Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 TUSTIN LEGACY PARK SPAMEETING DATE TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ' SUMMARY: Agenda Item AGENDA REPORT GeV City M 1` Manager J� 'yfL Finance Director N A NOVEMBER 4, 2014 JEFFREY C. PARKER, CITY MANAGER ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2014 -001 (ORDINANCE NO. 1450), MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN The project is a proposed amendment to the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan that would allow park related uses in Planning Area 1. On October 14, 2014, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4269, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1450, approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2014 -001. (Applicant: City of Tustin) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council introduce and have first reading of Ordinance No. 1450, approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2014 -001 and amending Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding park related uses as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and set a second reading for the next City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: SPA 2014 -001 is a City- initiated project. There is no direct fiscal impact to the General Fund. CORRELATION TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN: The proposed project furthers the objectives of the following Strategic Plan goals: • Goal A: Economic and Neighborhood Development — The proposed project would enhance the vibrancy and quality of life in the community. • Goal A: Strategy #6 - The proposed project would provide an opportunity to expand the City's recreational activities. City Council Report November 4, 2014 SPA 2014 -001 Page 2 • Goal B: Public Safety and Protection of Assets — The proposed project would ensure Tustin is an attractive, safe and well maintained community in which people feel pride. APPROVAL AUTHORITY: Government Code Section 65453 requires that a specific plan amendment be prepared in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to establish development regulations and procedures for reuse of the former MCAS, Tustin. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan has been formally amended several times since its original adoption. On April 23, 2013 and May 13, 2013, the Planning Commission and the City Council respectively, approved various entitlement applications including Development Agreement 2013 -002 to facilitate a property exchange between the South Orange County Community College District ( SOCCCD) and the City affecting 89 acres of property at the former MCAS Tustin (the "Exchange "). The objectives of the Exchange were to: rationalize property boundaries to create larger, contiguous land areas for the City and SOCCCD; provide for a broader range of land uses in support of the objectives of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; and enhance circulation in the area by improving east -west connectivity between the existing Red Hill and Armstrong Avenues. Following the Exchange, the City and SOCCCD agreed to negotiate the ultimate disposition of a 4.5 -acre parcel immediately adjacent to the future Tustin Legacy Park to potentially accommodate a portion of the future park site. The acquisition of the property was approved by the City Council on June 17, 2014. Project Description The proposed SPA will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Figure 1) to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres (Figure 2). Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. The Master Plan for a community park at Tustin Legacy was approved by the City Council on June 17, 2014. City Council Peport November 4, ?014 SPA 2014 -001 Page 3 Figure 1 - Tustin Legacy Planning Areas The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan does not list park uses as either permitted or conditionally permitted within Planning Area 1. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the MCAS, Tustin Specific Plan district regula�ions by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses. SPA 2014 -001 (Ordinance No. 1450) is consistent with the City Council approved Disposition Strategy for MCAS Tustin, and would not increase the overall development potential, intensity, or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Further, the Public Works traffic engineering division has determined that the development of a portion of Planning Area 1 for park purposes, following the approval of SPA 2014 -001, would not result in any new traif c impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL: On January 16, 2001, the City 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 Count l adopted Resolution No. 04 -76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/HR 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 CITY y ryhy ATF NIpSRT „W "Si0! -- 8 r[a7 eaRnAR.. oust lt,m t �� OF FUSTw+ 5 � eM I TATO1 Fl[ , SGNRAIOC IA RI►rl.T JOW.FR AW SEVER .5 wom pM f PROPOSED ,� p v #� PARK 517E F F SPA 2014 -001 CITY OF SAMTA AM M �F ..OW ROW, ' CITY ! 1 OF Figure 1 - Tustin Legacy Planning Areas The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan does not list park uses as either permitted or conditionally permitted within Planning Area 1. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the MCAS, Tustin Specific Plan district regula�ions by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses. SPA 2014 -001 (Ordinance No. 1450) is consistent with the City Council approved Disposition Strategy for MCAS Tustin, and would not increase the overall development potential, intensity, or residential capacity currently allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Further, the Public Works traffic engineering division has determined that the development of a portion of Planning Area 1 for park purposes, following the approval of SPA 2014 -001, would not result in any new traif c impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL: On January 16, 2001, the City 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 Count l adopted Resolution No. 04 -76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/HR 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 Ci'y Council Deport November 4, 2014 .`SPA 2014 -001 Page 4 May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13 -32 approving a Second Addendum to the FFIS /E -1R. The FEIS /EIR, along with its Addendums and Supplement, is a program E:IR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. IC5 SKATE PLAZA Hid i ;3f30' F ION/ go # Portion of Proposed _ 1' Park within PA 1 .4. F f � 4 Figure 2 — Community Park Concept Plan An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Attached to Ordnance No. 1450). The E=nvironmental Analysis Checklist concludes that it can be City Council Report November 4, 2014 SPA 2014 -001 Page 5 seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. Furthermore, many of the proposed additional permitted uses for Planning Area 1, such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds, lighted fields and buildings for civic, cultural and community centers are often associated with existing permitted uses in Planning Area 1, including public school, community college, and private school. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the checklist should be considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Following the public hearing on October 14, 2014, the Planning Commission considered the project and adopted Resolution No. 4269, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project (Attachment A). PUBLIC NOTICE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REVIEW: A public notice was published in the Tustin News on October 23, 2014, informing the public of proposed SPA 2014 -001. A copy of the staff report and proposed SPA 2014- 001 was also forwarded to the Chamber of Commerce prior to the City Council's hearing on the matter. No public comments were received. CONCLUSION: Proposed SPA 2014 -001 is consistent with the General Plan and would allow park related uses in Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council approve SPA 2014 -001. Scott Reekstin Principal Planner Elizabeth A. Binsack Director of Community Development Attachments: A. Planning Commission Minutes of October 14, 2014, and Resolution No. 4269 B. Ordinance No. 1450 Exhibit A: Environmental Analysis Checklist Exhibit B: SPA 2014 -001 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2014 RESOLUTION NO. 4269 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2014 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Given INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Pro Tern Lumbard Present: Chairperson Thompson Chair Pro Tern Lumbard Commissioners Altowaiji, Kozak, Smith 11 None. PUBLIC CONCERNS Approved. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 23, 2014, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. That the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the September 231 2014 meeting as provided. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Lumbard, to approve the September 23, 2014 Minutes. Motion carried 5-0. ■ Item 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-15 & DESIGN REVIEW 2014-009 Continued. The proposed project is a request for an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a sixty (60) foot tall mono-eucalyptus faux tree with twelve (12) panel antennas and associated equipment mounted to the structure. The project site is developed with nine (9) storage buildings and is located at 14861 Franklin Avenue in the Planned Community Industrial (PC IND) Zoning District. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014-15 and Design Review (DR) 2014- 009 were properly noticed for an October 14, 2014, public hearing. However, based on the property owner's desire to change the proposed location of the facility on the project site, the applicant requested a continuance of the item to December 9, 2014. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 1 of 9 That the Planning Commission continue consideration of CUP 2014-15 and DR 2014-009 to December 9, 2014. 7:03 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Motion: It was moved by Smith, seconded by Altowaiji, to continue CUP 2014-15 and DR 2014-009 to the December 9, 2014 Planning Commission meeting. Adopted 3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2014-10 FOR ANTON LEGACY Resolution APARTMENT HOMES MASTER SIGN PLAN No. 4270. A request to establish a master sign plan to allow signage at the Anton Legacy Apartment Homes APPLICANT: Andy Davidson Anton Legacy Tustin, LP 1801 1 Street Sacramento, CA 95811 OWNER: Steve Eggert Anton Legacy Tustin, LP 1801 1 Street Sacramento, CA 95811 LOCATION: 3100 Park Avenue, Tustin This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15311 (Class 11) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4270 approving Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2014-10 to authorize establishment of a master sign plan for the Anton Legacy Apartment Homes as required in the Tustin City Sign Code. Stonich Presentation given. Lumbard Lumbard requested clarification regarding the wording "At Tustin Legacy" being added to the main monuments. Stonich In response to Lumbard's comments, Stonich confirmed that the Conditions of Approval state that the main monument signs (El and E9) would have the words "At Tustin Legacy" added. Agenda — Planning Commission -- October 14, 2014 — Page 2 of 9 Thompson Thompson had favorable comments regarding the "flow" of the context on the monuments. He asked if the remaining signs throughout the Legacy project would follow the main monuments motif or if the sign proposed was unique to the local community enclave. Thompson also asked about the affordable housing nature of the project being part of the signs or advertising. Stonich Stonich responded to Thompson's question regarding the monuments, stating the remaining pylon signs throughout the Legacy project would be compatible with the main monuments. 7:11 p.m. Public Hearing opened. The applicant, Andy Davidson, spoke on behalf of the project. Mr. Davidson's comments generally included: There would be no flags for advertising, only signs and advertising in local magazines. Thompson Thompson asked Mr. Davidson how he would handle the non-qualifying applicants for the affordable housing units. Mr. Davidson stated Anton Legacy would direct the non-qualifying applicants to The Irvine Company's (TIC) development (located across the street from Anton Legacy). Altowaiji Altowaiji asked Mr. Davidson if the current affordable housing list would be "first come, first serve"; when the list was made public; and would those displaced from the affordable Irvine Company units in Tustin Ranch receive preference. Mr. Davidson stated the list would be qualified and based on Fair Housing laws. Management has a list in place, which continues to grow, and those residents living in TIC's affordable communities in Tustin Ranch would have preference. Binsack In response to Altowaiji's question, St. Anton sent out an extensively advertised press release mid-summer, handled by St. Anton's partners, as well as the City's website. All applicants would need to be qualified; however there would be preference for those applicants living and/or working in the City of Tustin. The residents at the affordable communities in Tustin Ranch could apply and/or TIC would direct them to St. Anton. 7:14 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Smith Smith thanked staff and the developer for continuing the branding around the Tustin Legacy. Kozak Kozak had favorable comments regarding the Master Sign Plan. Motion: It was moved by Altowaiji, seconded by Smith to adopt Resolution No. 4270. Motion carried 5-0. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page _3 of 9 Adopted 4. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) 17717 AND DESIGN REVIEW Reso. No. (DR) 2014-02 4271, as amended. A request to subdivide an approximately 2.25 acre site for condominium purposes and construct twenty-six (26) for-sale single family detached residences. APPLICANT: Waft Communities LLC 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 2025 Santa Monica, CA 90405 =1019:01:40 OWNER: Jack E. & Marguerite M. Gould Family Trust & Marguerite M. Gould 2003 Trust 636 Ambrose Lane Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 1872 San Juan Street ENVIRONMENTAL: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to in-fill development. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4271 approving TTM 17717 and DR 2014-02 authorizing the subdivision of an approximately 2.25 acre parcel consisting of one (1) numbered lot for the development of twenty-six (26) single family detached condominiums. Swiontek Presentation given. A letter of support, from the adjacent San Juan Meadows Townhome Homeowner's Association, was presented to the dais. Smith Smith asked staff about the Park Impact fees. He also asked for clarification on specifications in the CC&R's requiring parking enforcement and making use of both spaces in the garage. Swiontek Swiontek's response to Smith's questions generally included: The formula in the Tustin City Code (TCC) is based on the amount of units and a certain percentage of acreage per unit; the actual cost would need to be assessed by the fair market value which is to be determined at this point; and the TCC requirement is to use both spaces in garage for parking vehicles and must maintain a 10x20 foot of free and clear space which will be reiterated in the CC&R's and is also stated in the TCC. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2414 — Page 4 of 9 Thompson Thompson referred to a letter within the report from the City of Irvine with regard to traffic impacts at the City of Tustin's intersections. Swiontek In response to Thompson's question, Swiontek referred to the North Irvine Traffic Mitigation report which included some intersections in the City and how levels of service would be impacted within the City. 7:3 9 p.m. Public Hearing opened. Ms. Donna Clark, resident of San Juan Meadows, asked why the project referred to the units as condominiums if they are 2-story single-family homes. She stated condominiums usually share a common wall with another unit. Ms. Clark is concerned with the noise being an issue when construction commences and also asked if an ordinance was in place referencing hours of construction. Swiontek Swiontek's responses to Ms. Clark's concerns generally included: There is an ordinance on hours of construction, which typically start at 7:00 a.m. (weekdays), 9:00 a.m. (Saturdays), no work on Sundays or on Federal holidays that the City observes. Thompson Thompson asked staff when construction activity must cease. He also asked if there would be a noise level regulation at the property line. Thompson asked the applicant to explain the schedule/start of construction and if there would be any impacts for the residents. Lastly, he asked what the cost for the units would be. Swiontek Swiontek's responses to Thompson's questions generally included: Construction activity would cease at 6:00 p.m. [5:00 p.m. on Saturdays] and noise levels are exempt during hours of construction since construction is on a temporary basis; the applicant would need to comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District with regard to construction, dust, debris, etc. on the site; and if any issues should arise, Code Enforcement would get involved. In response to questions/comments previously mentioned, the applicant, Efrern Joelson stated in general: Introduced members of his team in the audience; thanked Swiontek and staff for the positive staff report and the process of the project; reiterated highlights of the project - pedestrian connectivity; looped drive-ways; emergency access, trash access, livable plan; secondary (common) water connection point with San Juan Meadows; approximate parkland fees would be $525,000 ($20,000 per unit); Waft Communities is on the homeowners' association (HOA) board and would encourage the HOA to come up with their own parking regulations which residents would need to adhere to; explained the difference between single-family residence and a condominium unit (no lot lines); HOA to maintain common areas; required to provide dust, erosion control during construction, muffling, for heavy equipment; construction would begin in the front row (Phase 1), then move backwards; plans to start Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 5 of 9 construction would commence approximately February 2015, construction of the homes would take approximately 6 months, depending on the lender and the sale of homes already built and on the housing market; cost would start in the low $600K's; and models to be complete right after grading in the first row of homes. 7:53 p.m. Public Hearing closed. Altowaiii Altowaiji's comments/concerns generally included: Requested clarification on dedication/easement of San Juan Street and on the required 25 ft. easement required for the entrance; sewer system (public vs. private); favorable comments to staff; and appreciates the cooperation of the developer on the modified design. Swiontek Swiontek stated that the property is still owned to center line of San Juan Street. He then referred question to the Public Works Department. *0 Nishikawa Nishikawa's response to Altowaiiis comments/concerns generally included: Explanation of the research done on the project; the area in question would be dedicated in fee; there would also be a water easement; and the sewer is part of the O.C. Sanitation District therefore he could not respond to whether or not it would be public/private. Swiontek In response to whether or not the sewer would be public/private, Swiontek stated anything on private property is private", except the water which would be maintained by the City. ["I Kozak Kozak had favorable comments for staff and the developer which generally included: Cooperation and collaboration with the project; would like amendments be made to the resolution stating "meets all development standards" and that a "traffic assessment" (streets/intersections) was complete. Lumbard Lumbard had favorable comments for the project ("positive project for our community"). His concern would be the effects of the construction for the neighbors. Smith Smith had favorable comments which generally included: The ingenuity of the front of houses facing out onto San Juan; sense of single-family neighborhood; relatively temporary state of affairs as far as construction and noise levels; and he is confident that South Coast Air Quality Management District would ensure the dust is taken care of. Thompson Thompson had favorable comments which generally included: Well under density; good circulation and surrounding areas; and he was bewildered by the City of Irvine's traffic impact request and asked staff to add clarification to the Resolution. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 6 of 9 Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Altowaiji, to adopt Resolution No. 4271, as amended. Motion carried 5-0. Adopted 5. SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2014-001 (ORDINANCE NO. Reso. No. 1450), MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN 4269 The proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concludes that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment since the proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS/EIR Addendums and Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. 1 1:1*01111 iii iiii; • That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4269, recommending that the Tustin City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1450, approving Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2014-001, amending Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding park related uses as permitted and conditionally permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Reekstin Presentation given. Lumbard Lumbard asked staff if amending the SPA would be easier to include the conditional permitted uses rather than adjust the zones (Planning Area boundaries). Reekstin In response to Lumbard's question, Reekstin stated it was not a significant change adding park related uses which would be consistent with the uses in Planning Area 1. Primarily, it is to accommodate the Park Master Plan. Binsack Binsack stated that the current uses would continue for some time, therefore it would be easier to proceed with the park planning for the near future and it would allow for existing uses to continue. Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 7 of 9 Bobak Bobak stated recommending amendment of the provision of the MCAS Specific Plan relating to permit and conditionally permitted uses would make park uses a permitted use and would not require a conditional use permit. Altowaiii Altowaiii questioned permitted" vs. conditionally permitted He also questioned the need for "extensive detail" of the Environmental Checklist. Bobak Bobak's response to Altowalji's question generally included: The amendment does state "permit"; and the actual amendment to the Specific Plan allows for these permitted uses but the heading of the section that is being amended states "conditionally and permitted uses ". . 04 Binsack To further respond to Altowalji's question, Binsack referred to Exhibit B of the Draft Ordinance 1450, sub header A section, which states "permitted and conditionally permitted uses" and lists a grouping of uses where parks are permitted uses. In response to the comment on the Environmental Checklist, Binsack stated it is required by State law. City staff is ensuring compliance with State law. Motion: It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Thompson, to adopt Resolution No. 4269. Motion carried 5-0. None. REGULAR BUSINESS STAFF CONCERNS: Binsack Binsack informed the Commission that the comments from the October 1, 2014 DCCP Workshop are in the process of being compiled and that a summary would be provided to the Commission at the next Commission meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS: Smith No concerns. Lumbard Lumbard attended the October 1, 2014 Downtown Commercial Core Plan (DCCP) Workshop — favorable comments; and he encouraged increased communication to get more residents involved at the December workshop. Kozak Kozak thanked staff for the agenda and he attended the following events: • 9/28: Divine Wine Affair — fundraiser • 9/30: Water Symposium 0 10/1: DCCP Workshop • 10/2: Tustin Tiller Days Kick-off • 10/4: Tustin Tiller Day Parade • 10/18: Tustin Art Walk Agenda — Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 8 of 9 I Altowaiji Altowaiji attended the following: • 10/1: DCCP Workshop • 10/4: Tiller Days Pancake Breakfast and Reception He also had favorable comments for Parks & Recreation. Thompson Thompson attended the following events: • 9/30: Water Symposium • 10/1: DCCP Workshop • 10/2: Presentation to American Society's Civil Engineers • 10/4: Tustin Tiller Day Parade • 10/9: Mayor's First Annual Business Recognition Luncheon • 10/18: Participating in the tours at the upcoming Art Walk in Tustin. • 10/20: Attending the ULI Conference in New York. 8:19 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is scheduled for Tuesday, October 28, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary Agenda -- Planning Commission — October 14, 2014 — Page 9 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. 4269 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1450, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2014 -001, AMENDING SECTION 3.3.2 (PLANNING AREA 1) OF THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS) TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY ADDING USES SUCH AS BALL FIELDS, COURTS, PLAYGROUNDS AND OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES, PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, PUBLIC PARK, SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING, NATURE CENTER, AND OTHER CIVIC AND COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDINGS AS PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin is proposing a text amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the MCAS, Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted and conditionally permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. B. That the proposed SPA will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres. C. That the proposed SPA is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on October 14, 2014, by the Planning Commission. Resolution No: 4269 Page 2 E. 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 Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former MCAS, Tustin. F. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. G. That many of the proposed additional permitted uses for Planning Area 1, such as ball fields; courts, playgrounds, lighted fields and buildings for civic, cultural and community centers are often associated with existing permitted uses in Planning Area 1, including public school, community college, and private school. H. SPA 2014 -001 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long -term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city -wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed -use, master - planned development. II. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1450 approving SPA 2014 -001 attached hereto as Exhibit B. Resolution No. 4269 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting on the 14th day of October, 2014. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF TUSTIN I, Elizabeth A. Binsack, the undersigned, Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, duly passed and adopted at a regular meetin g on the 14`h day of October, 2014. PLANNING COMMISSIONER AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSTAINED: PLANNING COMMISSIONER ABSENT: LIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary JEFF R. tHOMPSON Chairperson hereby certify that I am the Planning California; that Resolution No. 4269 was of the Tustin Planning Commission, held Altowaiji, Kozak, Lumbard, Smith, Thompson (5) ATTACHMENT B ORDINANCE NO. 1450 ORDINANCE NO. 1450 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (SPA) 2014 -001, AMENDING SECTION 3.3.2 (PLANNING AREA 1) OF THE MARINE CORPS AIR STATION (MCAS) TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY ADDING USES SUCH AS BALL FIELDS, COURTS, PLAYGROUNDS AND OTHER RECREATION FACILITIES, PRIVATE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, PUBLIC PARK, SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING, NATURE CENTER, AND OTHER CIVIC AND COMMUNITY CENTER BUILDINGS AS PERMITTED USES WITHIN PLANNING AREA 1 OF THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the City of Tustin is proposing a text amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. B. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres. C. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. D. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held on said application on October 14, 2014, by the Planning Commission. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4269 recommending that the Tustin City Council approve SPA 2014 -001 by adopting Ordinance No. 1450. E. That on November 4, 2014, a public hearing was duly noticed, called, and held before the City Council concerning SPA 2014 -001 (Ordinance No. 1450). F. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Ordinance No. 1450 SPA 2014 -001 (MCAS Tustin) Page 2 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 Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. G. An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. H. That many of the proposed additional permitted uses for Planning Area 1, such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds, lighted fields and buildings for civic, cultural and community centers are often associated with existing permitted uses in Planning Area 1, including public school, community college, and private school. SPA 2014 -001 is consistent with the Tustin General Plan. The Land Use Element includes the following City goals and policies for the long -term growth, development, and revitalization of Tustin, including the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan area. 1. Achieve balanced development. 2. Ensure that compatible and complementary development occurs. 3. Improve city -wide urban design. 4. Promote economic expansion and diversification. 5. Implement a reuse plan for MCAS Tustin which maximizes the appeal of the site as a mixed -use, master - planned development. SECTION 2. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is hereby amended to read as provided in Exhibit B. SECTION 3. Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Tustin hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and Ordinance No. 1450 SPA 2014 -001 (MCAS Tustin) Page 3 each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City Council for the City of Tustin on this day of 2014. ELWYN A. MURRAY, Mayor REY C. PARKER, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) ORDINANCE NO. 1450 JEFFREY C. PARKER, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1450 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 4th day of November, 2014 and was given its second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day of , 2014 by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES:' COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: JEFFREY C. PARKER City Clerk Published: EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 1450 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST 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 This checklist of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 2014 -001 (Ordinance No. 1450 — MCAS Tustin Specific Plan) Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Scott Reekstin Phone: (714) 573 -3016 Project Location: The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is generally bounded by Edinger Avenue to the northeast, Red Hill Avenue to the northwest, Barranca Parway to the southwest and Jamboree Road and Harvard Avenue to the southeast, in Tustin, Orange County, California Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing a text amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports filed lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between G Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Surrounding Uses: Northeast: Residential, Light Industrial, and Commercial. Northwest: Light Industrial and Commercial Southeast: Residential and Industrial Southwest: Light Industrial and Commercial Previous Environmental Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On 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. F-11-and Use and Planning ❑Population and Housing ❑Geology and Soils ❑Hydrology and Water Quality ❑Air Quality ❑Transportation & Circulation ❑Biological Resources ❑Mineral Resources ❑Agricultural Resources C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑Noise ❑Public Services ❑Utilities and Service Systems ❑Aesthetics ❑Cultural Resources ❑Recreation ❑Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ 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: Scott Reekstin, Principal Planner Date-.L.012- 4 Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS See Attached EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista'? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway'? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? I1. 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? Ill. 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 arty 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? c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people'? ❑ No Substantial New .1fore 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, tilling, 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'? I) 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? e) 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 Ncw More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ID ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ply? 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 stotmwater 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 sciche, tsunami, or nmdflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project a) Physically divide an established community'? No Substantial New More Change From .Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? X1. NOISE — Would the project result in a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome 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? t) 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 ❑ No Substantial Mcw More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ .❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ?CIII. 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)? c) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ 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?, ❑ ❑ ?CIII. 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)? c) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 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 constmction 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 neede(V 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'? ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑... ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M ❑ ❑ M 11 ❑ 9 SECTION D EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 2014 -001, MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS /EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On 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 Addendums and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin. The FEIS /EIR, Supplement, and Addendums analyzed the environmental consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (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. Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (1 -5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (1 -405). Tustin Legacy is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest, Edinger Avenue and Irvine Center Drive on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 2 southeast, and Barranca Parkway on the southwest. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties. The City of Tustin is proposing a text amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter the current adopted MICAS Tustin Specific Plan, but will amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 is generally located between Red Hill Avenue and Armstrong Avenue and between Warner Avenue and Valencia Avenue, and along Lansdowne Road. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment will allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan, which encompasses 31.5 acres. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity, and /or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined that SPA 2014 -001 (Project or Proposed Project) is within the scope of the previously approved FEIS /EIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document is required by CEQA. The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 3 park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to permit Planning Area 2 uses within Planning Area 1. These uses were previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. If adopted, the Proposed Project would allow park related uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan to accommodate a portion of the City's Community Park Master Plan. The amendment would not change the future development condition that was analyzed in the FEIS /EIR and there would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. No new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual quality. The implementation of the Project would continue the visual change from the abandoned military facilities onsite to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional uses and development. This visual change, as part of the overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy development was not a significant impact in the FEIS /EIR. There are no designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site is also not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp hangars from the FEIS /EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project would not affect these hangars. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 4 Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe aesthetic impacts would result from the adoption and implementation of the Project; therefore, no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS /EIR mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -58 through 3 -67, 4 -81 through 4 -92), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -3 through 5- 7), and Addendum 2 (Page 24 through 26) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert/ Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 5 There were no agricultural uses on the Site in the recent past. There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site. The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. There is no new information relative to agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to agricultural resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS /EIR, the Tustin City Council adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January 16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00 -90). No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -83 through 3 -87, 4 -109 through 114), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -8 through 5- 9), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 28) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 6 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, other development standards or vehicle trips that would lead to increased air emissions from vehicle trips. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to air quality. The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the FEIS /EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant unavoidable short-term (construction), long -term (operational), and cumulative air quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts. Consistent with the findings in the FEIS /EIR, implementation of future development on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction air quality impacts because it is part of the 'project' analyzed in the FEIS /EIR for Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 7 which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project Site were previously addressed in the FEIS /EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the FEIS /EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be different or more significant long -term and /or cumulative impacts on the environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS /EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development of the site. However, the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -143 through 3 -153, 4 -207 through 4 -230, 7 -41 through 7 -42), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -10 through 5 -28), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 32) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan 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? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 8 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to biological resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in the FEIS /EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 9 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 (Page 3 -75 through 3 -82, 4 -103 through 4 -108, 7 -26 through 7 -27), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -28 through 5 -39), and Addendum 2 (Page 33 through 35) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 10 the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered in the FEIS /EIR. It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the FEIS /EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger -the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to cultural and paleontological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -68 through 3 -74, 4 -93 through 4 -102, 7 -24 through 7 -26), Addendum 1 (Page 5-40 through 5 -45), and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: —Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 11 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? 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR as prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology and soils. The FEIS /EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan would include non - seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high - intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS /EIR concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 12 established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS /EIR. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -88 through 3 -97, 4 -115 through 4 -123, 7 -28 through 7 -29), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -46 through 5-49), and Addendum 2 (Page 38 through 40) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: —Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 13 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? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other landowners. The FEIS /EIR included a detailed discussion of the historic and then - current hazardous material use and hazardous waste generation within the Specific Plan area. The Navy is responsible for planning and executing environmental restoration programs in response to releases of hazardous substances for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS /EIR concluded that the implementation of the Specific Plan would not have a significant environmental impact from the hazardous wastes, substances, and materials on the property during construction or operation since the Navy would implement various remedial actions pursuant to the Compliance Programs that would remove, manage, or isolate potentially hazardous substances in soils and groundwater. As identified in the FEIS /EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The Proposed Project does not propose changes to the 100 - foot height limitation included in the Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 14 Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regards to hazards and hazardous materials that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -106 through 3 -117, 4 -130 through 4 -138, 7 -30 through 7 -31), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -49 through 5 -55), and Addendum 2 (Page 44 through 47) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4 -8, 10- 2, 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30 -33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41 Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4 Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) Tustin General Plan VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in 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 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 15 which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 16 buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to hydrology and water quality. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology /water quality that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to hydrology /water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to hydrology /water quality. As concluded in the FEIS /EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for future development projects on the Project sites in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of insignificance. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS /EIR. No increase in development intensity is proposed as part of the Project. Future development will be required to comply with Specific Plan development standards, including FAR and landscaping and would require preparation of a WQMP. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of impervious surface area from the amount that was previously analyzed in the Specific Plan. The Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management systems previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The drainage pattern and water management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the FEIS /EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater levels, or local recharge have not changed. In addition, no change to the backbone drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the Project. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 17 alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -98 through 3 -105, 4 -124 through 4 -129, 7 -29 through 7 -30), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -56 through 5 -91), and Addendum 2 (Page 48 through 51) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to land use and planning. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to land use and planning that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 18 The SPA does not substantively change the Specific Plan and does not increase development intensities or introduce incompatible uses. Implementation of the Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -3 through 3 -17, 4 -3 through 4 -13, 7 -16 through 7 -18), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -92 through 5 -94), and Addendum 2 (Page 52 through 54) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 19 Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. There are no known mineral resources located at the site. The Project would not cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to mineral resources that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to mineral resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to mineral resources. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -91), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -95), and Addendum 2 (Page 55) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XI. NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 20 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The ambient noise environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses, a rail line located north of Edinger Avenue, and construction and remediation activities on surrounding parcels. Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. There would be no change to development intensity, traffic generation building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. No new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to noise. The Project would not modify the noise - related land use distribution within the Tustin Legacy site. All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan. Consequently, long -term traffic- related noise impacts associated with implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Short -term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified FEIS /EIR; implementation of any future project would be required to comply with applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus avoiding significant short-term construction - related noise impacts. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 21 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 effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR were certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -154 through 3 -162 and 4 -231 through 4 -243). Addendum 1 (Page 5 -96 through 5 -101), and Addendum 2 (Page 57 through 60) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 22 The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to housing and any associated population. There is no new information relative to population and housing that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population and housing. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the 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 (Page 3 -18 through 3 -34, 4 -14 through 4 -29, and 7 -18 through 7 -19), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -101 through 5 -111), and Addendum 2 (Page 61 through 62) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MICAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 23 Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not cause impacts to public services. There would be no change to development intensity, which would lead to an increased demand for public services. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to public services and facilities that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation. measures are required in relation to impacts to public services and facilities. Fire Protection Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Implementation of any future project will require compliance with existing OCFA regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS /EIR, the existing fire stations in the Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy. No new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no physical impacts were identified. Police Protection Police protection for the project site was discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from .those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Implementation of the Project would not increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was previously anticipated in the FEIS /EIR. Schools The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the Project does not generate K -12 students and there is no impact to K -12 schools. Future developers would be required to pay school fees for public uses on the Tustin Legacy site consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 24 Parks SPA 2014 -001 would add park related as a permitted use in Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and would have potentially beneficial impacts by providing additional opportunities for parkland. Parks for the project site were discussed and analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR. Other Public Facilities The FEIS /EIR concluded that public facilities would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The Project is administrative only and would not modify conditions or proposed development which was already analyzed in the previously approved FEIS /EIR; therefore, no substantial change is expected. The FEIS /EIR does identify that the City will require certain conditions for individual future development projects (identified as Implementation Measures on pages 4- 67 through 4 -70) to be complied with as appropriate. Proposed SPA 2014 -001 will result in no changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 25 Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -47 through 3 -57, 4 -56 through 4 -80 and 7 -21 through 7 -22), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -112 through 5 -122), and Addendum 2 (Page 63 through 65) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to recreation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 26 was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Sources: Field Observation FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47 through 3 -57, 4 -56 through 4 -80, 7 -21 through 7 -22), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -122 through 5 -127), and Addendum 2 (Page 66 through 67) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan Tustin City Code Section 9331d (1) (b) Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION /TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (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)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 27 Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no net changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip generation. There are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The future development of an additional 7.5 acres of parkland within Planning Area 1 that would be facilitated by the Proposed Project is expected to generate a maximum of 242 average daily trips (ADT) which is considered negligible and would not have any impacts to traffic and transportation. Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. However, the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, also concluded that Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Applicable measures will be conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Future projects will be evaluated to ensure Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 28 consistency with this EIS /EIR and subsequent studies to ensure there are no new impacts. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -118 through 3 -142, 4 -139 through 4 -206 and 7 -32 through 7 -42), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -127 through 5 -146), and Addendum 2 (Page 68 through 73) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Page 3 -35 through 3 -62, Page 3 -70 through 3 -81, Page 3 -82 through 3 -88, and Page 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) 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? e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? f) 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? g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? i) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 29 Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature and would not result in an increase of development intensity or change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. There are no new or increased significant adverse project- specific or cumulative impacts with regard to utilities /services systems that are identified as a result of the adoption and implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS /EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS /EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities and service systems. The FEIS /EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future individual development projects identified as "Mitigation" or "Implementation Measures" (pages 4 -43 through 4 -46) to be complied with as appropriate. Proposed SPA 2014 -001 will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated by the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future development within Planning Area 1. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 30 Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3 -35 through 3 -46, 4 -32 through 4 -55 and 7 -20 through 7 -21), Addendum 1 (Page 5 -147 through 5 -165), and Addendum 2 (Page 74 through 76) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Page 3 -35 through 3 -62, Page 3 -70 through 3 -81, Page 3 -82 through 3 -88, and Page 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. SPA 2014 -001 would amend Section 3.3.2 (Planning Area 1) of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, by adding uses such as ball fields, courts, playgrounds and other recreation facilities, private recreational facilities, public park, sports field lighting, nature center, and other civic and community center buildings as permitted uses within Planning Area 1 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would not increase the overall development potential allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Proposed Project is administrative in nature. There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions, setbacks, signage, and other development standards. The FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project would not cause unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS /EIR; there are no new mitigation measures Evaluation of Environmental Impacts SPA 2014 -001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Page 31 required; and there are no new significant adverse project - specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that were identified, nor would any project - specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project. All feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIS /EIR will be incorporated into subsequent development project approvals. Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation measures exist with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS /EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS /EIR was certified as complete. Mitigation /Monitoring Required: The - FEIS /EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS /EIR and would be included in future development within Planning Area 1, as applicable. Sources: Field Observations FEIS /EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 5-4 through 5 -11) MCAS Tustin Specific Plan /Reuse Plan (Page 3 -35 through 3 -62, Page 3 -70 through 3 -81, Page 3 -82 through 3 -88, and Page 3 -104 through 3 -137) Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS /EIR, Supplement, and Addendums, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS /EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to future development projects, as applicable. EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 1450 SPA 2014 -001 Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations 3.3.2 Planning Areas 1 -A, 1 -B, 1 -C, I-D, 1- E,1- F,1-G, 1 -H, 1 -I, 1-J, 1 -K and 1 -L (Education Village) The purpose and intent of the Education Village designation is as described in Section 2.2.1, Land Use Designations. A. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses The following uses shall be permitted by right where the symbol "P" occurs, or by conditional use permit where the symbol "C" occurs. • Animal care center (in PA 1 -B or in PA 1 -I as shown in Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1) • Ballfields, courts. playgrounds and other recreation P E facilities • Children's intermediate care shelter (only in PA I -C as P shown in Figure 3 -1) • Churches or other religious institutions C • Ctvip, cultural and community center buildings P • Government Facilities P • Law enforcement training facility (in PA 1 -B or in PA 1- P I as shown in Figure 3 -1 in the event that a land exchange occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an Agreement is reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -1) Nature center with live animals P • Nursery school or child care center P • Private recreational facilities P • Public park p • Public school, community college, educational campus P or other educationally oriented uses • Private school P • Sports field lighting where lighting, is designed to confine direct rays and glare to the premises P — The following non - education - related uses are permitted or conditionally permitted only in Planning Areas 1 -D, 1 -E, 1 -G, 1 -H, 1 -K, and 1 -L. Such uses would be permitted in these planning areas only in the event an exchange of land occurs between the City of Tustin and SOCCCD. Such uses would be permitted in Planning Area 1 -B only in the event an exchange of land occurs between the County of Orange and SOCCCD and an agreement is reached City of Tustin WAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Pian Page 3 -18 i Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -I. Such uses would also be permitted in PA 1 -I in the event an exchange of land does not occur between the County of Orange ® and SOCCCD and an agreement is not reached between the County and SOCCCD for County's future ownership of PA 1 -I. • Automobile research, design, and development P • Communications businesses P • Corporate headquarters/office P • Data storage, retrieval, send - receive operations P • Electronic equipment testing P • Experimental/prototype assembly and testing facilities P • General offices P • Industrial/commercial incubator (flexible) buildings P • Instructional/vocational school P • Live performance facility /amphitheater P • Medical/dental clinics P • Medical offices/healthcare centers P • _ Motion picture and recording studios P • Pharmaceutical products manufacturing/distribution P • Precision machine shop P • Professional offices P • Research and development facilities (including P laboratories, biotechnology, product development, and P manufacturing) • Science laboratories • Simulation development uses P • Software design uses P • Technology exchange/transfer service P • Other non - listed uses that further the purpose and intent P/C of the Education Village as determined by the Community Development Director B. Prohibited Uses The following non - educational related uses are prohibited in Planning Areas 1 -B, 1 -D, 1 -E, I -H, 1 -I, 1 -K, 1 -L • Residential/commercial mixed uses, live /work (loft/mezzanine) uses, unless associated with or support educational uses • Residential dwellings (except dormitory and student housing) • Shopping centers or commercial strip centers and retail uses over 15,000 square feet in size • Hotels and motels • Grocery stores/ supermarkets, mini- markets or mini- marts, or similar food retail operations unless specifically ancillary to an educational use or as approved by the Community Development MM Chapter 3 • Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations Director • Congregate care facilities • Health club (except for use by students, faculty and campus employees) • Live Entertainment/Entertainment uses, such as commercial motion picture theaters, unless associated with educational uses • Bingo parlors, bingo halls, casinos, or other gaming establishments conducting games of chance • Drive - through uses • Auto sales, leasing or repairs, and recreational vehicle (RV) sales, rentals or repairs • Second hand stores, thrift stores, pawn shops, or indoor or outdoor flea markets or farmer's markets, unless approved by the Community Development Department • Sexually oriented businesses as defined in Section 3911 of the Tustin City Code and subject to applicable law • Traveling carnivals or fairs, except as may be approved for promotional events under the Specific Plan or Tustin City Code • Uses listed in Tustin City Code Section 9270b Jail Facilities C. Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted use on the same site and would include: • Guard houses, gates and other security facility structures • Maintenance facilities, structures, outdoor storage • Post office • Support commercial, office, retail service uses • Support commercial concessions D. Unlisted Uses Those uses not specifically listed are subject to a determination by the Community Development Director as either permitted, permitted subject to a conditional use permit or prohibited consistent with the purpose of the land use designation of this Planning Area and the Specific Plan. Decisions of the Director are appealable to the Planning Commission. E. Site Development Standards 1. Minimum lot area- no minimum requirement 2. Maximum building height - 100 feet (six stories) City of Tustin MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan Page 3.20