) 824 13 ". 66 25 83 (A) Project Trip Generation Total -7 65 0 "70 124 358 Aeizhhothood G Sotfth Project Site Allocation 2,469 9 14, '93 168 9'J 96' + LDR 1 -7 DU/acre: (258 DU) MDR 8 -15 DU /acre: (162 DU) 1,296 10' 91 0 (B) Site Trip Budget Allocation Total 3,765 70 ' '97 1 9 (C) Net Project Trip Generation Potential (A) Proposed Project — (B) Site Allocation. 3 -5 - i -21 5 Wim . TF."101M S1-TFk1?vx6; r 1,0005 • k Flu t__�� trhue�!` m�reif7' trsfr+ tt �guc�14' eighhnrhualGlydc�rur#{' �trk, riva. 4rrdijsis, duA�dJ�lj2txDi►. tax�ryverli +y,�rxTn:r- Fi�us�AualrNestm-