HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 ZONE CHANGE 02-006 01-21-03 ' NO. 1
AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 2003
TO:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF
SUBJECT:
ZONE CHANGE 02-006- MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
SUMMARY
Zone Change 02-006 is a proposal to add Section 9246 to the Tustin City Code
establishing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations
and amending the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan).
RECOMMENDATION
That the Tustin City Council introduce and have first reading by title only to adopt
Ordinance No. 1257 approving Zone Change 02-006 adding Section 9246 to the Tustin
City Code and amending the Tustin Zoning Map (Attachment 1).
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct impact on the General Fund at this time. The Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin
is a comprehensive planning tool to guide the physical development of the former
military installation and an adjoining 4.1-acre privately owned (Irvine Company) parcel
of land.
BACKGROUND
This matter was continued from the December 2, 2002, Tustin City Council Agenda.
The matter was continued at that time due to ongoing final litigation settlement
negotiations between the City of Tustin and the Santa Ana Unified School District
(SAUSD). With the accomplishment of the final Settlement Agreement on December
27, 2002, the subject matter can now be considered and acted upon by the Tustin City
Council.
In accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990
(10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment COmmission approved by the President and
accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995, the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
Tustin was closed on July 2, 1999.
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
January 21, 2003
Page 2
Federal law provides the opportunity for the responsible local authority to develop a
reuse plan that will guide the disposal actions of the United States Department of Navy
(DON) at the site. The City of Tustin ("City") was approved by the Department of
Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin. Between
November 1992 and October 1996, the City of Tustin held numerous public meetings,
workshops, weekend workshops and public hearings soliciting broad-based public input
and comment on a variety of base redevelopment issues, opportunities and constraints.
These efforts eventually led to the development, consideration and rejection of a
number of Reuse Plan alternatives prior to the selection of the approved Reuse Plan for
MCAS Tustin. In October 1996, the City, acting as the LRA for MCAS Tustin, submitted
a Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the DON. Minor revisions to the Reuse Plan were
identified in an "Errata" to the Reuse Plan that was forwarded to the DON in September
1998. The Reuse Plan approved by the DON is comprised of approximately 1602 acres
of federal property and a 4.1 acre privately owned parcel. The majority of the site or
approximately 1,511 acres in the Reuse Plan are located within the City of Tustin with
approximately 95 acres within the City of Irvine (Attachment 2).
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council approved General Plan Amendment
(GPA) 00-001 which adopted amendments to various Elements of the General Plan
needed to establish conformity with the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and which officially
established a new "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" General Plan designation for that
portion of the Reuse Plan property within the City of Tustin. Approval of Zone Change
02-006 and adoption of Ordinance 1257 would establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
as the development and reuse regulations that will constitute zoning and planning
requirements for the site intended to regulate future development at the former MCAS
Tustin property and an adjoining 4.1 acre private parcel.
Numerous Planning Commission workshops in 2001 and 2002 on the Specific Plan
document were subsequently held on the Specific Plan document with the most recent
workshops having been held on July 22, 2002 and September 9, 2002.
On October 28, 2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Zone Change
02-006 (Attachment 3). During the Public Hearing, Mr. David Hesseltine, an attorney with
the firm of Connor, Blake & Griffin, representing the Santa Ana Unified School District
(SAUSD) provided verbal testimony and distributed a letter dated October 28, 2002,
objecting to Zone Change 02-006 (Attachment 4). At the conclusion of the Public Hearing,
the City Attorney provided verbal responses to the comments received at the public
hearing (October 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes are provided as
Attachment 5). The City Attorney's written response to the Connor, Blake & Griffin
comment letter is provided as Attachment 6. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3848 recommending that the Tustin City
Council approve Zone Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map and amending
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
January 21, 2003
Page 3
the Tustin City Code by adding Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning designation and regulations (Attachment 7).
DISCUSSION
California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority for cities to adopt
specific plans by resolution or by ordinance. A Specific Plan is one device for
implementing the goals and policies of the Tustin General Plan. A Specific Plan
contains the development and reuse regulations that will constitute zoning and planning
requirements for the site.
City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 1257 would approve Zone Change 02-006
amending the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City Code as summarized below:
· Amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and Amendment, and,
· Amend the Tustin City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations.
The proposed MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) (the "Specific
Plan" or "Plan") includes detailed planning policies, regulations, implementation
strategies and procedures necessary to guide the reuse and development of the site.
The Specific Plan has been designed to be practical in economic terms and visionary in
its ability to create and respond to future market opportunities. A careful balance
between certainty and flexibility underlies the provisions of the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan is organized into five chapters as follows:
· Chapter 1 -an introduction and description of the Plan.
Chapter 2 - identifies the intended land uses, community structure, urban design,
infrastructure, and utilities for the Plan.
· Chapter 3 - the development/reuse requirements and design guidelines.
· Chapter 4 - the administration of the Specific Plan and how development/reuse
projects will be processed by the City of Tustin.
· Chapter 5 - Reuse Implementation Strategy.
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
January 21, 2003
Page 4
· Chapter 6 - Appendix (definitions of the terms used in the document), General
Plan consistency analysis, and other background information.
Land use and development regulations contained in the Specific Plan establishes by
land use category the authorized development square footage and dwelling units
permitted, types of use permitted, minimum building site area, maximum building
heights, maximum lot coverage permitted, minimum gross floor area per residential unit,
landscaping requirements, parking standards, signage regulations, etc.
Adoption of the Specific Plan would create the regulatory framework that could, when
development is completed, result in:
· a maximum of 4,049 dwelling units within the City of Tustin;
· Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless;
· an Urban Regional Park designation around the northern blimp hangar;
· a large Community Core area allowing mixed uses;
· specialized educational, social service, and law enforcement facilities within a
Learning Village;
· a Golf Village area with hotel and ancillary retail uses;
approximately 11.4 million square feet of non-residential uses such as
commercial business, retail, office and light industrial uses, and public and
recreation uses (approximately 2.2 million feet is existing floor area on the base
and 9.2 million square feet is potential new floor area) could be developed;
In addition, both of the National Register of Historic Places listed blimp hangars could
be reused, if financially feasible and based on a detailed agreement that the City and
County of Orange have entered into with the Department of the Navy, federal Advisory
Council and State Office of Historic Preservation. The Specific Plan also proposes
major transportation circulation improvements including the extension of Tustin Ranch
Road south of its current terminus to Von Karman, the extension of Warner Avenue to
Jamboree Road and the installation of an internal looped arterial roadway within the
project area. The amount and phasing of development will be based on the sequence
of infrastructure installation both on-site and off-site. Also, adoption of Zone Change
02-006 would bring the site's current zoning (Public and Institutional) into conformance
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
January 21, 2003
Page 5
with the current Tustin General Plan designation for the site (MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan).
A more detailed description of the Reuse Plan's Neighborhood areas is provided in the
October 28, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 3).
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the
Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. et.
seq. 21000) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section
15000 et. seq.), the City of Tustin and Department of Navy completed a Final Joint
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). On January
16, 2001, the Tustin City Council certified the Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse
of the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (the Program EIS/EIR). A Notice of
Determination was filed on January 23, 2001. Proposed Zone Change 02-006 which
includes a Zoning Map Amendment and Amendment to the Tustin City Code was
evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. No additional environmental
analysis or action is required prior to City action on the proposed project.
ANALYSIS
California Government Code Section 65451 requires the following of a Specific Plan:
(a) A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all
of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including
open space, within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the
land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and
standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural
resources, where applicable.
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
January 21, 2003
Page 6
(4) A program of implementation measures including regulations,
programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to
carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific
plan to the general plan.
In addition, California Government Code Section 65454 states: "No Specific Plan may
be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the
general plan."
The City Council is requested to find that the proposed MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (with
corrected minor typographical errors as identified in "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Corrections", Exhibit "C" of Ordinance 1257) meets all of the aforementioned
Government Code requirements and introduce and have first reading by title only to
adopt Ordinance No. 1257 approving Zone Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning
Map to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and amending the
Tustin City Code to establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific
Plan) zoning regulations.
.
That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated Reuse
Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin
City Code be amended prior to implementing actions that will result in the
economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes.
2. That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02-006, an amendment of the
Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and an amendment to the Tustin City Code to
establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning
regulations in accordance with Section 65451 of the California Government
Code.
,
,
That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will result in the
systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and will serve as an
effective guide for the orderly growth and development of compatible uses of the
subject property in a manner that will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent
to the former MCAS Tustin property.
Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been
considered.
William A. Huston
Zone Change 02-006
January 21, 2003
Page 7
5. That Zone Change 02-006 and establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan.
6. Administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is thoroughly integrated into the
City's development processing system.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director of Community Development
-~hristine A. Shingleton//'~)
Assistant City Managc~'"
Dana Ogdon
Program Manager
Attachments: Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Ordinance 1257 Approving Zone Change 02-006, an
amendment to the Tustin Zoning Map to reclassify certain
properties from their existing Public And Institutional (P&I)
District zoning designation to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) in order to establish
consistency with General Plan Amendment 00-001, and
the addition of Section 9246 to the Tustin City Code
related to the establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations.
MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries.
October 28, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning Commission
on Zone Change 02-006.
Letter submitted to the Planning Commission on October
28, 2002 by Connor, Blake & Griffin.
Minutes from the October 28, 2002 Planning Commission
Meeting.
Written responses to Connor, Blake & Griffin letter of
October 28, 2002.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3848 recommending
City Council approval of Zone Change 02-006.
S:\Red\ccREPOR'l'Vncasspecificplan2.doc
Attachment 1
Ordinance No. 1257
ORDINANCE NO. 1257
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE
CHANGE 02-006, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
TUSTIN ZONING MAP TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM THEIR EXISTING PUBLIC
AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) DISTRICT ZONING
DESIGNATION TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 00-001, AND THE ADDITION OF
SECTION 9246 TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN) ZONING REGULATIONS.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows;
A,
The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially
closed on July 2, 1999 as a result of recommendations by the
Federal Base. Closure and Realignment Commission.
B.
The City of Tustin approved a Reuse Plan in October 1996, that was
subsequently amended by an Errata in September 1998, and which
provides for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin and an
approximate 4.1-acre immediately adjacent parcel currently owned
by The Irvine Company.
C.
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution
00-90 that certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and
Reuse of MCAS Tustin, and adopted Resolution 00-91 that adopted
General Plan Amendment 00-001 establishing a MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan general plan land use designation for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
Do
The Tustin Zoning Map currently identifies the zoning for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
as Public and Institutional (P&I). Adoption of a zoning designation
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 2
Eo
F.
G,
H.
J,
K,
L,
consistent with the approved Reuse Plan and General Plan
Amendment 00-001 is now required.
The City of Tustin has prepared the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and
proposed Zoning Map change to ensure the orderly development
and improvement of the former MCAS Tustin and immediately
adjacent private property consistent with the general plan
objectives, policies, programs for development of the former MCAS
Tustin and an approximate 4.1-acre adjacent parcel currently
owned by The Irvine Company.
The Tustin City Code does not currently include provisions
establishing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan zoning regulations and
requirements and therefore must be amended to provide sufficient
and clear guidance regarding development consistent with the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designation within the Tustin General
Plan.
Section 65850 of the Government Code allows the City to adopt
ordinances that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land;
the intensity of land use; and off-street parking and loading.
This Code Amendment is necessary to protect the health, welfare,
safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the citizens of Tustin
and the community vision for the City by providing permanent
regulations for the former MCAS Tustin site.
The Planning Commission, at a public hearing that was duly
noticed, called, and held on Zone Change 02-006 on October 28,
2002, approved Resolution No. 3848 recommending that the City
Council adopt Zone Change 02-006.
A public hearing was duly called, noticed, and agendized for
consideration of Zone Change 02-006 by the Tustin City Council on
December 2, 2002, but the matter was continued until January 21,
2003.
On January 21, 2003, a public hearing was held on Zone Change
02-006 by the Tustin City Council.
Proposed Zone Change 02-006 which includes a Zoning Map
Amendment and Amendment to the Tustin City Code was
evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. No additional
environmental analysis or action is required prior to City action on
the proposed project.
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 3
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 02-006 which
approves the following specific actions:
,
Amend the Tustin zoning map to reclassify the Tustin portion of the former
MCAS Tustin and an adjacent 4.1-acre parcel currently owned by The
Irvine Company from Public and Institutional to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific Plan) as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
.
Amend Article 9 of the Tustin City Code to add Section 9246 to the Tustin
Municipal Code to read as follows:
9246 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan)
a. Purpose
The purpose of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific
Plan) is to establish zoning regulations to guide the orderly development
and improvement in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan for
that portion of the city which is designated as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
on the official zoning map of the city. The preparation and adoption of a
specific plan is authorized by Chapter 3, Article 8 of the State of California
Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.).
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan replaces the usual development
standards otherwise applicable to most property within the City of Tustin.
b. Adoption of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
There is adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the text of which is set
forth in the document entitled "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" attached to this
ordinance as Exhibit B, as corrected by changes identified as "MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan Corrections" and provided as Exhibit C, which are
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
c. Applicability
The SP-1 Specific Plan District is established by this chapter. The
provisions of this section shall apply to all property shown on the official
zoning map within the SP-1 Specific Plan District. The regulations set
forth in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan shall apply to the SP-1 Specific
Plan District only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Tustin
General Plan.
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 4
d. Permitted Uses and Development Standards
All property within the SP-1 District shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with all policies, requirements, regulations and provisions set
forth the in the MCAS Tustin.Specific Plan.
e. Zoning Adoption or Change
The SP-1 District zoning shall be adopted or changed by the same
procedure prescribed within the Tustin City Code for zoning district
amendments and consistent with State of California Planning and Zoning
Law. An amendment to the MC^S Tustin Specific Plan may be processed
as described within Section 4.2.7 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Amendments to the MC^S Tustin Specific Plan may be adopted by
ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the
Tustin City Council.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY
All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish
the purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall apply only
to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional
as applied to all facts, all of the remaining provisions of this ordinance shall
continue to be fully effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the day of ,2003.
TRACY WILLS WORLEY
Mayor
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1257
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members
of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing
Ordinance No. 1257 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of
the Tustin City Council, held on the 21st day of January, 2003 and was given its
second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the day of ,2003 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Mcas~ncasreuseplan\ordinance 1257-2.doc
Exhibit A
Tustin Zoning Map Amendment
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
(SP-1 Specific Plan)
Exhibit B
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
(Copy on File with Tustin City Clerk)
Exhibit C
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Corrections
(Proposed additions and deletions to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
are indicated with underline and strikethrough, respectively)
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
The neighborhoods of the plan are intended to establish a community
structure for the Plan and provide the basis for the range of land uses,
intensity of development, urban design characteristics, and development
regulations specified in Chapter 3.
The Land Use Plan contains eight (8) neighborhoods as shown on Figure
2-2. A statistical summary of the land uses contained in each
Neighborhood is shown on Table 2-2.
A. Neighborhood A- Learning Village
Neighborhood A is located along the western edge of the site,
bordered by Red Hill Avenue on the west, Armstrong Avenue on the
east, Warner Avenue on the south, and an existing business center on
the north. The Learning Village will be an important anchor for the
community with a range of public-serving uses within a walkable
campus setting. By virtue of its uses and operation, the Learning
Village will be linked to many other uses and activities within the
Plan area. Its primary functions are to provide education, training,
and specific social service functions identified in Section 2.3.5,
Public Benefit Conveyance Uses. Primary access to Neighborhood A
will be from a proposed North Loop Road (extension of Valencia
Avenue eastward) and Armstrong Avenue. Secondary access will be
provided by Warner Avenue.
B. Neighborhood B - Village Housing
Neighborhood B is located in the northwestem quadrant of the site,
bordered by Edinger Avenue on the north, Tustin Ranch Road on the
east, the proposed North Loop Road on the south (extension of
Valencia Avenue), and Armstrong Avenue on the west. Through reuse
or new development of a range of housing types, Neighborhood B is
expected to offer basic, affordable housing within the Plan area. The
housing will be complemented by commercial village services that
will meet the daily shopping needs of residents, employees and
visitors to the site. The neighborhood will also have a supporting
function as a transition or buffer area between existing residential
neighborhoods north of Edinger Avenue and the Leaming Village and
Community .Core uses. Primary access to Neighborhood B will be
from North Loop Road. Secondary access will be provided by
Armstrong Avenue and the West Connector Road. The Neighborhood
map (Figure 2-2), also identifies a shaded area within Neighborhood
B that represents a conceptual design area for the future Tustin Ranch
Road interchange.
City of Tustin
MC/~S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Page 2-12
Chapter 2, Plan Description
F. Homeless Service Providers
The Base Closure Task Force in the development of the Reuse Plan
for MCAS Tustin and related Homeless Assistance Submission
detailed a strategy for accommodating homeless needs at the former
base in both Tustin and Irvine. The Base Closure Task Force
unanimously recommended (including the Task Force representative
from the City of Irvine) the provision of certain family transitional
housing. The Reuse Plan identified fourteen (14) units within the
City of Irvine (Parcel 37) and thirty six (36) units with the City of
Tustin (Parcels 34 and 35) and recommended that the Department of
the Navy either: 1) convey the units to the City and then the City
would negotiate the sale of the units and subsequent leasing within
Tustin's jurisdictional limits to the Salvation Army (24 family units),
the Orange Coast Interfaith Shelter (6 family units) and Dove
Housing (6 family units) and in Irvine's jurisdictional limits to
Families Forward (14 family units); or 2) in the event that the
Department of the Navy did not approve conveyance to the City, it
was the desire that the Department of the Navy make a direct transfer
of the units to the homeless providers.
Unfortunately, the Department of the Navy rejected a portion of the
Economic Development Conveyance Application for MCAS Tustin
in particular the proposal to acquire the property on parcels 35 and 37
(which contain housing units). The Department of the Navy working
with the General Services Administration has decided to sell the two
parcels through an auction process. With this decision the
Department of the Navy has also decided not to convey units directly
to a homeless service provider. The decision also precludes Tustin
from being able to specifically acquire and convey the 14 units
within the City of Irvine directly to Families Forward. (In the case of
units in Tustin, provisions in the Reuse Plan permitted homeless
accommodation to be distributed on Parcels 34 or 35. The City has
acquired Parcel 34).
As a result of the Department of the Navy's decision on the 14 units
in Irvine, the City of Tustin does not have the authority over the
property, either as a property owner or as a project-reviewing agency
able to condition a future development proposal, to ensure the
provision of the recommended 14-units to Families Forward. It is
within the Department of the Navy's or the City of Irvine's sole
control and authority to make such commitments. The Department of
the Navy has also taken the position that it is Irvine's responsibility
to implement the Reuse Plan within its jurisdiction. Provisions of the
Reuse Plan contained in $ee6o~ Chapter 3 as reviewed__and
recommended by the City of Irvine and as evaluated in the
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 2-57
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
IRWD has expressed interest in giving up ownership of existing well
properties on the northwest side of the site at Red Hill Avenue in exchange
for new well sites near the site's southern border, llt,~ll.. ,,.. o.~..,o";* ...... ~.~,, o..,.,l'~ .... .... ;~
~; ..... o 8 *' ...... ~'~* ....... ~" A~,,~ Well sites will need to be
negotiated between IRWD and the development. The exchange would
provide an opportunity to develop these sites and integrate the new sites
into the planned business areas. The new well sites will be used during
peak periods to provide reclaimed water.
City of Tustin
Page 2-92
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
2.17URBAN DESIGN PLAN
The MCAS Tustin site is a property of regional significance and is one of
the largest remaining underdeveloped sites in central Orange County. The
Plan encourages a mixed community of cutting edge technologies,
research and job centers, which are integrated with learning, living and
recreational uses. The purpose of the urban design concept is to achieve
aesthetic integration of uses within the site and with surrounding uses in
the adjacent communities. The focus is to integrate anticipated land uses
with existing facilities, and provide for architectural, landscape,
streetscape, and site design enhancements to improve the character of the
site. The urban design concept also further delineates, in the form of
standards and design guidance, the "sense of place" expressed in the
Vision for the Plan (Section 1.45).
The following broad design objectives are established for the Plan:
To achieve architectural design of the highest quality for both new
development and rehabilitation of existing structures. This includes
achieving compatibility in design of infill development and creating
building forms that compliment surrounding uses.
To reinforce internal relationships between uses through streetscape
design, pedestrian and bikeway linkages, and site planning
techniques.
To create a strong visual identity through design of community
entries, landscape design along roadways, signage, and placement of
views.
· To provide usable exterior spaces within developments.
To preserve existing trees and significant vegetation where feasible
and integrate into landscape design.
The urban design concept has been structured in levels of concepts,
standards, and guidelines. When these levels are overlaid, a
comprehensive design for the Plan emerges. General design intent is
defined in the following sections on community structure, landscape
design, and site development. Specific standards and site specific
guidelines are found in Chapter 3, under each of the 22 Planning Areas.
2.17.1 Community Structure Concept
MCAS Tustin's history of single use, well defined borders, framed by
existing local and regional arterials lend to establishing a strong identity
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 2-117
Chapter 2 · Plan Description
B. Streetscape Design - Plan Roadways
All Plan roadways shall be landscaped in accordance with the
following landscape details (Figures 2-20 through 2-298). Figure 2-
19 provides a Key Map that locates each streetscape segment
described below. Streetscapes shall be designed as one common
landscape based on the themes developed for each roadway
classification.
Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue Streetscape "A"
(Figure 2-20). A special streetscape design should be provided
for the entry segments of Tustin Ranch Road and Warner
Avenue into the Plan area. The purpose is to draw motorists
into the site and focus views on the formal community entry
points. It is envisioned to have a formal placement of the plant
material, in order to create an arrival sequence leading to the
primary community entryways. This is proposed to be achieved
by an upright formal planting scheme (60% evergreen, 40%
deciduous).
Tustin Ranch Road Streetscape "B" (Figure 2-21). Along the
segment of road between the North and South Loop Road, the
planting concept should be informal, and should draw upon the
golf course edge and landscaped parkways to enhance the open
space effect. The planting for the median and parkway is
envisioned to be lush and informal design. Careful attention
will be needed along the parkway to obtain the desired goal of
dense planting but also create view windows into the adjacent
parcels. The planting ratios are 60% evergreen, 40% deciduous.
Warner Streetscape "B" (Figure 2-22). Warner is similar to
Tustin Ranch Road. The planting type, mixture, and density is
the same.
City of Tustin
Page 2-126
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
.J
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Ee
Fe
6. Landscaping
a) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
b) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.5.2 17 of this Specific Plan.
7. An internal pedestrian/multi-use trail through the park shall be
developed and coordinated with access to the elementary
school site to west and residential development to the east.
8. A comer triangular-shaped setback of 60 feet, measured from
the intersection of the curb lines at North Loop Road and
Armstrong Avenue shall be provided for a secondary
community intersection treatment (see Section 2.17 for
landscape guidelines). If this setback conflicts with existing
ballfields that the City wishes to retain, then a reduced or
modified community intersection treatment may be provided
subject to the determination of the City.
9. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
10. S ignage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development or Reuse Requirements
1. Existing structures shall be brought into conformance with the
Uniform Building Code as amended by the City, State of
California Title 24 Access Compliance (handicapped
provisions), and requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. Demolition of structures shall be considered or undertaken
under the following conditions: 1) where information
determines the need for demolition to eliminate public health
and safety risks, 2) to improve the appearance of the Planning
Area, 3) to accommodate the completion of major roadway
improvements, and 4) to properly implement the land use intent
of this Planning Area.
2. A view corridor into the park at the intersection of Armstrong
Avenue and North Loop Road (extension of Valencia) shall be
maintained.
3. In conjunction with Master Plan improvements in excess of $1
million dollars in valuation, a screening wall shall be provided
along the northern boundary of park where none exists in
accordance with the General Regulations Section 3.11.
A summary of the key design guidelines for the Community Park is
provided in Figure 3-3, located at the end of Section 3.3.
City of Tustin
Page 3-30
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
De
Site Development Standards - Single Family Detached
1. Maximum dwelling units - 7 dwelling units per acre
2. Minimum lot area - 3,000 square feet
3.. Minimum lot width - 35 feet
4. Maximum building height- 35 feet
5. Maximum lot coverage - 50 percent of lot area. Covered areas
shall include all areas under roof except trellis areas, roof
overhangs, and covered porches outside the exterior wall.
6. Minimum building setbacks4
a) Edinger Avenue - 40 feet
b) Local public street- 10 feet
c) Private street or private drive - 5 feet
d) Interior side yard - 3 feet minimum with aggregate
requirement of 10 feet for both side yards
e) Rear yard - 10 feet
7. Landscape setbacks4
a) Edinger Avenue- 30 feet
8. Landscaping
a) Areas not devoted to buildings, parking areas, hardscape,
and roads, shall be landscaped.
b) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
c) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.5.2 17 of this Specific Plan
9. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide
connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning
Areas, and to citywide bicycle trails where applicable.
10. Fences and Walls
a) Compliance with General Regulations Section 3.11.
b) A masonry block wall shall be maintained and/or
constructed along the western perimeter of the Planning
Area in accordance with the General Development
Regulations.
11. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
12. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
13. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Landscape setbacks are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway,
sidewalk, and planting areas. Building setbacks are measured from future right-of-way. Non-
conforming landscape and building setbacks will be permitted to remain to accommodate
existing walls or buildings not in future right-of-way.
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-39
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
E. Site Development Standards - Single Family Attached
.
2.
3.
4.
5.
,
.
.
o
10.
11.
Maximum dwelling units - 7 dwelling units per acre
Minimum lot area per family unit- 3,000 square feet
Minimum lot width - no minimum
Maximum building height- 35 feet
Maximum lot coverage - 100 percent less required setbacks
and open space areas
Common open space - 400 square feet per dwelling unit
located within common, designated recreational areas. Private
attached ground level patios may be credited if open on three
sides. Areas not available for open space credit include all
structures, streets, driveways, landscape setbacks, and parking
lots.
Private outdoor open space - minimum private outdoor open
space shall be increased to 400 square feet for existing units.
Minimum gross floor area per dwelling unit, excluding the
garage:
a) Bachelor - 450 square feet
b) 1 Bedroom- 550 square feet
c) 1 Bedroom with den- 700 square feet
d) 2 Bedrooms- 750 square feet
e) 2 Bedrooms or more with den - 900 square feet
Minimum bUilding setbackss
a) Edinger Avenue- 40 feet
b) Local public street- 10 feet
c) Private street or private drive - 5 feet
d) Interior side yard - 3 feet minimum with aggregate
requirement of 10 feet for both side yards
e) Rear yard - 10 feet
Landscape setbacks6
a) Edinger Avenue- 30 feet
Landscaping
a) Areas not devoted to buildings, parking areas, hardscape,
and roads, shall be landscaped.
b) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
c) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.5.2 17 of this Specific Plan
5 Building setbacks are measured from future right-of-way. Non-conforming landscape and
building setbacks will be permitted to remain to accommodate existing walls or buildings not
in future right-of-way.
6 Landscape setbacks are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway,
sidewalk, and planting areas. Non-conforming landscape and building setbacks will be
permitted to remain to accommodate existing walls or buildings not in future right-of-way.
City of Tustin
Page 3-40
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
d) Interior side yard - 3 feet minimum with aggregate
requirement of 10 feet for both side yards
e) Rear yard - 10 feet
9. Landscape setbacks7
a) Edinger Avenue- 30 feet
10. Landscaping
a) Areas not devoted to buildings, parking areas, hardscape,
and roads, shall be landscaped.
b) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
c) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.17 of this Specific Plan
11. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide
connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning
Areas, and to citywide bicycle trails where applicable.
12. Fences and Walls
a) Compliance with General Regulations Section 3.11.
b) A masonry' block wall shall be maintained and/or
constructed along the western perimeter of the Planning
Area in accordance with the General Development
Regulations.
13. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
14. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
15. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
G. Special Development or Reuse Requirements
1. Concept plan approval shall be 'required for Planning Area 4
prior to reuse or development (refer to Section 4.2.1 of this
Specific Plan).
2. Development unit - Planning Area 4 shall be developed or
redeveloped as a single development unit.
3. Affordability - The following minimum affordable housing
production objectives are intended to reflect the intention of the
City to create a redevelopment project area (Community
Redevelopment Law, section 33000) and as needed to meet
Regional Housing Allocation needs as identified in the
Housing Element of the General Plan through the provision of
housing for households at very low, low, and moderate
incomes levels. Specific housing requirements for
redevelopment and Housing Element compliance will be
established ~ ......;c,~, o;T~o at the time of development project
approval to ensure
a) AT 1,~.-,oT 1'2 ,,,.d~-o l:',-,,. ;,-,;*;,-,1 ........... 1., .......'""J ,~,.,1 .... ,.
;r~r,,',,,-,'.,~ 1 .... 1 1., .....
City of Tustin
Page 3-42
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
~ifo~ity with the Housing Element of the General PI~ ~d other
applicable provisions of California Law ~d to achieve the following'
d)
e)
At least 15% of units for initial occupancy by very low
income to moderate income households, for
redevelopment, with 6% (or 40%) of units affordable to
very low income households.
At least 38 additional units for occupancy by low income
households.
At least 15 additional units for occupancy by moderate
income households.
Restricted affordable housing units shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout the project and shall be compatible
with the design and use of market rate units in
appearance, use of materials, and finished quality.
Restricted units shall be affordable for at least the
minimum period of time required by state law, or longer
if required by a construction or mortgage financing
assistance program.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, a
developer shall enter into a legally binding agreement
with the City of Tustin or its Redevelopment Agency,
and agree to deed restrictions on targeted affordable
housing units that are binding on property upon sale or
transfer. Said agreements shall address the following:
1) Number of units by type, location, bedroom count
2) Standards for qualifying income and maximum
rents or sales prices
3) Parties responsible for sales prices and incomes
The City of Tustin reserves the right to negotiate transfer
of a developer's obligation pursuant to this section off-
site as a credit for affordable units which cannot be
reasonably feasible to provide on-site which shall be at
the City's sole and absolute discretion. To ensure
comparable equivalent value of an off-site option or
exchange for not providing on-site affordable units, a
financial affordability gap analysis will be conducted by
the City, at developer's cost, to compare the value of the
off-site option and the affordability gap cost of providing
on-site affordable housing.
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-43
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
.
Affordability- The following minimum affordable housing
production objectives are intended to reflect the intention of the
City to create a redevelopment project area (Community
Redevelopment Law, section 33000) and as needed to meet
Regional Housing Allocation needs as identified in the
Housing Element of the General Plan through the provisions of
housing for households at very low, low and moderate income
levels. Specific housing requirements t~ for redevelopment and
Housing Element compliance will be established at the time of
development project approval to ensure uniformity with the
Housing Element of the General Plan and other applicable
provisions of California Law and to achieve the following:
a) At least 15% of units for initial occupancy by very low
income to moderate income households for
redevelopment, with 6% (or 40%) of units affordable to
very low income households.
b) At least 38 additional units for occupancy by low income
households.
c) At least 16 additional units for occupancy by moderate
income households.
d) Restricted affordable housing units shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout the project and shall be compatible
with the design and use of market rate units in
appearance, use of materials, and finished quality.
Restricted units shall be affordable for at least the
minimum period of time required by state law, or longer
if required by a construction or mortgage financing
assistance program.
e) Prior to issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy, a
developer shall enter into a legally binding agreement
with the City of Tustin or its Redevelopment Agency,
and agree to deed restrictions on targeted affordable
housing units that are binding on property upon sale or
transfer. Said agreements shall address the following:
1) Number of units by type, location, bedroom count
2) Standards for qualifying income and maximum
rents or sales prices
3) Parties responsible for sales prices and incomes
f) The City of Tustin reserves the right to negotiate transfer
of a developer's obligation pursuant to this section off-
site as a credit for affordable units which cannot be
reasonably feasible to provide on-site which shall be at
the City's sole and absolute discretion. To ensure
comparable equivalent value of an off-site option or
exchange for not providing on-site affordable units, a
financial affordability gap analysis will be conducted by
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-53
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fe
Ge
Armstrong Avenue shall be provided for a secondary
community entry treatment (see Section 2.17 for landscape
guidelines).
9. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
10. S ignage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development Requirements
1. Concept plan approval shall be required for Planning Area 10
prior to new development (refer to Section 4.2_1 of this
Specific Plan).
Development Guidelines
1. Provision for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans in Planning Area 10 and with adjacent
Planning Areas 9 and 11.
2. Demolition of structures may be required by Tustin to be
undertaken under the following conditions: 1) where
information determines the need for demolition to eliminate
public health and safety risks, 2) to improve the appearance of
the Planning Area, 3) to accommodate the completion of major
roadway improvements, and 4) to properly implement the
permanent land use intent of this Planning Area.
A summary of the key design guidelines for Planning Area 10 is
provided in Figure 3-7.
City of Tustin
Page 3-92
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
.
.
o
Existing structures to be reused shall be brought into
conformance with applicable provisions of the Uniform
Building Code as amended, State of California Title 24 Access
Compliance (handicapped provisions), and requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Utility metering modifications and provision of independent
utility services shall be committed to by agreement with the
City of Tustin in the Planning Areas 11 or 12, prior to use and
occupancy of existing buildings and new development, except
for interim use. Said agreement shall identify required
capital/infrastructure improvements and environmental impact
report mitigations.
Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for
Irvine Ranch Water District well sites and the Barranca
Channel.
F. Development or Reuse Guidelines
.
,
.
The placement and design of plazas or other open space areas
should take advantage of the view opportunities to Saddleback
Mountain and significant on-site features, particularly from the
intersection of Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway.
Commercial uses permitted in Planning Area 11 are intended to
provide support services to the office and industrial uses and
are not intended to encourage auto-oriented, strip commercial
development along Red Hill Avenue or Barranca Parkway.
Provisions for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans within Planning Area 11 and 12.
Coordination with. adjacent development plans in Planning
Areas 9 and 10 should also be encouraged.
The existing buildings and surrounding site area in Planning
Area 12 shall be aesthetically upgraded through architectural
and landscape improvements, if proposed for reuse. Such
improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of use and
occupancy permits, except permits for interim uses. Such
improvements may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Upgraded window types and treatments (i.e., trim)
Upgraded entries, including doorways, covered
walkways, decorative paving
Upgraded roofing materials and roof overhangs
Screening of roof mounted equipment
Extensive planting of trees and shrubs throughout the
site, including parking areas and common open space
areas
City of Tustin
Page 3-96
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fo
required capital/infrastructure improvements and
environmental impact report mitigations.
6. Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for
Irvine Ranch Water District wells and the Barranca Channel.
7. If the final alignment for Warner Avenue differs from the
assumed alignment as described in Section 3.2, adjustments in
acreage and development potential for Planning Area 13 and
Planning Area 8 (Community Core) shall be calculated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 3.2.5. While the
respective Planning Area boundaries may shift slightly, Warner
Avenue will remain the common boundary between Planning
Area 13 and Planning Area 8.
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. Provisions for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans within Planning Areas 13 and 14.
Coordination with adjacent development plans in Planning
Areas 10, 11 and 12 should also be encouraged.
2. Demolition of structures may be required by Tustin to be
undertaken under the following conditions: 1) where
information determines the need for demolition to eliminate
public health and safety risks, 2) to improve the appearance of
the Planning Area, 3) to accommodate the completion of major
roadway improvements, and 4) to properly implement the
permanent land use intent of this Planning Area.
A summary of the key design guidelines for Planning Areas 13 and
14 is provided in Figure 3-6.
City of Tustin
Page 3-102
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fe
c) Private street or drive - 10 feet
d) Local public street- 10 feet
e) Minimum distance between buildings- 10 feet
5. Landscape setbacks29
a) Tustin Ranch Road - 30 feet
b) Barranca Parkway - 30 feet
6. Landscaping
a) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
b) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.17 of this Specific Plan.
7. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide
connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning
Areas, and to citywide bicycle trail where applicable.
8. A portal intersection treatment shall be provided at Tustin
..... Ranch Road and Barranca Parkway (Refer to Section 3.11
as applicable).
9. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
10. Signage (referto Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development Requirements
1. Concept plan approval shall be required for Planning Area 18
prior to new development (refer to Section 4.2.1 of this
Specific Plan).
A Class I bikeway shall be provided along the southern
boundary of property within the landscape setback. See Section
2.6 for bikeways plan and design standards.
Utility metering modifications and provision of independent
utility services shall be committed to by agreement between the
City of Tustin and those agencies receiving or leasing property
in PA 18 prior to use and occupancy of existing buildings and
new development, except for interim uses.
Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for the
Barranca Channel.
.
.
.
G. Development or Reuse Guidelines
.
Existing buildings and surrounding site area in Planning Area
18 should be aesthetically integrated with the Specific Plan
area through architectural and landscape improvements, if
proposed for reuse. Such improvements shall be completed
prior to issuance of use and occupancy permits, except for
interim use. Such improvements may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
a) Upgraded window types and treatments (i.e., trim)
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-113
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Fe
Ge
10. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
11. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Special Development Requirements
1. Concept plan approval shall be required prior to development
of Planning Area 19 (refer to Section 4.2.1 of this Specific
Plan).
2. The baseline mix of uses will be administered by the Non-
Residential Land Use/Trip Budget procedure specified in
Section 3.2.4. The purpose is to ensure that adequate
circulation capacity is available to serve the proposed project.
3. A Class I bikeway shall be provided along the southern
boundary of property within the landscape setback. See Section
2.6 for bikeways plan and design standards.
Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for
Irvine Ranch Water District wells.
.
Development or Reuse Guidelines
1. The placement and design of plazas or other open space areas
should consider view opportunities into the project area and to
other Specific Plan features, particularly from the intersection
of Barranca Parkway and Jamboree Road.
2. Provisions for common vehicular access points and shared
parking should be encouraged and coordinated with any
development plans within the Planning Area and with adjacent
Planning Area 17 where practicable.
3. Refer to Section 3.8.2 G. 1 and 3.8.2 G.2 for additional
requirements related to any reuse or demolition of structures
which shall also be applicable to Planning Area 18_9.
A summary of the key design guidelines for Planning Area 19 is
provided in Figure 3-8.
City of Tustin
Page 3-118
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
.
.
.
.
.
10.
11.
Tenure - Development in Planning Area 15 of apartments is a
discretionary action requiring approval of a conditional use
permit. No more than 25 percent of the total number of units
permitted within the Tustin portion of the Specific Plan area
may be approved for apartments.
Prior to approval of any subdivision map or site plan in
Planning Area 15, a precise boundary plan for the golf course
shall be submitted by the developer to the City of Tustin for
review and approval. This plan shall precisely define the edges
of the course and show frontages and visibility from Edinger
Avenue, Tustin Ranch Road, and North Loop Road. In
addition, the plan shall identify a program for public use of the
golf course, and conceptually identify/locate proposed
buildings and facilities such as clubhouse, driving range, golf
school, snack bar, and maintenance yards.
Prior to issuance of building permits for golf course facilities,
the ultimate owner or operator of the golf course shall enter
into a recordable agreement with the City of Tustin that will
specify that the course:
a) Will remain open to the public;
b) Will make available a certain percentage of high demand
tee times for public walk-on use; and
c) Will establish a formula to guarantee the affordability of
a round of golf to Tustin residents.
Condominiums, multiple family developments, and patio
homes may contain numerous lots, but shall be designated as a
development unit on a tentative map. The minimum size for a
development unit shall be 10 acres.
Hotel and commercial uses, not including the golf course, shall
be located only in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue and
Jamboree Road.
Refer to Section 3.11.254_ for dedication requirements for the
Santa Ana- Santa Fe Channel.
If the final alignment for Tustin Ranch Road and Warner
Avenue differs from the assumed alignments as described in
Section 3.2, adjustments in acreage and development potential
for Planning Area 15 and Planning Area8 (Community Core)
shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section
3.2.5. While the respective Planning Area boundaries may shift
slightly, Tustin Ranch Road and Warner Avenue will remain
the common boundary between Planning Area 15 and Planning
Area 8.
City of Tustin
Page 3-134
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
He
6. Minimum gross floor area per dwelling unit, excluding the
garage
a) Bachelor - 450 square feet
b) 1 Bedroom- 550 square feet
c) 1 Bedroom with den- 700 square feet
d) 2 Bedrooms- 750 square feet
e) 2 Bedrooms or more with den - 850 square feet
7. Minimum building setbacks41
a) Edinger Avenue - 40 feet
b) Harvard Avenue - 40 feet
c) Local public street- 10 feet
d) Private street or private drive - 5 feet
e) Interior side yard - 3 feet minimum with aggregate
requirement of 10 feet for both sides
f) Rear yard - 10 feet
g) Building to building - 10 feet for 1 story; 1 $ feet for 2 or
more
8. Landscape setback41
a) Harvard Avenue - 30 feet
b) Edinger Avenue- 30 feet
9. Landscaping
a) Compliance with the City of Tustin Landscape and
Irrigation Guidelines
b) Compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines in
Section 2.17 of this Specific Plan
10. Bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities shall provide
connections within the Planning Area, to adjacent Planning
Areas, and to citywide bicycle trails where applicable.
11. Other General Development Regulations (refer to Section 3.11
as applicable)
12. Signage (refer to Section 3.12 as applicable)
13. Off-street parking (refer to Section 3.13 as applicable)
Site Development Standards - Patio Homes
Maximum dwelling units - 15 dwelling units per acre
Minimum lot area - none, refer to Section 3.9.3.t4J. below
Building site requirements - patio home subdivisions shall be
designated as a development unit on a tentative map.
Maximum building height- 35 feet
Maximum lot coverage - 100 percent, less required building
and landscape setbacks
Common open space - 400 square feet per dwelling unit
located within common, designated recreational areas. A
minimum of 150 square feet may be for private use if located
o
.
,
Landscape setbacks are measured from the back of the curb and are a combination of parkway,
sidewalk, and planting areas. Building setbacks are measured from future right-of-way.
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-139
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
3.11.8 Grading
All earthwork shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Tustin
Grading Ordinance and manual, and grading requirements within the City
of Irvine. Grading permits shall consider consistency with the urban
design concept. Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations related to storm drain runoff
from construction sites as implemented in the City of Tustin and Irvine
shall be required.
3.11.9
Hazardous Materials
To ensure that the use, handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous
materials comply with the California Government Code and Health and
Safety Code, all provisions of the Tustin and Irvine Hazardous Materials
Codes and Fire Codes shall apply.
3.11.10 Height Determinations
Building height shall be determined from the finished grade within five (5)
feet of the structure to the highest point of the structure, excluding
chimneys and vents.
3.11.11 Interim Use Provisions
Interim uses shall be permitted in all Planning Areas subject to the
requirements and evaluation criteria specified in Chapter 4, Section 4.2.86.
In addition to the provisions in Section 4.2.86, the following list of
potential Interim Uses shall be used as a guide for determining whether or
not a proposed interim use shall be allowed.
· Agricultural uses of the same or similar characteristics as practiced at
the time of base closure determination, exclusively within Planning
Areas 5, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15.
· Commercial uses
· Driver's training, excluding speed events
· Educational uses
· Emergency staging and supply areas and related services
· Equipment and vehicle storage, with proper screening
· Facilities for special recreation and craft activities
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
City of Tustin
Page 3-165
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Dedication of right-of-way shown in the Specific Plan shall be
required as determined necessary by the City Engineer or as a
condition of approval of any development.
Access points to individual development sites shall be subject to
acceptance by the City Engineer.
Access onto major arterials, due to their regional significance
coupled with high traffic volumes and speeds will of necessity
warrant a higher degree of access restrictions than would be applied
to lower level arterial roadways.
Installation of curbs, gutters, bikeways, sidewalks, street paving,
street lighting, and street trees shall be subject to the provisions of
the Tustin City Code. Installation shall be provided by a developer
and/or costs shall be assigned to each development lot or parcel in
accordance with a cost-benefit formula determined by the City
Engineer, or otherwise determined as a result of a negotiated
Development Agreement.
All street and highway design will be in accordance with the City of
Tustin and City of Irvine design standards, where applicable;
however, deviations consistent with the Specific Plan design
character and intent may be proposed and approved during
subsequent design or development review by the respective
jurisdiction.
On-street parking shall be prohibited along all arterial and local
collector streets within the Specific Plan area
Advanced Transportation Technology shall be accommodated to the
extent practicable, and any applications shall be documented.
3.11.22 Temporary Uses
Temporary uses shall be regulated pursuant to the Tustin City Code and
Irvine City Code, as applicable.
3.11.23 Trellis
Refer to applicable provisions of Subsection 3.11.43.
City of Tustin
Page 3-170
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 3 · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
approval of the LRA prior to any new development on parcels
adjacent to the channel in Planning Area 15.
3.11.25 Vibration
No vibration associated with any use shall be permitted which is
discemable beyond the boundary line of the property, unless the vibration
does not negatively impact an adjacent property.
3.12 SIGNAGE
This section establishes regulations and guidelines for project
identification signage throughout the Specific Plan area. The intent is to
achieve a visually coordinated and appealing signage system that provides
identity to the site and promotes effective identification for the range of
uses within the Specific Plan. Specific Plan area signage/monumentation
will occur at key designated thematic intersections as shown in the
Community Structure Plan (Figure 2-15). Signs identifying arrival to the
City of Tustin may occur within the public right-of-way in locations
shown on Figure 2-5.
3.12.1
General Provisions
Ae
All signs in the City of Tustin shall conform to the provisions
contained in the Tustin Sign Code, unless otherwise contained in this
section. Whenever the regulations contained herein conflict with the
regulations of the Tustin Sign Code, the Specific Plan regulations
shall take precedence. Signs in the City of Irvine shall conform with
the Irvine Sign Code.
Be
A sign permit shall be applied for and received from the Department
of Community Development prior to constructing, erecting, altering,
replacing, moving, or painting any sign, except for signs exempt
from a permit according to the Sign Code. Permit applications shall
be accompanied by information as required for a standard sign plan
or master sign plan, pursuant to the Sign Code.
Ce
A master sign plan is required for new development or reuse projects
within the Specific Plan area involving multi-use sites and multi-
tenant centers or buildings. A master sign plan is also required for the
Golf Village (PA 15). The purpose of a master sign plan is to
encourage coordinated and quality sign design on sites where a large
number of signs will occur. In addition, the master sign plan should
include on-premises directional/information signs to facilitate smooth
internal circulation.
City of Tustin
Page 3-172
MCA S Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Chapter 4 · Specific Plan Administration
There are certain planning areas that can be released without the need to
initiate significant on-site or off-site Specific Plan infrastructure
improvements as noted above and in the Joint EIS/EIR. However, these
areas shall still bear a proportionate share of roadway infrastructure costs
within the Plan and off-site. There areas are as follows:
The proposed Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) Land Use
area located at the northeast comer of Edinger Avenue and Jamboree
Road.
· The existing residential area located between Peters Canyon Channel
and Harvard Avenue north of Moffett Avenue.
The proposed Elementary School (ES) and the Neighborhood Park
(NP) sites located at the northwest comer of Barranca Parkway and
Harvard Avenue.
· The existing residential areas located between Peters Canyon
Channel and Harvard Avenue south of Moffett Avenue.
These areas consist of either former military housing or proposed military
housing sites that can be supported by existing infrastructure. In addition
to exemptions to the cumulative ADT thresholds shown in the previous
table, interim uses and leases which do not result in greater ADT levels
than were generated at MCAS Tustin prior to closure may be authorized
pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.11.131 of the Plan. If phasing and
the resulting cumulative ADTs are not consistent with the development
thresholds identified in Table 4.4, a supplemental traffic study would be
completed.
Service providers for off-site arterial highway circulation improvements
are determined by jurisdictional boundaries: the cities of Tustin, Irvine,
and Santa Ana for their jurisdictions, respectively; and the County of
Orange for improvements in unincorporated territory. The Transportation
Corridor Agencies are responsible for the Eastern Transportation Corridor.
CalTrans is responsible for freeway ramp improvements. All providers
work closely with the Orange County Transportation Authority to
implement the Countywide Master Plan of Arterial Highways.
4.4.5
Recreational Bikeways
Additional bikeways beyond the existing system consists of one regional
bikeway (Class I) and several Class II on-road bikeways. The Class I
Bikeway along Peters Canyon Channel will be completed in connection
with completion of channel improvements. Red Hill Avenue Bikeway
improvements will be completed in conjunction with future widening
City of Tustin
Page 4-16
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan~Reuse Plan
Attachment 2
MCAS Tustin Jurisdictional Boundaries
MCAS TUSTIN BOUNDARY
REUSE PLAN AREA BOUNDARY'
CITY OF SANTA ANA
CITY OF TUSTIN
CITY OF IR'VINE
SANTA ANA
North
No Scale
Reuse Plan Area
Attachment 3
October 28, 2002 Staff Report to the
Planning Commission on Zone Change
O2-OO6
ITEM #3
Report to the
Planning Commission
DATE:
OCTOBER 28, 2002
SUBJECT:
ZONE CHANGE .02-006- A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE
TUSTIN ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL
(P&I) TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN) AND AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN CITY
CODE TO ADD SECTION 9246 ESTABLISHING THE MCAS
TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN)
ZONING REGULATIONS.
APPLICANT: CITY .OF TUSTIN
PROPERTY OWNER: FORMER BASE PROPERTY - CITY OF TUSTIN (APPROX.
982:1 ACRES)
.... (300 CENTENNIAL WAY, TUSTIN)
~UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT - NAVY (APPROX. 525.0
ACRES)
(1220 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, SAN DIEGO)
.. ......... NON'BASE PROPERTY- IRVINE COMPANY (APPROX. 4.1
:..:~ ACRES). (15015 HARVARD AVENUE)
..
LocATION: ...... /:THE FORMER MARl'NE CORPS AIR STATION, TUSTIN,
'~ ':;' ':' ~" (TUSTIN INCORPORATED LIMITS ONLY)
PRESENT GENERAL
PLAN/ZONING ·
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS:
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I)
PLAN; PUBLIC AND
A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRON-
MENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EISIEIR) WAS CERTIFIED BY
THE TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 16, 2001. THE
PROPOSED PROJECT WAS EVALUATED WITHIN THE
PROGRAM EIR AND NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYSIS OR ACTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CITY
ACTION.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3848 recommending that the Tustin
City Council approve Zone Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map and
amending the Tustin City Code by adding Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific' Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning designation and regulations.
---BACKGROUND
in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990
(10 USC 2687) and the pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission approved by the President and
accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995, the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS)
Tustin was closed on July 2, 1999.
Federal law provides the opportunity for the responsible local authority to develop a
reuse plan'.that will guide the disposal actions of the United States Department of Navy
(DON) 'at the site. The City of Tustin ("City")Twas approved by the Department of
Defense as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin. in October
1996, the City, ~acting as the LRA for, MCAS Tustin, submitted a Reuse Plan for MCAS
Tustin t0'the' DON. 'Minor revisions to the Reuse Plan were identified in an "Errata" to
..
the Reuse' Plan'that was forwarded to the DON in September 1998.
.
..
.
The Reuse Plan approved by the DON is comprised of approximately 1602 acres of
.~'federall property and a 4.1 acre privately owned parcel. The majority of the site or
approximately 1,511 acres in the Reuse Plan are located within the City of Tustin with
approximately 95 acres within the City of Irvine.
B~tween November .1992 and October 1996, the City of T.ustin held numerous public
-meetings, workshops, weekend workshops and Public hearings soliciting broad-based
public input and comment on a variety of base redevelopment issues, opportunities and
constraints. These efforts eventually led to the development, consideration and
rejection of a number of Reuse Plan alternatives prior to the selection of the approved
Reuse'Plan for MCAS Tustin.
On january 16,. 2001, the Tustin City Council approved General Plan Amendment
(GPA) 00-001 which adopted amendments to various Elements of the General Plan
needed to establish conformity with the MCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and which officially
established a new "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan" General Plan designation for that
portion of the Reuse Plan property within the City.of Tustin.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 3
Numerous Planning Commission workshops in 2001 and 2002 on the Specific Plan
document were subsequently held on the Specific Plan document with the most recent
workshops having been held on July 22, 2002 and September 9, 2002.
DISCU.SSION
Project Description,
California Government Code Section 65450 establishes the authority fOr cities to adopt
specific plans by resolution or by ordinance. A Specific Plan is one device for
implementing the goals and policies of the Tustin General Plan. A Specific. Plan
contains the development and reuse regulations that will constitute zoning and planning
requirements for the site.
Zone Change 02-006 would amend the 'Tustin Zoning Map and'Tustin City Code as
summarized below:
· ~-Amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin
.....Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and Amendment (see Exhibit 1), and,
· .Amend the Tustin-City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
~:pecific'Pian District (SP-.1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations (see Exhibit
The proposed MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) (the "Specific
Plan" or "Plan")includes.~detailed planning policies, regulations, implementation
strategies and procedures necessary to guide the reuse and development of the site.
The Specific Plan has been designed to be practical in economic terms and visionary in
its ability to create and respond to future market .opportunities. A careful balance
between certainty and flexibility underlies the provisions of the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan is organized into five chapters as follows:
· Chapter 1 -an introduction and description of the Plan.
· Chapter 2 - identifies the intended land uses, community structure, urban design,
infrastructure, and utilities, for the Plan.
· Chapter 3 - the development/reuse requirements and design guidelines.
· Chapter 4'- the administration of the Specific Plan and how development/reuse
projects will be processed by the City of Tustin.
· Chapter 5 - Reuse Implementation Strategy.
Planning Commission Repo~
Zone Change 02-006
October28,2002
Page4
· Chapter 6 - Appendix (definitions of the 'terms used in the document), General
Plan consistency analysis, and other background information.
Land use and development regulations contained in the Specific Plan establishes by
land use category the authorized development square footage and dwelling ~units
permitted, types of use permitted, minimum building site area, maximum building
heights, maximum lot coverage permitted, minimum gross floor area per residential .unit,
landscaping requirements, parking standards, signage regulations, etc.
·
Adoption of the Specific Plan would create the regulatory framework that could, when
development is completed, result in:
,.
· a maximum.of 4,049 dwelling units within the City of Tustin;
· Transitional/Emergency Housing for the homeless;
· an Urban Regional Park designation around the northern blimp hangar;
a large Community Core area allowing mixed uses;
specialized educational, social service, and '.law .enforcement faCilities within a
Learning Village;
· a Golf Village area with hotel and ancillary retail uses; ~-
· approximately 11.4 million square feet of non-residential uses suCh as
commercial businesS, retail, office and light industrial uses, and public arid
recreation uses (approximately 2.2 million feet is existing floor area on the base
and 9.2 million square feet is potential new floor area) could be developed;
in addition, both of the National Register of Historic Places listed blimp, hangam,couid
be reused, if financially feasible and based on a detailed agreement that the City and
County of Orange have entered into with the Department of the Navy, federal Advisory
Council and State Office of Historic Preservation. The Specific Plan also proposes
major transportation circulation improvements including the extension of Tustin Ranch
Road south of its current terminus to Von Karman, the extension of Warner Avenue to
Jamboree Road and the installation of an internal looped arterial roadway within the
project area. The amount and phasing of development will be based on the sequence
of infrastructure installation both on-site and off-site.
The Specific Plan is framed around a collection of eight neighborhoods. The
neighborhoods are intended to establish a community structure and provide the basis
for the range of land uses, intensity of development, urban design characteristics, and '
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 5
· development regulations for 21 Planning Areas. ~The roi.lowing provides a summary of
the development opportunity provided within each of. the 'eight 'neighborhoods
established by the Specific Plan (see Attachment 1):
Neighborhood A (Learning Village) - located a!o'ng the western edge of the
site, the Learning Village will be an important anchor for the community with a
range of public-serving uses within a walkable.campus setting. Neighborhood A's.
primary function is to provide education, training, and specific .social service
functions. The approximately 157 acre Learning Village includes several parcels
planned for educational~uses, a community park, an abused children's shelter, a
transitional housing site, children's day care, etc. Neighborhood A contains sites
with a land 'use designation of Learning Village, Community Park and
Transitional/Emergency .Ho.using land use designations,
Neighborhood B (Village Housing) -located in the northwestern quadrant of
the site,, the Village HOusing neighborhood will allow the development of a variety
.-,..~,:o~housi'ng types, and ensures that a percentage.of the-Plan's affordable housing
requirements are met. The housing will be complemented by commercial village
services to meet the daily shopping needs of residents, employees and visitors
to, the site. The approximately 126.acre Neighborhood B contains sites with a
.-_.,,~':,,:~:i,at~:d use designation of Low Density Resi:dential, MediUm Density Residential
and Village Services.
Neighborhood C (Urban Regional Park) - located near the 'center of the site,
the County of Orange's Urban Regional.~Park.will be asignificant public amenity
that will serve regional and local recreational needs 'and also provide ,open
space,,, community resource and educational .services, support commercial
services and historic preservation activities. The approximately 84.5 acre
Neighborhood C contains only one .site with a land use designation of Urban
Regional Park. ... ·
Neighborhood D (Community Core) -located near the center of the site, the
Community Core will provide an opportunity, for one of more* unique, large-scale
development proposals that would complete the Specific Plan area. The
Specific Plan provides a high degree of flexibility providing opportunities for
mixed-use development. The approximately 225 acre Neighborhood D contains
only one site with a land use designation of Community Core.
Neighborhood E (Employment Center) -located in the southwest quadrant of
the Specific Plan area, this neighborhood will be an employment center for the
community. It will provide a business park setting for a full range of professional
offices, research & development, and commercial business uses and will have
important connections with Neighborhood A (Learning Village) for advance and
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 6
employee education opportunities on Site. The approximately 217 acre
Neighborhood E contains sites with a common land use designation of
Commercial Business.
Neighborhood F (Regionally-Oriented; Commercial District)- Located in the
southeast quadrant 'of the site, ..this neighborhood will be an auto-accessible,
regional. "big box" commercial center to provide commercial retail services,
specialty merchandising, wholesale, and discount commercial businesses. The
approximately 102 acre Neighborhood F contains sites with a. land use
designation of Commercial Business and Commercial. One .16,7 acre site within
Neighborhood F is currently used by the Department of Army for an Armed
Forces Reserve. The Reserve site is proposed'with a Commercial land use to
support future redeveiopment, in theevent, that _the Reserves were to dispose of
this site.
Neighborhood G (Residential Core.)- located in the northeastern portion of the
site, the Residential Core is intended,,.to,.funCtion~,as the primary residential
development, su.pporting a range of housing types including transitional family
units, affordable units and market-rate housing, as well as a 500-room hotel and
support commercial .activities adjacent .to a~-golf .course. The 431.9 acre
Neighborhood* G contains Sites withi~.a'?land':use designation of Golf .Village,
Medium Density Residential, and Low Density Residential, 21.6 acres of
NeighbOrhood G within Planning Area 21 are within the City of Irvine.
Consequently, the proposed Specific Plan-. and Tustin Code amendment would
not apply to this portion ofNeighborhood G..
Neighborhood H (irvine Residential Neighborhood)- This 73.4 acre Medium
Density Residential site is fully within the City of irvine. Consequently, the
proposed Specific Plan and Tu.stin Code amendment would not apply to this
Reuse Plan regulated Neighborhood.
As indicated previouSly, the Specific Plan provides significant flexibility to meet and
support, economic changes that could occur over time as the base develops. Two
important examples of the document's built-in flexibility are as follows:
1. Transfer of Dwelling Unit Allocations - Typically, the maximum number of
dwelling units allowed in each Planning Area may not exceed the numbers
specified in the Specific Plan for that area. However, if a Planning Area is
developed with less than the maximum .number of units allowed, then the
."unused" residential development potential may be transferred to another
Planning Area which supportS residential uses, up to a maximum of ten percent
(10%) more than the total units allowed.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 7
.
Non-Residential Land Use Trip Budget'- The'Specific Plan-includes a land
,use/trip budget tracking system to manage the-forecasted vehicle trips generated
by non-residential land uses at the site. The system establishes a maximum limit
on the number of average daily trips (ADTs) generated from all non-residential
uses within the Specific Plan. As development occurs within each Planning Area,
the Community DevelOpment Department and Public Works Department will
monitor the assumed square footage of non-residential development.
Adjustments in the amount, intensity, or mix of uses may occur if consistent with
the Specific Plan and approved by the City as long as sufficient trip capaCity
remains. 'to accommodate remaining development potential in the area.
Unused/unneeded,~ADTs from a developed area's trip budget may be'transferred
to another neighborhood with the approval of the property owner and the City of
Tustin.
The Community DeveiopmentDepartment will be responsible for administration of the
Specific,,:,.~.Plan, including:.: processing assistance, 'interpretations of provisions,
management of :the .Specific Plan's phasing. 'program and Non-ReSidential Land
UseTl'rip~Budget, approval of temporary and interim uses, specification of conditions of
approval:F.~ and. aUthorization of certifiCates of use and. occupancy for both new
development ...and reuse. The Zoning Administrator :will be responsible for review and
,,appmval~0f concept'.plans, .,deSign ,.reviews to determine compliance with the Specific
,Plan; and 'consideration of Minor Adjustments which do-not alter the policy direction of
the .Plan. The Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator, as defined in the
applicable City,Code, shall be responsible for approving Variances and Conditional Use
Permits.; recommending subdiVision maps, parcel maps and Specific Plan amendments
to the City Council; 'and 'acting on any appeals of Community Development Director or
Zoning Administrator...decisions. The City Council will be responsible for adopting
amendments to'the'Specific Plan; approving subdivision and parcel maps; and acting
on appeals to Planning Commission decisions.
Site and Surrounding Properties
Surrounding properties are described as -follows: Uses to the north (from the westerly'
"Red Hill Avenue" edge to the easterlY "HarVard Avenue" edge) include a light industrial
business park, and. indoor and outdoor storage facility, commercial uses, Edinger
Avenue, the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), two large single-family
residential tracts ('l'ustin Meadows and Peppertree), the Santa Ana/Santa Fe Channel, a
large industrial park to the east of the proposed extension of Tustin Ranch Road and a
light industrial/commercial/serVice business are located near Jamboree Road and Edinger
Avenue.
Uses to the west (from the northerly "Edinger Avenue" edge to the southerly "Barranca
Parkway" edge) include light industrial, commercial business, business park, and
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 8
research and development uses. Properties located south of VVamer Avenue are within
the City of Santa Ana. Properties north of Wamer Avenue are within the City of Tustin.
USes to the 'south (from the Westedy "Red Hill Avenue" edge to the easterly "Harvard
Avenue,'edge) include a combination .of business park, light industrial, industrial and
commercial uses in the City of Irvine. Adjacent to Harvard Avenue and south of Tustin's
jurisdictional boundaries are existing residential, units and vacant property Within the City
of Irvine at the former MCAS Tustin.
Uses to the east (from the southerly "Barranca Parkway" edge to the northerly SCRRA
railroad tracks edge) include residential (Village 38) and recreational uses within the City
of'lrvine. · · ·
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION
Pursuant .to.:the .Nationalr Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as implemented by the
· .Council,ont.:EnVironmental Quality Regulations" (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and the
California 'Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sec. et.
seq, 21000).and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Section
·
15000,.et. seq.), the City of Tustin and-Department of Navy completed a Final Joint
· Environmentallmpact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR). On January
16, 2001, the Tustin City Council certified the Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse
.of the.Marine ~Corp. s .Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (the Program EIS/EIR). A Notice of
Determination was filed on January 23, 2001. Proposed Zone Change 02-006 which
.:,includes a Zoning Map Amendment and ·Amendment to the Tustin City Code was
evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. No additional environmental
analysis or action is required prior to City action on the proposed project.
ANALYSIS
,_ ·
-California .Government Code Section 65451 requires the following of a Specific Plan:
(a) A Specific Plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all
of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including
open space, within the area covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major
components of Public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be
located within the area covered by the plan 'and needed to support the
land uses described in the plan.
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 9
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and
standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural
resources, where applicable:
(4) A program of implementation measures mcluding...regutations,
programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to
carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). . . ...
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific
plan to the general plan.
..
·
in addition, California GOvernment Code Section 65454 states: "No Specific Plan may
be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent, with the
general plan."
.... ~. , ........ ..,. - J ..'~.~.'
The City :,Council has the ultimate authority to adopt Zone .Change 02-006, amending,,·
the T. usti~ Zoning Map and amending the Tustin City Code .to: establish the .MGAS
TuStin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning designation and regulations.
The Tusfin Planning Commission is requested to find that 'the proposed MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan meets all of the aforementioned State re'q'~rem'ents and
adoption of Resolution No. 3848 (see Attachment 3) recommend that' the Tustin ." City
Council adopt Zone Change 02,006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map .:to ,MCAS,Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and-amending the -.'Fustin-City Code....to
establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-t..'Specific¥':.Plan)·~:~enJng
regulations. Findings. supporting the Planning Commission's adoption of·Resolution·No.
3848 are identified below: _ ~-.-,.:
1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated R~,.u.S~ Plan
for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin Zoning Map and:~ustin City
Code be amended prior to implementing actions that will result in the economic
redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes.
.
That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02-006, an amendment of the
Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-I Specific Plan) and an amendment to the Tustin City Code to establish
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations in
accordance with Section 65451 of the California Government Code.
3. That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will result in the
systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and will serve as an effective
guide for the orderly growth and development of compatible uses of the subject
property in a manner that will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals,
Planning Commission Report
Zone Change 02-006
October 28, 2002
Page 10
comfort or general welfare of Persons residing or working .in or adjacent to the
former MCAS Tustin property.
4. Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been considered.
5. That Zone Change 02-006 and establishment of the MCAS TuStin Specific. Plan
District (SP-.1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan, as most recently
amended in February 2002 in accordance with Section 65454 of the California
Government Code.
,
Administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is thoroughly integrated into 'the
City's development processing system.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Director Of Community Development
Dana Ogdon
Redevelopment Program Manager
christine A. Shinglet~/ '
Assistant City Manager
Attachment: Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
MCAS Tustin Specific.Plan Neighborhoods Map
Resolution 3848, and Exhibit 1: Ordinance 1257
Approving Zone Change 02~006, an amendment to
the Tustin Zoning Map'to. reclasSify certain properties
from their' existing Public And Institutional (P&I)
District zoning designation to MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 SpecificPian),in order'to establish
consistency with General Plan Amendment 00-001,
and the addition of Section 9246 to the Tustin City
Code related to the establishment of the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan)
zoning regulations.
S:\CDD\PCREPOR'rVncaszonechange02-006.doc
Attachment 1
MCAS Tustin SpeCific Plan
Neighborhoods Map
Chapter $ · Land Use and Development/Reuse Regulations
Neighborhoods
ii
LDR:
PKWY
Attachment 2
Resolution 384'8 and Exhibit 1
O'rdinance No. 1257
RESOLUTION NO. 3848
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI.ON OF THE
CITY OF' TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 02-006, AMENDING
THE TUSTIN ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC pLAN
DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) AND AMENDMENT OF THE
TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ADD SECTION 9246 ESTABLISHING
THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN)ZONING REGULATIONS.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin ("City") does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Tustin Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
At
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin has been determined surplus to the
needs of the federal government and has been approved for disposal by the
United States Department of the Navy (DON) in accordance with the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the
pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission approved 'by the. President and
accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and, '
Bo
The City of Tustin has been approved by the Department of Defense as the
Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for
preparing a Reuse Plan describing the reuse of the installation and providing .'
recommendations to the DON for disposal of the former base to various
public agencies and the homeless. The goal of base disposal and reuse is
economic redevelopment and job creation to help replace .the economic
stimulus previously provided by the military installation. The LRA submitted
the Reuse Plan .for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense in October.
1996, and an Errata amending the Reuse Plan in September 1998; and,
Co
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution 00-90 that
certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin,
and adopted Resolution 00-91 that adopted General Plan Amendment 00-001
establishing a MCAS Tustin Specific Plan general plan land use designation
for the Tustin portion of the former MCAS Tustin ,and adjacent 4.1-acre
property in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
Resolution No. 3.848
Page 2
Do
California State law allows a City .to adopt a specific plan for the systematic
implementation of the General Plan and to provide comprehensive direction for
the development type, location and intensity of uses, design and capacity of
infrastructure, design guidelines, and other planning activities. The closure of
MCAS Tustin and implementation of the MC^S Tustin Specific Plan
necessitates the amendment of the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City Code;
and,
E!
The Tustin Planning Commission has received a request to consider and make
a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on the proposed Zone Change 02-
006 that is intended to amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and
Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 'Specific Plan) and
amend the Tustin .City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific 'Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations that will apply to
future development within the Specific Plan area.
'F. The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan project, evidenced by the propoSed zone
change project was evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR. No additional
environmental analysis or action is required prior to City action on the
~ proposed project.
G:. On October 28, 2002, the Tustin Planning CommissiOn held a duly-noticed
public hearing to provide a further opportunity for the general public to
comment on and respond to the proposed Zone Change 02-006; and
H. The Tustin Planning Commission has received, reviewed and considered the
proposed Zone Change 02-006, the testimony, evidence and comments made
at the public hearing and has made the following Findings:
1. That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated
Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin .Zoning
Map and Tustin City Code be amended prior to implementing actions that
will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian PUrposes.
.,
2. That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02.006, an:amendment
of the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I)to MCAS
Tustin 'Specific 'Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and an amendment to
the Tustin City Code to establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Distdct
(SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65451
of the California Government Code.
3. That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will
result in the systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and Will
serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development of
compatible uses of the subject property in a manner that will not be
Resolution No..3848
Page 3
detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of
~ersons residing or working in or adjacent to the former MCAS Tustin
property.
4. Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been
considered. '
1
That Zone Change 02-006 and establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan, as
most recently amended in February 2002 in accordance with Section
65454 of the California Government Code.
,
Administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is thoroughly integrated
into the City's development processing system.
I!.
The Tustin Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Tustin City Council
approve Zone Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City
Code as identified in "Exhibit 1" attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at .a regular meeting .of the Tustin Planning cOmmission held
on the 28th day of October 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
STEPHEN V. KOZAK
Chairperson
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby ,certify--.that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3848 was duly
pa~sed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
28"' day of October, 2002.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Mcas~pere~so3848.doc
Exhibit 1
Ordinance No. 1257
ORDINANCE NO. 1257
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE
CHANGE 02-006, AN AMENDMENT TO THE
TUSTIN ZONING MAP TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM THEIR EXISTING 'PUBLIC
AND INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) DISTRICT ZONING
DESIGNATION TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
'DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN)IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 00-001, AND THE ADDITION OF
SECTION 9246 TO THE TUSTIN CITY CODE
RELATED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN) ZONING REGULATIONS.
.
The City Council. of the City of Tustin does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. FINDINGS -.
The City Council of the City of Tustin finds and determines as follows;
A. The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially
..... closed .:o'n. July 2, 1999 as a result of recommendations by the
~ ~.....-~Federal'Base ClosUre and Realignment Commission. ~.
B. The City of Tustin approved a Reuse Plan in October 1996, that was
subsequently amended by an Errata in SePtember 1998, and which
provides for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin and an
apprOximate 4.1-acre immediately adjacent, parcel currently owned
by The Irvine Company.
C. On:January 16, 2001, the Tustin City CoUncil adopted Resolution
00-90 that certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and
Reuse of MCAS .Tustin, and adopted Resolution 00,91 that adopted
General Plan Amendment 00-001 establishing a MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan general plan land use designation for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
D,
The Tustin Zoning Map currently identifies the zoning for the Tustin
portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre property
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 2
as Public and Institutional (P&I). Adoption of a zoning designation
consistent with the approved Reuse Plan and General Plan
Amendment 00-001 is now required.
E.
The City of Tustin has prepared the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and
proposed Zoning Map change to ensure the orderly development
and improvement of the former MCAS Tustin and immediately
adjacent private property consistent with the general plan
objectives, policies, programs for development of the former MCAS
Tustin and an approximate 4.1-acre adjacent parcel currently
owned by The Irvine Company.
Fo
The Tustin 'City Code does not currently include provisions
establishing, the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan zoning regulations and
requirements .and therefore must be amended to provide sufficient
and clear guidance regarding development consistent'with the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan designation within the Tustin General
Plan.
G=
Section 65850 of the Government Code allows the City to adopt
ordinances that regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land;
the intensity of land use; and off-street parking and loading.
H,
This Code Amendment is necessary to protect the health, welfare, '..
safety, morals, comfort or general welfare of the citizens of Tustin
and the community vision for the City by providing permanent ........ -...
regulations for the former MCAS Tustin site. ' "' ':" ~:~'~'
, .
The Planning Commission, at a public hearing that was duly
noticed, called, and held on Zone Change 02-006 on October 2'8,
2002, approved' Resolution No. 3848 recommending that the City
Council adopt Zone Change 02-006.
J,
A public hearing was duly called, noticed, and held by the Tustin
City Council on Zone Change 02-006 on ,2002.
K,
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, evidenced by the proposed zone
change project was evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR. No
additional environmental analysis or action is required prior to City
action on the proposed project.
Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Zone Change 02-006 which
approves the following specific actions:
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 3
.
2,
Amend the Tustin zoning map to reclassify the Tustin portion of the former
MCAS Tustin and an adjacent 4.1-acre parcel currently owned by The
irvine Company from Public and Institutional to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
District (SP-1 Specific .Plan)as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
Amend Article 9 of the Tustin City .Code to add Section 9246. to the Tustin
Municipal Code to read as follows:
9246 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan)
a. Purpose
The purpose of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific
Plan) is to establish zoning regulations to guide the orderly development
and improvement in accordance with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan' for
that portion of the city which is designated as MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
on the official zoning map of the city. The preparation and adoption of a
specific plan is authorized by Chapter 3,' Article 8 of the State ,of California
Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Sections 65450 et. seq.).
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan replaces the 'usual development
standards' otherwise applicable to most property within the City of Tustin.
b. Adoption of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
There is adopted the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, 'the text of which is set
forth in the document entitled "MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan"
· attached to this ordinance.as Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein.
c. Applicability
The SP-1 Specific Plan District is established by this chapter. The
provisions of this' section shall apply to all property shown on the official
zoning map within the SP-1 Specific Plan District. The regulations set
forth in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan shall apply to the SP-1 Specific
Plan District only in so far as they are not inconsistent with the Tustin
General Plan.
d. Permitted Uses and Development Standards
All property within the SP-1 District shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with all policies, requirements, regulations and provisions set'
forth the in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
· Ordinance No. 1257
Page 4
e. Zoning Adoption or Change
The SP-1 District zoning shall be adopted or changed by the same
procedure prescribed within the Tustin City Code for zoning district
amendments and 'consistent with State of California Planning and Zoning
Law. An amendment to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan may be processed
as described within .Section 4.2..7 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
· Amendments to the MCAS Tustin SpeCific Plan' may be adopted by
ordinance and may be amended as often 'as deemed '-necessary by the
Tustin City Council.
Section 3. SEVERABILITY ....
All of the provisions of this ordinance shall be construed together to accomplish
the. purpose of these regulations. If any provision of this part is held by a court to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutiohality shall apply only
to the particular facts, or if a provision is declared to be invalid or unconstitutional
as applied to all facts, all of the remaining 'provisions of this ordinance shall
continue to be fully effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the 'city' 0{'TUsti~, ~at a regular
meetiag on the -day of ,2002. ..
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
SS
JEFFERYM;THOMAS
Mayor" ....... ~
__
..
Ordinance No. 1257
Page 5
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1257
PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City
of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members
of the City CoUncil of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing
· Ordinance No. 1257 was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of
the Tustin City Council, held on the day of ,2002 and was given its-
second reading, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the day of ,2002 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
Mcas~ncasmuseplan\ordinance 1257.doc
Exhibit A
Tustin Zoning Map Amendment
MCAS Tustin ~Specific Plan District
..... (S'P-'I Specific Plan)
o_ 0
Attachment 4
Letter Submitted to the Planning
Commission on October 28, 2002 by
Connor, Blake & Griffin
EDMOND 1~[. CONNOR
LAURA LEE BLAKE
CV.X~ L. Gm~T~
D~v~D J. HESSELTINE
1VIATrHEW J. FLETCHER
CONNOR, BLAKE'& GRIFFIN LLI'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2600 MICHELSOlq DRrv~
StaTE 1450
II~Vn~, C~.n~o~ 92612
TELRPHONE (949) 622-2600
TEL£1~ACStM~E (949) 622-2626
E-MAIL: eeonnor~businesslit, eom
October 28, 2002
City of Tustin Planning Commission
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re:
Objections to Zone Change 02-006 and Joint Final Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Disposal
and Reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station 0VICAS) Tustin
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:
In connection with the public hearing to be held on October 28, 2002 by
the City of Tustin Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") regarding Zone
Change 02-006 ("ZC 02-006"), we submit this letter of opposition on behalf of our client
the Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD").
SAUSD hereby objects to ZC 02-006, and the Planning Commission's
reliance on the "Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin" (the
"FEIS/FEIR") as the environmental documentation for ZC 02-006, based upon each and
every procedural and substantive objection, comment, contention, or argument which (1)
SAUSD previously asserted in objecting to and challenging the approval of General Plan
Amendment No. 00-001 and the certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City of Tustin (the
"City") on January 16, 2001, including, but not limited to, all objections, comments,
contentions, and arguments raised in the "First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate"
filed in that certain mandamus proceeding entitled Santa Ana Unified School District, et
al. v. City of Tustin, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CC02595, a tree
and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated herein by
reference, and the letters which are attached as Exhibits "B" through "G".hereto and are
incorporated herein by reference, and (2) have been or are presented, either orally or in
writing, in connection with any public hearing or workshop conducted by your
Commission regarding ZC 02-006, including, but not limited to, its October 28, 2002
public hearing and the workshops conducted on July 22 and September 9, 2002.
In addition, SAUSD objects to ZC 02-006 and the Planning Commission's
reliance on the FEIS/FEIR on each of the following grounds:
RSCCDXMCAS-LandTmsfrXPIancom01.Doc
ONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
City of Tustin Planning Commission
October 28, 2002
Page 2
(1) As currently proposed for adoption, ZC 02-006 violates the
provisions of Government Code section 65051.5 and Health and Safety
Code section 33492.114--i.e., Assembly Bill 212, Chapter 123, Statutes
2001 ("AB 212")--in that it fails to impose the conditions of approval
required by such sections to minimize the impact of the City's Reuse Plan
for Marine Corps Air Station Tustin ("MCAS-Tusfin") on SAUSD, among
others;
(2) The City, including the Planning Commission, is prohibited
from adopting, approving, or recommending the approval of ZC 02-006, or
any other land use approval, until the City's General Plan is brought into
compliance with all provisions of the Government Code and all other
applicable land use laws and regulations. At the present time, the Housing
Element of the City's General Plan is being challenged as inadequate and
incomplete in that certain mandamus proceeding entitled Juan Garcia v.
City of Tustin, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CC02149. In
addition, the Housing Element is out of compliance with state law in that
the City has not adopted the revisions to its most recent Housing Element
amendment which were suggested by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development nor has the City adopted any
findings declaring such revisions to be unnecessary or inappropriate; and
(3) The City has violated sections 15162 and 15168 ofthe
State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines by failing to
prepare and certify a subsequent environmental impact report for ZC 02-
006 to address the mitigation measures and project alternatives which were
previously found not to be feasible but which new information
demonstrates would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce
one or more significant impacts. In particular, the FEIS/FEIR was
prepared and certified based upon several critical assumptions regarding
the impact of the City's Reuse Plan on SAUSD which are clearly no
longer accurate (assuming arguendo that such assumption were accurate
when the FEIS/FEIR was prepared and certified), including, but not
limited to, (a) that Senate Bill 50 ("SB 50") supersedes.all prior CEQA
case law and prevents the City from imposing any mitigation measures,
other than school impact fees, to minimize the impacts on SAUSD, but, in
fact, AB 212 expressly finds and declares that SB 50 does not in any way
prevent the City from imposing additional mitigation measures, and indeed
requires the imposition of certain additional mitigation measures, to
minimize the impact of the City's Reuse Plan on, inter alia, SAUSD; and
RSCCDXMCAS -LandTrnsfrXPlancom01 .Doc
-CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
City of Tustin Planning Commission
October 28, 2002
Page 3
(b) that providing SAUSD with a school site at MCAS-Tustin would
destroy the economic viability of the City's Reuse Plan--although the City
applied for more than 1,200 acres as part of an economic development
conveyance from the Department of the Navy and contended that all such
acres were necessary to make the City's Reuse Plan economically viable,
the Navy elected to sell approximately 235 acres at the base for its own
account and the City is nonetheless proceeding with its Reuse Plan without
any suggestions that it is no longer economically viable.
Very truly yours,
Edmond M. Connor
RSCCD~MCAS-LandTmsfrXPIancom01 .Doc
LIST OF EXHIBITS TO OCTOBER 2002 LETTER
TO CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Exhibit "A":
Exhibit "B":
Exhibit "C":
Exhibit "D":
Exhibit "E":
Exhibit "F":
Exhibit "G":
The "First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate" filed on behalf of, inter
alia, Santa Aha Unified School District in that certain mandamus
proceeding entitled Santa Ana Unified School District, et al. v. City of
Tustin, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 01CC02595;
The January 16, 2001 letter from Edmond M. Connor, Esq., connor,
Blake & Griffin LLP, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of
Tustin, regarding General Plan Amendment 00-001 ("GPA 00-00 l")and
"Final Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station Tustin"
(the "FEIS/FEIR");
The November 28, 2000 letter from Edmond M. Connor, Esq., Connor,
Blake & Griffin LLP, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of
Tustin, regarding GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FEIR;
The December 18, 2000 letter from M. Andriette Culbertson, President,
Culbertson, Adams & Associates, to the City Council, City of Tustin;
The January 16, 2001 letter from Dwight E. Berg, P.E., Public Economics,
Inc. ("PEI"), to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin;
The January 16, 2001 letter from Colette Marie McLaughlin, Planner for
SAUSD, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin; and
The January 16, 2001 letter from Dante Gumucio of PEI to Dana Ogdon,
Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin.
RSCCD/MCAS-Tustin/Corresp/Exhibits. Doc
Exhibit A
10
23
24
25
26
27
28
EDMOND M. CONNOR, State Bar No. 65515
CRAIG L. GRIFFIN, State Bar No. 145777
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-2600
Telefacsimile: (949) 622-2626
Attorneys for Petitioners SANTA ANA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT, RANCHO SANTIAGO
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, and
MARISELA LONGACRE
Districts exempt from filingfee under Gov't Code ~6103
'FILED
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAl. t: '~T~.,-'= CENTER
JAN 17 .BO2
ALAN SLATER, Clerk cf the Court
BY: .... L, C~ INE ,DEPUTY
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE
CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a School District of the State of
California; RANCHO SANTIAGO
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, a
Community College District of the State of
California; and MARISELA LONGACRE, an
individual,
Petitioners,
Vo
CITY OF TUSTIN, a Political Subdivision of
the State of California; CITY COUNCIL OF
CITY OF TUSTIN, the Duly Elected
Legislative Body of the City; PLANNING
COMMISSION OF CITY OF TUSTIN, the
Duly Appointed Subagency of the Council;
and DOES I through 25, inclusive,
Respondents.
DOES 26 through 50, inclusive,
Real Parties in Interest.
CASE NO. 01 CC02595
ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO'
JUDGE ROBERT H. GALLIVAN
Department C28
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-WriI.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As a First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate (the "First Amended
Petition") against (1) respondents CITY OF TUSTIN ("Tustin"), CITY COUNCIL OF CITY
OF TUSTIN (the "City Council"), PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF TUSTIN (the
"Planning Commission"), and DOES I through 25, inclusive (hereinafter, Tustin, the City
Council, the Planning Commission, and DOES I through 25, inclusive, are sometimes
collectively referred to as the "City"), and (2) real parties in interest DOES 26 through 50,
inclusive (collectively, "Real Parties"), petitioners SANTA ANA UNIF1ED SCHOOL
DISTRICT ("SAUSD"), RANCHO SANTIAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
("RSCCD"), and MARISELA LONGACRE ("Longacre") [hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD
are sometimes collectively referred to as the "Districts"; the Districts and Longacre are
sometimes collectively referred to as "Petitioners"] allege as follows:
I. SUMMARY OF FIRST AMENDED PETITION
1. In deciding who should benefit from the proposed redevelopment of over
1,600 acres of surplus federal land which formerly comprised the Marine Corps Air Station at
Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin"), the City of Tustin has now set in motion a plan to
ensure that no school children from Santa Ana will share in this windfall gift from the U.S.
Navy.
2. In fact, by showing no concern for such basic legal concepts as fairness,
justice, and equality, the City has chosen to widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have
nots" by adopting a general plan amendment for the reuse of MCAS-Tustin which sets aside
nearly 200 acres of free land to accommodate the construction of new schools and facilities
for three school districts which have substantial white-student populations and do not have a
critical need for such land.
3. Regrettably, however, the City's general plan amendment for MCAS-
Tustin fails to designate even one square inch of land at the base for the two Districts in
Santa Ana which face severe overcrowding problems and have student populations which are
predominantly Hispanic/Latino.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4. Indeed, despite openly admitting that its plans to redevelop MCAS-
Tustin will potentially generate hundreds and hundreds of new students for SAUSD's
horribly-overcrowded schools, the City has approved a Final Environmental Impact Report
(the "FEIS/FEIR") for its general plan amendment which cynically concludes that SAUSD
will just have to deal with those overcrowding problems itself, and should not expect any help
from the City in setting aside any surplus federal land at the base for new school sites to
mitigate such impacts:
"Such physical impacts may be significant and, if so, mitigation
would be the responsibility of the SAUSD." (FEIS/FEIR at 4-63 to 4-64.)
5. Of course, the City has not only sought to wash its hands of any
responsibility for addressing the horrendous problems which the proposed build-out of
MCAS-Tustin will create for SAUSD, but the City has also chosen to ignore the student
generation impacts which such redevelopment will have on the community college facilities
operated by RSCCD. In short, the City has turned a deaf ear to RSCCD's concerns that its
already-overcrowded facilities at Santa Ana College will not be able to accommodate the
thousands of additional new students that will potentially be generated by the City's Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin.
6. By approving its general plan amendment for MCAS-Tustin (hereinafter
referred to as "GPA 00-001") without (1) adequately addressing the severe adverse impacts
which the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will have on public schools and facilities within
the two Districts, and (2) adopting all feasible mitigation measures to help minimize those
student generation impacts on the Districts, the City has clearly violated the dictates of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines.
7. Although at one point in the FEIS/FEIR the City admits that the student
generation impacts on the two Districts may result in physical changes which "may be
significant," the FEIS/FEIR inexplicably concludes that the project impacts on the Districts
will not be "significant" and, thus, do not require any mitigation in the form of new school
sites at the base. However, it is obvious that, by employing patently unreasonable planning
assumptions, the City has purposely sought to understate the number of new students which
3
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
will be added to the Districts' schools and facilities when MCAS-Tustin is redeveloped in
order to avoid the need to mitigate these impacts.
8. For example, although the City readily concedes in the FEIS/FEIR that
24,852 "direct" jobs and 15,081 "indirect and induced" jobs will be created by its massive
redevelopment project at MCAS-Tustin, the City has made the arbitrary and capricious
assumption that, under a "worst case" scenario, only four percent (4%) of the workers who
will fill these new jobs will reside in homes located within the City of Santa Ana.
9. In other words, even though a significant number of the new jobs that
will be generated by the build-out of MCAS-Tustin will be service, retail, clerical, and
warehouse jobs that tend to offer low to moderate pay, and even though Santa Ana would
appear to offer the best source of affordable housing for the workers who will fill these new
jobs at the base, the City has refused to consider the very real possibility that, under "worst
case" conditions, far more than 4% of these workers will end up residing in Santa Ana and
will then need to send their children to SAUSD's schools to be educated--thereby
exacerbating the terribly overcrowded conditions which presently exist at all of SAUSD's
schools.
10. As explained below, the City's projected range of 82 to 509 additional
students that will be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the redevelopment
of MCAS-Tustin grossly underestimates the true impacts of the project and is simply
indefensible.
11. By incorporating more reasonable, "real life" assumptions into the same
methodologies used by the City in arriving at the student generation estimates set forth in the
FEIS/FEIR, it can be seen that the City's estimates are understated by at least a factor of 10.
What that means, for example, is that, instead of 509 additional students, it would be more
reasonable to assume that approximately 5,600 new students could be added to SAUSD's
already overcrowded school facilities under a "worst case" analysis of the build-out of
MCAS-Tustin.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12. What is even more difficult to understand than the City's unreasonably
low estimates of student generation impacts on the Districts is how the City proposes to deal
with these impacts. Indeed, the City has seen fit to provide 180 acres of surplus federal land
at MCAS-Tustin for new school sites for the Tustin Unified School District ("TUSD"), the
Irvine Unified School District ("IUSD") and the South Orange County Community College
District ("SOCCCD"), but has failed and refused to provide this same accommodation to
SAUSD and RSCCD to help mitigate the student generation impacts which will severely
affect them.
13. Petitioners can only wonder aloud how it is that, with a net increase of
302 new students resulting from the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, IUSD--which has a
59% white student population--qualifies to receive a 20-acre school site at the base, but
SAUSD, with a 92% Hispanic/Latino population, is to be given no land at the base to
construct facilities to compensate for the 509 new students which the FEIS/FEIR openly
admits could be added to SAUSD's school system when MCAS-Tustin is redeveloped.
14. In this same regard, Petitioners must question why the FEIS/FEIR
provides that SOCCCD will be awarded the entire 100-acre "Learning Village" parcel
designated in GPA 00-001, even though SOCCCD already has a vast amount of unused land
available at its other campuses. In fact, SOCCCD--which has a 63.5% white student
population--has some 300 acres of land available to it at its two campuses to serve the needs
of some 33,000 students, but RSCCD has only 110 acres at its two campuses to
accommodate 52,000 students (only 23% of which are white and 49% of which are
Hispanic/Latino).
15. Sadly, the City's failure and refusal to provide answers to these questions
and to properly analyze and mitigate the environmental impacts associated with its massive
development plans for MCAS-Tustin have left Petitioners with no choice but to seek judicial
relief under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines to compel the City to vacate its approval
of GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FEIR.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. In addition to seeking redress for the serious CEQA violations detailed
below, Petitioners are also seeking relief under the California Government Code to require
the City to set aside its approval of GPA 00-001 and to withhold.reapproval of that project
until the City has adopted a revised Housing Element for its General Plan which fully
complies with the requirements of the Government Code.
17. At the time that the City approved GPA 00-001 at the public hearing held
on January 16, 2001, the City's Housing Element had not been properly revised and readopted
before the expiration of the statutory deadline of December 31, 2000, for updating that
document. Accordingly, the Housing Element was legally invalid at the time the City
approved GPA 00-001 and that, in turn, rendered invalid any and all project approvals which
were based thereon, such as GPA 00-001.
18. In addition, the Housing Element suffered from numerous deficiencies,
such as grossly outdated data and projections regarding the affordable housing needs relating
to the City in general and to MCAS-Tustin in particular.
19. Incredibly, although the California Department of Housing and
Community Development ("HDC") had declared as early as November 2000 that there were
numerous respects in which the City's Housing Element was not in compliance with the
dictates of the Government Code, the City simply ignored the deficiencies cited in writing by
HCD and acted as if there was absolutely nothing wrong with its Housing Element in
adopting GPA 00-001. The City's conduct in this regard was decidedly illegal and its
approval of GPA 00-001 must be set aside as requested below.
II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Parties
20. SAUSD is now, and at all times herein mentioned was, a school district
of the state of California. SAUSD is one of three school districts whose boundaries include
portions of the former Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin ("MCAS-Tustin"). At least 122
acres of undeveloped land at MCAS-Tustin fall within SAUSD's boundaries.
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for. Writ of Mandate
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21. RSCCD is now, and at all times herein mentioned was, a community
college district of the state of California. The same 122 acres of undeveloped land at MCAS-
Tustin which lie within SAUSD's boundaries also lie within RSCCD's boundaries covering
the base.
22. Longacre is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a homeowner and
resident of the City. Longacre has paid taxes to the City within one year prior to the filing of
this action, and is beneficially interested in the issuance of the relief requested herein.
23. Petitioners allege on information and belief that Tustin is now, and at all
times mentioned herein was, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of California and situated in Orange County, California.
24. Petitioners allege on information and belief that the City Council is now,
and at all times mentioned herein was, the duly elected legislative body of the City, organized
and existing under the laws of the state of California.
25. Petitioners allege on information and belief that the Planning
Commission is now, and at all times mentioned herein was, the duly appointed planning
subagency of the City Council, organized and existing under the laws of the state of
California.
26. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or
otherwise, of the respondents sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, are presently
unknown to Petitioners, which therefore sue such respondents by such fictitious names.
Petitioners will seek leave of Court to amend this First Amended Petition to show the true
names and capacities of such respondents when such information is ascertained.
27. Each respondents sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
performed, participated in, or abetted in some manner, the acts and omissions alleged herein,
is responsible for the violations of law described hereinbelow, and is subject to the relief
sought herein.
28. The City was the sole project proponent for GPA 00-001 and the
certification of the FEIS/FEIR, and Petitioners have no information or belief as to the
7
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-WriI.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
~ existence or identity of any other project proponents or applicants in addition to the City.
2 Moreover, Petitioners have no information or belief as to the existence or identity of any
3 persons or entities (1) who, if absent from this Action, will prevent complete relief from
4 being afforded to the parties herein or (2) who claim interests relating to the subject of the
5 on and are so situated that the disposition of the Action in their absence may as a
6 practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect such interests.
? 29. To the extent that any persons or entities exist (1) whose absence from
8 this Action will prevent complete relief from being afforded to the parties herein or (2) who
9 claim interests relating to the subject of the Action and are so situated that the disposition of
lo the Action in their absence may as a practical matter impair or impede their ability to protect
l l such interests, Petitioners are presently unaware of their true names and capacities, whether
12 individual, corporate, or otherwise, and therefore sue such persons or entities herein as DOES
13 26 through 50, inclusive. Petitioner will seek leave of Court to amend this First Amended
14 Petition to show the true names and capacities of DOES 26 through 50, inclusive, when, and
15 if, such information is ascertained.
16 B. Factual Background
17 30. Approximately ten years ago, the United States Congress enacted the
18 Defense Base Closure and Redevelopment Act of 1990, which set forth guidelines and
19 procedures for the closure and reuse of military installations. As part of the base closure
20 process, MCAS-Tustin was ordered to be operationally closed by July 1999.
2~ 31. Federal law provides local agencies the opportunity to develop a reuse ·
22 plan that will guide the disposal actions of the armed forces branch responsible for the
23 military installations to be closed. In July 1992, the Department of Defense, Office of
24 Economic Adjustment, approved the City as the Local Redevelopment Authority (the "LRA")
25 for MCAS-Tustin.
26 32. In its capacity as the LRA for MCAS-Tustin, the City participated in the
27 creation of the "Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan" (the
28
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Reuse Plan"), which was approved by the City in its capacity as the LRA for MCAS-TusIin
in October 1996, and which was thereafter amended by the City in September 1998.
33. The Reuse Plan proposes that the 1,606-acres of land presently
encompassed by MCAS-Tustin (the "Property") be developed for, inter alia, approximately
10 million square feet of commercial/business uses (including a golf village with hotel and
ancillary retail sites), 4,600 residential units, four public schools, and a "Learning Village"
campus.
34. The Reuse Plan also makes recommendations regarding how and to
whom the Navy should convey the Property for development and reuse. In particular, it
recommends that over 1,200 of the 1,600 acres at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed directly to the
City for it to, inter alia, sell or lease to commercial, industrial, and residential developers.
35. In furtherance of that recommendation, the City submitted its Economic
Development Conveyance Application (the "EDC Application") to the Navy, in or about
February 1999, requesting that the Navy convey approximately 1,288 acres of real property at
MCAS-Tustin to the City at no cost.
36. In an effort to comply with (a) the National Environmental' Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) ["NEPA"] and the Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations for Implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. Part 1500 et seq.); and (b) the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") [Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.] and the State
CEQA Guidelines (the "CEQA Guidelines") [Title 14 Cal. Code. Regs § 15000 et seq.], the
City and the United States Department of the Navy jointly prepared a combined Final
Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Report (the "FEIS/FEIR"),
which purported to identify, analyzel and mitigate the proposed environmental impacts
associated with the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin in accordance with the City's Reuse Plan
for that military base.
37. As the first major step in implementing its Reuse Plan, the City prepared
General Plan Amendment No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") to modify certain elements of the
City's General Plan to accommodate future land-use planning for the base.
9
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38. On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on GPA 00-001. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted
a resolution recommending that the City Council approve GPA 00-001.
39. On January 16, 2001, a public hearing was held by the City Council to
consider GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FEIR. Approximately 80 people submitted public
comments at the hearing, expressing views both in favor of, and in opposition to, the
proposed project. At the conclusion of the hearing, the City Council adopted resolutions
approving both GPA 00-001 and the FEIS/FEIR.
40. In July 2001, the California State Legislature adopted, and the Governor
signed, Assembly Bill No. 212 ("AB 212"), which added section 65051.5 to the Government
Code and section 33492.114 to the Health and Safety Code. AB 212 was adopted to ensure
that, after the land at MCAS-Tustin is conveyed by the Navy and the City proceeds to
authorize the development of that property, a portion of the land at the base will be used to
relieve the conditions of severe overcrowding which exist at the Districts' facilities and to
otherwise mitigate the student generation impacts on the Districts that will occur as a result
of the redevelopment of MCAS-TusIin pursuant to the Reuse Plan.
41. Petitioners have exhausted all of their administrative remedies, or the
exhaustion of such remedies would have been futile. Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, other than the relief sought in this First
Amended Petition.
10
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandale
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
2'7
28
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate
And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of CEQA And The
CEQA Guidelines)
A. The FEIS/FEIR Fails To Adequately Identify The Severe Adverse
Impacts Which GPA 00-001 Will Have On Public Schools And
Facilities Within The Districts.
42. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs I through 41, inclusive, as set forth above.
43. SAUSD currently operates a total of 54 schools--36 elementary schools,
nine middle schools, six high schools, and three specialty schools. As expressly recognized
by the FEIS/FEIR, virtually all of the 54 schools within SAUSD are overcrowded.
44. The California Department of Education ("CDE") has set forth
recommended average student per acre ratios for schools within the State. For elementary
schools, CDE recommends an average of 84.7 students/acre; SAUSD averages 159.7
'students/acre, or almost double the CED recommendation. For middle schools, CDE
recommends an average of 72.2 students/acre; SAUSD averages 101.4 students/acre. For
high schools, CDE recommends an average of 47.9 students/acre; SAUSD averages 90.2,
again almost double the recommended students per acre density.
45. As a result of this severe overcrowding, SAUSD has been relocating
students to "portables" (otherwise known as "relocatable trailers"). Specifically,
overcrowding has forced SAUSD to relocate approximately 24,000 of its almost 58,000
students to some 912 portables.
46. In addition, overcrowding has forced SAUSD to go to a multi-tracked
"year-round" calendar at 25 of its elementary schools and four of its intermediate schools. As
noted in a recent newspaper report, there exists a growing concern in California that 12-
month "multi-track" schedules in poor and minority communities--such as SAUSD--"present
11
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
students with hurdles that do not exist at other schools" and may "take a cumulative toll on
learning, spawning what many call a two-tiered system of education."
47. As noted above, the proposed redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will be of
mammoth proportions. In effect, the military base will be replaced by a huge master-planned
community. The FEIS/FEIR projects that the Reuse Plan will directly generate 24,852 new
jobs, indirectly generate 15,081 new jobs, and create up to 37,468 construction jobs, for a
total of 77,400 new jobs.
48. In an attempt to determine the impacts that these additional jobs will
have upon the school facilities within SAUSD, the City commissioned a report entitled
"Updated Report on the School Facility Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the MCAS
Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District" (the
"Household Growth Report").
49. Based upon the projected number of new jobs being created by the Reuse
Plan and certain assumptions regarding demographics, the Household Growth Report provides
an estimate, adopted by the FEIS/FEIR, that the Reuse Plan will add between 82 to 509 new
students to SAUSD.
50. Based upon the estimates adopted from the Housing Growth Report, the
FEIS/FEIR concludes that the Reuse Plan will have "no capacity impacts" upon SAUSD.
Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that "no mitigation will be required."
51. However, the FEIS/FEIR's projected range of 82 to 509 additional
students to be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin is simply not credible because it is based on arbitrary, capricious, and factually
unsupported assumptions which have materially skewed the results. Indeed, even at first
blush, the conclusion adopted by the FEIS/FEIR that as few as 82 new students might be
s schools as a result of 77,400 new jobs being created at the base is patently
added to SAUSD'
unsound.
52.
In response to many misleading statements contained in recent staff
reports prepared by the City, lhe Districts commissioned the preparation of a study by Public
12
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Economics, Inc. for Petitioners (the "PEI Study") to analyze the student generation impacts
discussed in such staff reports. The PEI Study, which was submitted to the City prior to
action being taken on GPA 00-001, confirms that the student impacts predicted by the
FEIS/FEIR are grossly underestimated.
53. By incorporating more reasonable assumptions into the same
methodologies used by the City's consultants in arriving at the student generation estimates
set forth in the FEIS/FE1R, PEI was able to generate a new range of estimates to better define
the number of students that will potentially be added to SAUSD's schools when the City's
Reuse Plan is implemented.
54. The calculations perfOrmed by PEI--based on the same formulas
employed by the City's consultants--show that the estimates set forth in the FEIS/FEIR are
understated by a factor of 10. Instead of a range of 82 to 509 additional students, the
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin can be expected to generate a Iow of 741 new students, and a
high of 5,581 new students, that will be added to SAUSD's already overcrowded school
facilities.
55. One of the most glaring problems with the Housing Growth Report upon
which the FEIS/FEIR is based is that it fails--in calculating the "Scenario 1" upper range
estimate--to include the same factor it uses in calculating the "Scenario 2" lower range
estimate. Specifically, in arriving at the "Scenario 2" estimate of 82 new students, the
Housing Growth Report recognizes that there is a "multiplier effect" so that, for every job
directly created by the Reuse Plan, there are 0.61 jobs indirectly created. In setting the high
end of the projected range of student generation impacts at 509 students, the report uses only
directly created jobs, and fails to take into account any jobs created indirectly.
56. Since the FEIS/FEIR clearly concedes that the City's Reuse Plan for
MCAS-Tustin will result in 24,852 "direct" jobs and 15,081 "indirect and induced" jobs (see,
Table 4.2-2 at p. 4-18), there is no rational justification for why the same 0.61 multiplier for
this second category of "indirect and induced" jobs would have been omitted from the City's
calculations for "Scenario 1," but included in its calculations for "Scenario 2."
13
RSCCD/MCAS/Arnd-WriI.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
]8
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
57. Once the City's calculations for "Scenario 1" are adjusted to account for
the proper number of "indirect and induced" jobs to be generated by the redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin, it is clear that the supposed "worst case" scenario for the student generation
impacts to SAUSD is off by a factor of over 60% and this can hardly be considered to be an
insignificant error that can be disregarded. In fact, this miscalculation is so material that, bY
itself, it requires the FEIS/FEIR to be supplemented and recirculated for public review and
comment.
58. Although it is unclear whether the Housing Growth Report's failure to
factor in the student generation impacts caused by indirectly created jobs was inadvertent or
intentional, correctly calculating the high range estimate increases it from 509 students to 817
students.
59. A second major flaw in the Housing Growth Report estimate is the
unreasonable assumption that only 3.8% of the workers filling the new jobs being created by
the Reuse Plan will live in Santa Ana. This assumption is based entirely upon a statistic
demonstrating that 3.8% of the countywide housing groWth will be captured by Santa Ana.
60. In using the 3.8 figure, the report fails to take into consideration that
Santa Ana is immediately adjacent to the Reuse Plan area. The report also fails to take into
consideration that a significant number of the jobs being created are low to moderate paying
jobs, and that most of the new housing construction in the Reuse Plan area and South Orange
County will be upscale, single family dwellings beyond the reach of the workers filling those
jobs.
61. The third major flaw in. the Housing Growth Report is its reliance upon
the unsupported assumption that only 10% of the 24,853 non-construction jobs directly
created by the Reuse Plan will be "new." In other words, the report assumes (a) 90% of the
jobs at the MCAS-Tustin site will involve firms which relocate from elsewhere in Orange
County, (b) all of the jobs will be filled with the same employees as at present, and (c) none
of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be nearer to their new job
location. Moreover, the report assumes that no businesses will "fill in" the millions of square
14
RSCCD/MCAS/Arnd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petilion for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
feet of existing business space being vacated by the businesses relocating to the Reuse Plan
area, and that such space will remain vacant indefinitely. These assumptions are unsupported
by substantial evidence, and are arbitrary and capricious.
62. Inasmuch as the FEIS/FEIR relies upon assumptions which are arbitrary,
capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence, the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately
identify significant capacity impacts upon SAUSD. Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR violates
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the
Guidelines.
B. The City's Own Estimates Demonstrate That Student Generation
Impacts On SAUSD Will Result In Significant Physical
Environmental Impacts.
63. As set forth above, the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-
Tustin could generate up to 5,581 new students for SAUSD. It is beyond dispute that the
addition of over 5,500 new students to the seriously overcrowded SAUSD school system
would require extensive new facilities to be constructed.
64. However, regardless of whether one accepts PEI's "worst case"
projection of 5,581 new students for SAUSD or the Housing Growth Report's "worst case"
estimate of 509 (or 817 as properly calculated) students, it is clear that the redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin will require the construction of new facilities by SAUSD, which will in turn
result in "significant" physical impacts upon the environment.
65. Indeed the FEIS/FEIR itself expressly acknowledges that (a) SAUSD
school facilities are severely overcrowded, (b) the Reuse Plan could add hundreds of new
students to SAUSD, and (c) the construction of new facilities by SAUSD could have a
"significant" physical impact upon the environment. Despite these express acknowledgments,
however, the FEIS/FEIR does not even attempt to identify the extent or nature of these
physical environmental impacts.
15
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23¸
24
25
26
27
28
66. Instead of properly seeking to identify those physical impacts and discuss
possible mitigation, the FEIS/FEIR completely avoids the issue by labeling its own expert's
estimate of student generation on SAUSD as "speculative," as follows:
"Since the need for new facilities is not yet confirmed, there is no
facility design or location that could be evaluated in this EIS/EIR
for physical impacts on the environment. Such physical impacts
may be significant and, if so, mitigation would be the
responsibility of the SAUSD."
67. Accordingly, the FEI S/FEIR concludes that because the need for new
facilities "is not yet confirmed," there can be no facility design or location to be evaluated.
68. Contrary to this conclusion, however, the FEIS/FEIR does not consider
as "speculation" its projection that 24,852 new jobs (1) will be created directly on the base
and (2) will result in new households being drawn into the Santa Ana area as new workers
seek affordable housing in the general vicinity of their employment. Similarly, the
FEIS/FEIR does not deem as "speculalion" its projection that the Reuse Plan will indirectly
generate an additional 15,081 jobs in the area surrounding MCAS-Tustin.
69. In the January 16, 2001 Agenda Report for GPA 00-001, City staff
introduced an entirely new standard for determining whether the student general impacts
associated with the build-out of MCAS-Tustin would rise to the level of "significant" effects
which would need to be identified in the FEIS/FEIR and for which adequate mitigation
measures would need to be proposed.
70. What staff suggested in the Agenda Report--but which was not discussed
in the FE1S/FEIR--was that student generation impacts would not be considered "significant"
unless they required the construction of an entirely new school at the elementary,
intermediate, or high school level. In this regard, City staff made the following observations
in the Agenda Report:
"The FEIS/FEIR states only that,' based on the assumption
that perhaps new employees at the former MCAS Tustin site might
seek new housing within the SAUSD,,there is the potential for an
indirect impact on the SAUSD from the MCAS Tustin project. To
bracket the range of probable indirect impacts, the City's experts
presented an estimate using two scenarios. Both scenario 1, a
highly unlikely worst-case scenario, and scenario 2, the more
likely scenario, were prepared for the FEIS/FEIR. Based on the
16
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
projectio~s under each scenario of household growth, either 509
students might be generated over a 20 year period (scenario 1) or
82 students (scenario 2) over the same period. Based on SAUSD
student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential
impact to SAUSD would be in grades K-8 with over 50% of this
impact in grades K-5 (under either scenario). With an average K-5
elementary school built to accommodate 800 students, the average.
middle school built to accommodate 1560 students and the average
high school built to accommodate 2400 students, neither of the
indirect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an
entire school site at MCAS Tustin as requested by the SAUSD."
(Emphasis added.)
71. The clear implication of the above-quoted passage from the January 16th
Agenda Report is that, if either of the "indirect impact scenarios" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR
indicated that at least 800 new students would be generated for the SAUSD school system by
the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, then the City would have to agree that such an impact
would be significant and would require "an entire school site at MCAS-Tustin" to be
provided as mitigation.
72. As noted above, lhe calculations performed by the City's consultants in
projecting the 509 additional students under "scenario 1" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR,
inexplicably omitted a factor which, if included, would raise its projection to 817 new
students. This, obviously, would exceed the City's 800-student threshold. Of course, the
City's 800 student threshold has no statutory or case law basis under CEQA for establishing a
significant impact requiring mitigation.
73. Given the overcrowded conditions already existing within SAUSD
schools, and the overwhelming evidence that the Reuse Plan will generate hundreds and even
thousands of new students for SAUSD, the need for SAUSD to build additional facilities as a
result of the Reuse Plan is far from speculative: it is inevitable and unavoidable.
74. Moreover, the FEIS/FEIR's observation that there is no identified
location for a new school within SAUSD obscures a key environmental issue. A large part of
the problem faced by SAUSD in seeking to alleviate overcrowding is that the vast majority of
the District lies within the City of Santa Ana, which is heavily built out.
75. Accordingly, although lhe population density of Santa Ana continues to
steadily rise as families--including immigrants seeking employment opportunities in the area,
17
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petilion for Writ of Mandate
10
11
,12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-move into housing units vacated by older "empty nest" residents, contiguous open space of a
size sufficient to build schools is virtually non-existent.
76. The FEIS/FEIR avoids providing any clue as to where new school
facilities could be located precisely because any attempt to identify possible sites would
reveal severe and unavoidable impacts to the physical environment. For example, obtaining
10 acres (for an elementary school) to 40 acres (for a high school) for the construction of a
new educational facility would likely require condemnation of existing commercial,
residential, or parkland uses. The change in existing uses would bring a host of direct and
indirect environmental impacts, including, inter alia, changes in noise levels, traffic patterns,
air pollution, drainage, and even wildlife habitats if, for example, parkland is taken.
77. Because the FEIS/FEIR does not even attempt to identify or address the
significant physical environmental impacts which would result from student generation within
SAUSD caused by the Reuse Plan, the FE1S/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines.
C. The FEIS/FEIR Is Devoid Of Any Analysis Of Student Generation
Impacts On RSCCD, And The Physical Environment Impacts
Associated Therewith.
78. Not only does the FEIS/FEIR leave many unanswered questions
regarding impacts on SAUSD, but it also completely ignores the student generation impacts
which will be felt by RSCCD when MCAS-Tustin is redeveloped.
79. Like SAUSD, RSCCD is currently experiencing severe overcrowding in
its facilities. With 56 acres and 20,000 full-time equivalent students, Santa Ana College is the
third smallest in size and the sixth largest in enrollment out of 107 community colleges in the
state of California. In fact, Santa Ana College enrollment is greater than every campus of the
California State University and the University of California systems.
80. Enrollments at RSCCD have increased 45% in the past five years and, as
a result, RSCCD has been forced to lease scores of off-site facilities at churches, hospitals,
18
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
schools, and commercial buildings to accommodate the huge influx of predominantly
minority students.
81. Like SAUSD, RSCCD has also been forced to rely upon portable
classrooms to accommodate its students. At present there are as many portable/relocatable
classrooms at Santa Ana College as there are permanent buildings on campus.
82. In the January 16, 2001 Agenda Report, City staff attempts to justify this
glaring omission by offering the explanation that its EIR consultant had no prior experience
in projecting indirect impacts on a community college district. Accordingly, the City staff
concludes that ."there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts" of the Reuse Plan on
RSCCD.
83. Despite the unsupported comments of staff, however, there was and is a
feasible way to evaluate the indirect impacts of the Reuse Plan upon RSCCD. As set forth in
a letter sent by PEI to the City prior to its adoption of GPA 00-001, by simply modifying the
methodologies employed by the City's consultants in the FEIS/FEIR, it is possible to make a
reasonable estimate as to the range of additional full-time students that will be added to
RSCCD's system as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
84. Using these methodologies, PEI projects that the City's Reuse Plan for
MCAS-TusIin will generate up to 2,270 new full-time community college students for
RSCCD.
85. In light of the severe overcrowding being experienced by RSCCD, the
additional students generated by the Reuse Plan will require the construction of additional
facilities. As with the facility construction within SAUSD, the construction of additional
educational facilities within RSCCD will have substantial and severe physical environmental
impacts. None of these impacts have been noted or discussed in the FEIS/FEIR.
86. Because the FEIS/FEIR does not even attempt to identify or address the
significant physical environmental impacts which would result from student generation within
RSCCD caused by the Reuse Plan, the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines.
19
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Based On An Erroneous Interpretations Of State Law (Senate Bill
50), The City Failed And Refused To Even Consider The Po'ssibility
Of Designating New School Sites At MCAS-Tustin To Mitigate
Student Generation Impacts On The Districts.
87. The key assumption underlying the entire analysis in the FEIS/FEIR
regarding which mitigation measures are available to mitigate student generation impacts on
the Districts is that the sole mitigation measure permitted by state law is the assessment of
development fees on the ultimate developers of the Property.
88. As demonstrated by the following statements from the January 16, 2001
Agenda Report, the City staff interpreted Senate Bill No. 50 ("SB 50")--which became
effective after the City approved the Reuse Plan and the 1998 amendment thereto excluding
the Districts from MCAS-Tustin--as prohibiting the City from designating any new school
sites at MCAS-Tustin to mitigate the student generation impacts of the Reuse Plan on the
Districts:
"Except for paying school impacts fees (that will be required as
part of the project) a new development is not required lo build or
provide sites for new schools (California Government Code
Section 65995)." (Attachment 6 to January 16, 2001 Agenda
Report at p. 3.)
"Finally, since Goleta and El Dorado were decided, the obligation
of a development project to mitigate impacts on schools has been
completely revised. The State is now responsible under SB 50 for
financing new schools and mitigating the impacts of land use
approvals (see California Government Code Section 65995(e))."
(Id. at p. 4.)
"Even if mitigation was warranted, Stale law prohibits
conditioning projects to require that land be provided for schools
(Cal. Gov't Code Section 65995)." (Id.)
"CEQA does not require the provision of land as mitigation .of
significant impacts [upon schools] and in fact, SB 50 precludes
such a requirement." (Id. at p. 7.)
"School issues are influenced by the provisions of SB 50 that
preclude mandating dedication of school sites." (Id.)
20
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
89. Contrary to the City's interpretation of SB 50, that statute does not in
any way change, limit, or eliminate the City's obligations under CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines to mitigate the adverse impacts that the Reuse Plan will have on the Districts.
90. SB 50 was intended to limit and control the nature and extent of school
facility fees and exactions that local agencies can levy or impose in connection with
development projects proposed by real estate developers.
91. SB 50 was never intended to apply to the federal base closure and reuse
process relating to MCAS-Tustin. Under that process, the City, as the LRA, was required to
prepare the Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of the surplus federal land that is to be
conveyed by the United States in closing MCAS-Tustin. The City's approval of GPA 00-001
in support of the Reuse Plan did not involve the imposition of the type of "conditions" or
"exactions" on real estate developers which are proscribed by SB 50.
92. The preparation and approval of a Reuse Plan for a military base is an
activity which is expressly subject to CEQA (see sections 21083.8 and 21083.8.1) and there is
no basis for asserting that the State Legislature intended that SB 50 could be used by LRAs,
such as the City, to circumvent the requirements of CEQA. To the contrary, SB 50 expressly
states that it shall not be interpreted "to limit or prohibit the authority of a local agency to
reserve or designate real property for a schoolsite." (See Gov. Code § 65998(a).)
93. Consistent with SB 50, the City has designated new schoolsites at
MCAS-Tustin for TUSD, IUSD, and SOCCCD in order to mitigate the student generation
impacts the Reuse Plan will have on those districts.
94. The fact that SB 50 does not, and was not intended to, preclude the City
from designating new school sites at MCAS-Tustin for the Districts to mitigate student
generation impacts was reinforced and made abundantly clear by the recent adoption of AB
212.
95. Section 3 of AB 212 expressly provides that, iJ, ter alia'
21
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Pelition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
')
"The LegiSlature finds and declares that the CitY of Tustin has
taken the position that current state law prohibits the city from
designating new schoolsites for the Santa Ana Unified School
District and the Rancho Santiago Community College District as
conditions of approval for the development of new land uses at the
Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin. The Legislature further finds
and declares that it is necessary to adopt this special legislation in
order to (a) remove any perceived impediments to providing land
for adequate schoolsites for those districts under the unique
circumstances presented by the Reuse Plan for the Marine Corps
Air Station-Tustin and (b) reaffirm the fact that the development
of any new land uses at the Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin shall
be and remain subject to the land use regulations of this state."
96. In requiring that the City condition its grant or issuance of any land use
approval for land at MCAS-Tustin, which the City intends to or does acquire, on the
conveyance or dedication of land at MCAS-Tustin to the Districts to mitigate the impacts of
the Reuse Plan on the Districts, AB 212 states that its provisions apply:
"[N]otwithstanding any other provision of law, including Chapter
4.9 (commencing with Section 65995) [SB 50], which the
Legislature hereby finds and declares shall not relieve the City of
Tustin or the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency of their
duties under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code [CEQA] to fully mitigate all adverse
environmental effects associated with the buildout of the Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin by designating adequate schoolsites at the
former base to alleviate impacts on the Santa Ana Unified School
District and the Rancho Santiago Community College District."
(Govt. Code {}65051.5.)
97. Although AB 212 did not go into effect until January 1,2002--i.e., after
the City's adoption of GPA 00-001 on January 16, 2001--it applies retroactively to all land
use approvals relating to MCAS-Tustin which the City granted or issued on or after January
1,2001. (Govt. Code {}65051.5; Health&Saf. Code § 33492.114.)
98. Accordingly, given that the FEIS/FEIR does not even attempt to consider
the possibility of designating new school sites at MCAS-Tustin for the Districts to mitigate
student generation impacts, the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and AB 212.
22
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
2'7
28
E. The FEIS/FEIR Fails To Describe Ail Feasible Mitigation Measures
To Minimize The Impacts Upon SAUSD And RSCCD, And Related
Significant Physical Impacts To The Environment.
99. There are five educational districts whose boundaries cover portions of
MCAS-Tustin, i.e., SAUSD, RSCCD, the Irvine Unified School District ("IUSD"), the Tustin
Unified School District ("TUSD"), and the South Orange County Community College District
("SOCCCD"). Approximately 122 acres of MCAS-Tustin fall within SAUSD's boundaries.
100. As noted above, the FEIS/FEIR avoids having to identify substantial
physical impacts to the environment by simply noting that "there is no facility design or
location that could be evaluated in this EIS/EIR."
101. It is indeed ironic that the FEIS/FEIR purportedly cannot identify any
new site for additional facilities for SAUSD, but had no difficulty identifying sites for TUSD
and IUSD upon which to build facilities to mitigate the student generation effects of the
Reuse Plan.
102. Specifically, the FEIS/FEIR acknowledges that the Reuse Plan would add
302 new students to the IUSD. In mitigation of that impact, the City will transfer a 20-acre
school site within the Property for IUSD.
103. In a similar manner, the FEIS/FEIR estimates that the Reuse Plan would
generate 1,143 new students for TUSD. In mitigation, the City will provide TUSD two 10-
acre elementary school sites, and a 40-acre high school site within the Property.
104. While acknowledging that the Reuse Plan could generate up to 509 new
students for SAUSD (817 using proper math), the City has proposed to provide no land to
SAUSD. Given that SAUSD encompasses 122 acres of the total 1,606 acres of mostly
undeveloped land being given--for free--to the City, one would expect the FEIS/FEIR to
provide some logical explanation as to why the impacts caused by the Reuse Plan on SAUSD
could not be mitigated by providing land. None, however, is provided.
105. Indeed, the FEIS/FEIR fails to satisfactorily explain why the City felt the
need to transfer a 20-acre school site to IUSD to mitigate the effects of adding 302 new
23
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
I students to IUSD, but apparently saw no need to provide land to SAUSD to accommodate the
2 purported 509 new students the Reuse Plan Would add to SAUSD.
3 106. Ironically, the FEIS/FEIR acknowledges three new schools to be built on
4 the 60 acres provided to TUSD will exceed that needed to fully mitigate the effects of the
5 Reuse Plan, and will thus accommodate "some of the future growth anticipated for the Tustin
6 community as a whole." Some explanation should have been provided in the FEIS/FEIR as to
7 why the needs of the 24,000 students currently shoehorned into portable classrooms within
8 SAUSD could not be similarly accommodated (there are now more students attending classes
9 in portables at schools in the SAUSD than the total number of students enrolled at all schools
l0 in the IUSD (23,392), and well over 1-1/2 times the total number of students attending all
II schools in the TUSD (16,192)).
12 107. Moreover, the FEIS/FEIR's statement that it cannot address
13 environmental impacts because no site for additional facility construction relating to SAUSD
lq has been identified is disingenuous. Prior to the City being named as LRA for MCAS-Tustin,
15 the United States Department of Education previously set aside 75 acres within MCAS-Tustin
16 to alleviate present and future overcrowding within SAUSD. Declaring the Department of
17 Education's approval "null and void," however, the City took away SAUSD's 75 acres of land
18 within MCAS-Tustin, and now plans to sell the site to private developers for
19 commercial/business use.
20 108. As noted above, the FEIS/FEIR completely fails to adequately address
21 student generation impacts to the seriously overcrowded RSCCD facilities and the associated
22 ,sical environment impacts resulting therefrom.
23 109. Again, although the FEIS/FEIR has no trouble identifying 100 acres of
24 land to give to SOCCCD, it provides no land at all for RSCCD, which also lies partially
25 within MCAS-Tustin.
26 11 0. In a stroke of pure irony, SOCCCD has apparently now determined that it
27 does not need the 100-acre site to build additional undergraduate facilities. As discussed
28 below, SOCCCD has announced its intention to use the 100-acre "Learning Village" for uses
24
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
other than to provide traditional community college undergraduate programs. Mo.reover,
officials of SOCCCD haVe admitted that if they cannot obtain land at MCAS-Tustin as part of
the Reuse Plan, SOCCCD can simply move its proposed project to another location at one of
its two other campuses.
111. This, of course, confirms that SOCCCD does not need any additional
land at MCAS-Tustin because it has a substantial amount of unused land at its two other
campuses.
112. Accordingly, under the Reuse Plan, both RSCCD and SOCCCD get what
they don't need' RSCCD gets 2,200 new students in its overcrowded schools, and $OCCCD
gets 100 more acres added to its surplus land holdings.
113. Because the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately describe all feasible
mitigation measures to minimize the significant student generation and related physical
environment impacts resulting from student generation on SAUSD and ~SCCD under the
Reuse Plan, it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section
15126.4 of the Guidelines.
114. Similarly, because the Mitigation Monitoring Program the City proposes
to adopt in connection with the Reuse Plan also fails to incorporate adequate mitigation
measures, it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not limited to, section
15097 of the Guidelines.
F. The FEIS/FEIR Fails To Discuss Any Project Alternatives Which
Would Lessen Or Avoid The Significant Impacts Upon SAUSI) And
RSCCD, And Associated Environmental Impacts.
115. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA GuidelineS provides, in relevant part:
"An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly
attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives."
25
RSCCD/MCAS/Arnd--Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
116. In purporting to comply with section 15126.6, the FEIS/FEIR sets forth
two alternative plans in addition to the Reuse Plan.
117. Despite the indisputably overcrowded conditions currently existing
within SAUSD or RSCCD, and that the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will create student
generation impacts, none of the other alternatives explored in the FEIS/FEIR considers
adding an new school sites for either of these two Districts.
118. As noted above, prior to the City's designation as LRA, the Department
of Education had designated 75 of the 122 acres of MCAS-Tustin falling within SAUSD
boundaries for the development of new school facilities.
119. Each of the development alternatives, however, designate all of the 122
acres within SAUSD's boundaries as either "commercial," "commercial business," or
"commercial recreation." Nowhere in the FEIS/FEIR is the possibility even mentioned that
some of the land within or adjacent to SAUSD's boundaries be used for the construction of
school facilities. Similarly, the alternatives set forth in the FEIS/FEIR never consider
providing .land to RSCCD for the purpose of additional educational facilities.
120. Because the FEIS/FEIR fails to analyze any project alternatives which
would lessen or avoid the significant impacts upon SAUSD and RSCCD, and associated
environmental impacts, it violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including, but not
limited to, section 15126.6 of the Guidelines.
G. The Findings Of Fact And Statement Of Overriding Considerations
Are Legally Inadequate.
121. Before an EIR is certified and a project is approved, CEQA section
21081 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091 require a public agency to make certain findings
regarding each environmental impact associated with the project, and CEQA section 21081.5
and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(b) require that all such findings must be based upon
substantial evidence in the record.
122. Specifically, CEQA and the Guidelines required the City, inter alia, to
make one of two findings for each significant environmental impact identified in the
26
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
I!
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
26
27
28
FEIS/FEIR to provide an explanation of the rationale for each finding they made. The two
possible findings which the City could have made for each significant impact were that (a) the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIS/FEIR would reduce the
impact to a level of insignificance, or (b) the impact is unavoidable because one or more
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or
project alternatives which are identified in the FEIS/FEIR as relating to the impact in
question. CEQA and the Guidelines required the City to make this later finding for each
mitigation measure and project alternative that was identified by the FEIS/FEIR, but was not
adopted by the City.
123. In addition, section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that the
body determining whether to approve the project which is the subject of CEQA review must
balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If
the decision-making body determines that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the body approving the project must state in
writing the specific reasons to support its approval of the project based on the final EIR
and/or other information in the record. Such writing, called a statement of overriding
considerations, is to be included in the record of the project approval.
124. As set forth at length above, the FEIS/FSIR fails to properly identify and
address the significant environmental impacts, reasonable project alternatives, and feasible
mitigation measures relating to the Reuse Plan. Given this failure, the City's Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations--which are designed to incorporate the
City's assessment of these issues--are both legally inadequate. Accordingly, the City failed
to proceed in the manner required by law and violated CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
including, but not limited to, sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the Guidelines.
H. New Information Regarding SOCCCD's Use Of The Learning Center
Requires A Subsequent EIR Or Supplement To The FEIR.
125. A subsequent EIR is required by CEQA section 21166 and Guidelines
section 15162 whenever certain changes occur with respect to the design of a proposed
27
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
project, the circumstances under which such project will be undertaken, or the information
regarding its environmental impacts. Under section 15162 of the Guidelines, a supplement to
an EIR ("Supplement") may, in certain circumstances, be used in place of a subsequent EIR.
126. At the time the FEIS/FEIR was prepared, the City had been provided
with no plans regarding how SOCCCD would utilize the 100-acre Learning Center site. Since
the preparation of the FEIS/FEIR, however, significant new information has come to light
regarding this subject.
127. Specifically, SOCCCD has announced that it intends to develop a project
on the site identified as/he "Digital Innovation Center for the Arts, Science, and Technology"
("DI-CAST") to teach students in such high-tech areas as animation, laser optics and virtual
reality. However, the classes to be provided by SOCCCD will be directed toward "older
students" who need certification training to advance in their jobs or change professions. In
other instances, SOCCCD will contract to teach classes for private companies. SOCCCD
expects most of the classes it offers as part of its DI-CAST project to be short, immersion-
style offerings, perhaps taught in five-week cycles, mostly at night or on weekends.
128. The significance of this information is twofold. First, although the
City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin will be generating upwards to 2,200 new full-time
community college students for RSCCD, the programs to be offered by SOCCCD will not be
geared to address the needs of such students. That, of course, will leave RSCCD with the
burden of accommodating these new students in its already-overcrowded system with no new
land or facilities being provided at MCAS-Tustin. As discussed above, these impacts and
appropriate mitigation measures need to be addressed in a Subsequent EIR or Supplement.
129. Second, in addition to the classroom facilities to be constructed,
SOCCCD has announced that it will be building a 1,000 room dormitory on the site. The
addition of 1,000 more full time, albeit temporary, residents will create numerous
environmental impacts, including traffic circulation impacts, well beyond that contemplated
in the FEIS/FEIR.
28
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
I 130. Accordingly, the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines,
2 including, but not limited to, section 15162 of the Guidelines, in that it fails to take into
3 account SOCCCD's proposed use of the Learning Center site, and has not been supplemented
4 or replaced with a subsequent EIR.
5 * * *
6 131. As a result of the City's failure to comply with the requirements of
7 CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines in approving the FEIS/FEIR, Petitioners are entitled to
8 a peremptory writ of mandate which, inter alia, directs the City to vacate and set aside its
9 certification of the FEIS/FEIR and approvals of GPA 00-001, including, but not limited to,
l0 olution No. 00-90 and Resolution No. 00-91.
l! 132. In addition, Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in
~2 support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary
~3 restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve
14 and protect Petitioners' rights herein.
~5 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
~6 (Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate
l? And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of Government
18 Code § 65580 Et Seq. (Invalid Housing Element))
~9 A. The City Failed To Comply With Government Code Sections
2o 65588(e)(1) and 65585{t') In Approving GPA 00-001 And Housing Element
21 Therein.
22 133. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
23 allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 132, inclusive, as set forth above.
24 134. One of the key purposes of Housing Element law is to require counties
25 and cities to recognize and fulfill their responsibilities to make decent housing available to all
26 residents, including low income persons.
27 135. Petitioners have a strong interest in ensuring that affordable housing is
28 made available in the City. As set forth above, SAUSD and RSCCD administer educational
29
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
facilities which are severely overcrowded, and which are expected to become even more
overcrowded over the next decade or more. One of the chief reasons for this overcrowding is
the lack of affordable housing in other parts of Orange County.
136. Given that the Reuse Plan is projected to generate up to 77,400 jobs--
including many low to moderate income jobs--it is critical that the Housing Element
adequately detail how the City intends to meet the housing needs of the Workers who will fill
those jobs, and others of low to moderate income. If the City fails to provide for sufficient
low to moderate income housing in connection with GPA 00-001, the geographic areas served
by SAUSD and RSCCD will only face further overcrowding.
137. Longacre similarly has a strong interest in ensuring the development of
affordable housing within the City. Without an adequate supply of affordable housing, low to
moderate income workers are forced to commute both into and through the City, causing
traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts. Again, given the large number of jobs to be
generated within the Reuse Plan area, adequate provision for affordable housing is crucial.
I38. Pursuant to Government Code section 65588, each local government is
required to revise the Housing Element of its General Plan every five years, which must be
sent to California's Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") for
review and approval. Under section 65588(e)(1), the lime within which the City was required
to review and revise its preexisting Housing Element (the "Old Element') expired on
December 31, 2000.
139. In October of 2000, the City provided a new Housing Element intended
to satisfy section 65588 to HCD for approval (the "New Element"). On November 16, 2000,
HCD denied approval of the New Element, citing a large number of inadequacies. A true and
correct copy of the letter received from HCD, with attached Appendix setting forth the
inadequacies of the New Element (the "HCD Analysis"), is attached hereto as Exhibit "1."
To date, the City has not revised and resubmitted the New Element to HCD.
140. Having failed to obtain HCD approval of the New Element, the City was
thus limited to two courses of action under Government code section 65585(0: The City
3O
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ,Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
I0
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
could (a) wait to adopt GPA 00-001 until after it had revised the New Element and obtained
HCD approval, or (b) adopt the New Element without changes, making specific written
findings as to why it believed that the New Element complies with the Government Code
requirements despite HCD's findings to the contrary.
141. The City, however, did neither. Disregarding HCD's rejection of the
New Element, the City incorporated an earlier amendment to the Old Element (the "Amended
Element") into GPA 00-001. Although this Amended Element had been previously approved
by HCD in February of 2000 as a valid amendment to the Old Element, HCD now considers
the Amended Element invalid because the Old Element had expired under section
65588(e)(1), and the New Element had been rejected.
142. Because the City failed to comply with the clear requirements of
Government Code sections 65588(e)(1) and 65585(0, GPA 00-001 adopted by the City on
January 16, 2001 is invalid.
B. The Amended Element Fails To Comply With Government Code Sections
65583 and 65584.
143. In addition to the code violations associated with its adoption, the
Amended Element is substantively deficient in that it fails to provide the information and
level of specificity required under Government Code sections 65583 and 65584.
144. The deficiencies identified in the HCD Analysis of the New Element,
along with the citations to the supporting Government Code sections, apply with even greater
force when applied to the dramatically less complete information found in the Amended
Element. Petitioners hereby incorporate the HCD Analysis in this First Amended, as if set
forth in full.
145. In addition to the deficiencies identified in the HCD Analysis, a review
of the Amended Element as a whole reveals that much of the information contained therein is
seriously outdated, and fails to take into account the growth and development of the City
occurring in recent years. Indeed much of the Amended Element discusses "future" goals for
the 1989-1994 planning period.
31
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
146. In addition, the census data relied upon in the Amended Element is so
outdated as to be virtually useless in future planning, particularly in light of the vastly more
recent data contained in the New Element.
147. As a result of the City's failure to comply with the requirements of the
Government Code in adopting the Amended Element as part of GPA 00-001, and the
inadequacy of the Amended Element itself, Petitioners are entitled to a peremptory writ of
mandate which, inter alia, directs the City to vacate and set aside its approval of GPA 00-
001, including, but not limited to, Resolution No. 00-91.
148. In addition, Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in
support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve
and protect Petitioners' rights herein.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
('Against The City And Real Parties For A Writ Of Mandate
And Injunctive Relief Based On Violations Of
Government Code § 65051.5 And Health & Safety Code § 33492.114)
149. Petitioners reallege and incorporate herein by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 148, inclusive, as set forth above.
150. In granting land use approvals to allow for the development of
commercial, residential, or other land uses on all or any portion of MCAS-Tustin, the City is
required under AB 212 to condition those approvals in such a manner as to provide for the
timely conveyance or irrevocable offer to dedicate to the Districts for purposes of
constructing or operating a K-I 4 educational facility: (a) fee title to a 100-acre parcel of
contiguous land situated within that portion of MCAS-Tustin that falls within the Districts'
current attendance boundaries or (b) fee title to other property at MCAS-Tustin that the
Districts agree in writing to accept, provided that this other property does not include any of
the parcels designated under the Reuse Plan for conveyance to certain public agencies and
nonprofit organizations. (Govt. Code §65051.5; Health & Saf. Code §33492.114.)
32
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
151. According to the express language of AB 212, any land use or other
approvals granted or issued by the City that do not comply with AB 212 "shall be invalid and
of no force or effect," and are subject to being vacated and set aside by writ of mandate.
152. The City's adoption of GPA 00-001 to serve as the master land use plan
to implement the Reuse Plan for the base was the first land use approval issued by the City to
authorize the large-scale development of commercial, residential, and other land uses as
MCAS-Tustin.
153. The City has applied to the Navy to acquire title to over 1,200 acres of
land at MCAS-Tustin, i.e., over 75% of the surplus land available for distribution at the base.
If and when it acquires that land, which primarily consists parcels designated for of
commercial and residential uses, the City plans to auction those parcels off to private real
estate developers so that they can proceed to develop the base in accordance with the master
land use plan authorized by GPA 00-001.
154. Although GPA 00-001 was finally adopted by the City Council on
January 16, 2001--i.e., prior to AB 212's effective date of January 1, 2002--it is nonetheless
subject to AB 212 because the statute expressly provides that it "shall apply retroaCtively to
all land use or other approvals relating to the Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin that are
granted or issued by [the City] on or after January 1, 2001." (Govt. Code §65051.5; Health &
Sar. Code {}33492.114.)
155. The City Council's approval of GPA 00-001 was not issued in
compliance with AB 212, i.e., the City adopted GPA 00-001 without imposing the conditions
of approval and mitigation measures necessary to provide for the certain parcels of land at
MCAS-Tustin to be timely conveyed to the Districts after the City acquired title thereto.
Accordingly, the City's approval of GPA 00-001 must be vacated and set aside on the
grounds that it violates the dictates of AB 212 and is invalid.
156. The City, however, has failed to take any action to vacate and set aside
its approval of GPA 00-001, or to otherwise amend or modify that approval to impose the
conditions of approval required by AB 212. To the contrary, since AB 212 was signed by the
33
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-WriI.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Governor in July 2001, the City has steadfastly maintained that AB 212 is invalid and
unconstitutional.
157. For example, City officials have stated in the press that "the City will file
its own lawsuit to have [AB 212] negated as unconstitutional" and that the City "will turn to
the courts to fight the legislation." (Orange County Register' July 12, 2001, "Base Bill
Approved By Senate"; Orange County Register, August 2, 2001, "State Joins Battle Over
Helicopter Base Governor Signs Bill Barring Tustin From Developing Former Base Until 100
Acres Are Turned Over To Schools.")
158. Not only has the City repeatedly insisted in public statements in the press
that AB 212 is unconstitutional and unenforceable, but it has also expressly stated, both
orally and in writing, in recent proceedings conducted by the United Stated District Court in
that certain civil rights action entitled Santa Aha Unified School District et al. v. City of
Tustin, et al. (U.S. District Court Case No. 01-3426 WJR (CTx)) [hereinafter referred to as
the "Federal Court Action"] that AB 212 is unconstitutional and the City intends to challenge
its validity in Court.
159. Indeed, in motion papers recently filed in the Federal Court Action, the
City has stated that it "believes that AB 212 is invalid, and intends to file an action seeking to
invalidate the statute." ("Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, or, in the
Alternative to Stay" at p. 2, lines 3-5.)
160. Given the City's unwavering, albeit unjustified, position that AB 212 is
unconstitutional and of no legal effect, it would have been futile for Petitioners, prior to
bringing this claim, to have formally requested the City to vacate and set aside GPA 00-001
on the grounds that it violates AB 212 and is invalid. -
161. As a result of the City's failure to vacate and set aside GPA 00-001,
Petitioners are entitled to a peremptory writ of mandate which, inter alia, directs the City to
vacate and set aside its approval of GPA 00-001, including, but not limited to, Resolution No.
00-91.
34
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ.Doc First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate
)
162. lnaddition, Petitioners are entitled to ancillary injunctive relief in
support of this cause of action, including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary
restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction, as necessary to preserve
and protect Petitioners' rights herein.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for relief as follows:
ON ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. For a peremplory writ of mandate, and for ancillary injunctive relief,
including, without limitation, the issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary
injunction, and permanent injunction, as prayed for hereinabove;
2. For Petitioners' attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Code of Civil
Procedure section 1021.5 and Government Code section 800;
3. For Petitioners' cost of suit; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
: January ~ts, 2002 EDMOND M. CONNOR
CRAIG L. GRIFFIN
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
16
17
I8
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Edmond M. Connor
Attorneys For Petitioners
Santa Ana Unified School District,
Rancho Santiago Community College District,
and Marisela Longacre
35
RSCCD/MCAS/Amd-Writ. Doc First Amended Petilion for Writ of Mandate
10
11
12
13
14
15'
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROL~.' OF SERVICE BY FIRST CLASo ~¢IAIL
I am employed with Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, whose address is
2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450, Irvine, California 92612; I am not a party to
the cause; I am over the age of eighteen years and I am readily familiar with the
practice of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service and know that in
the ordinary course of the business practice of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP the
document described below will be deposited with the United States Postal Service
on the same date that it is placed at Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP with postage
thereon fully prepaid for collection and mailing.
I further declare that on the date hereof I served a copy of the
following documents:
FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
on the following by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope
addressed as follows for collection and mailing via first class mail at Connor,
Blake & Griffin LLP, 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1450, Irvine, California 92612
in accordance with the ordinary business practices of Connor, Blake & Griffin
LLP:
Daniel K. Spradlin, Esq.
Craig G. Farrington, Esq.
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart
701 S. Parker Street, Ste. 7000
Orange, CA 92868
Attorneys for Defendants
City of TUstin, et al.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the above is true and correct.
Executed on January 17, 2002, '.~,.~ine' California./
udy R ter }
Exhibit B
EDMOND M. CONNOR
LAURA LEE BLAKE
CRAm L. G~W~N
DAVID J. ]-]E$$ELTINE
MATTHEW J. FLETCIIER
.~ONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN":~.-P
ATIrORNEYS AT LAW
2600 MICHELSON DP. WE
Strife 1450
I~vp~, CALn~Om, V.A 92612
TELEPI-ION£ (949) 622-2600
TELEFAC$IM1LE (949) 622-2626
E-MAIL: econnor@businesslit.com
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re'
Additional Objections to Adequacy of FEIS/FEIR for General
Plan Amendment 00-001 Re Disposal and Reuse of Marine
Corps Air Station - Tustin, California
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
In connection with the public hearing to be held on January 16, 2001, by
the City Council for the City of Tustin (the "City") regarding General Plan Amendment
00-001 (the "Project") and the "Final Environmental Impact Statement/Final
Environmental Impact Report" (hereinafter, the "FEIS/FEIR") for the disposal and reuse
of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin"), we submit
this letter on behalf of our clients the Santa Ana Unified School District (the "SAUSD"),
the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the "RSCCD"), Victor and Susan
Garcia (the "Garcias"), Fortino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karina Valenzuela
[hereinafter, the SAUSD and the RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the
"Districts" and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall
collectively be referred to aS the "Concerned Parties"].
The Concemed Parties hereby object to the FEIS/FEIR and the Project on
the basis of each and every procedural and substantive contention, objection, comment, or
argument raised in the following letters, as well as all other letters submitted to the City
in connection with the FEIS/FEIR or the Project:
(a) the November 28, 2000 letter from Edmond M. Connor, Esq.,
Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of
Tustin, regarding the FEIS/FEIR and the Project;
(b) the December 18, 2000 letter from M. Andriette Culbertson,
President, Culbertson, Adams & Associates, to the City Council, City of Tustin,
which was prepared at the request of our office;
RSCCDWICA S-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLI
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 2
(c) the January 16, 2001 letter from Dwight E. Berg, P.E., Public
Economics, Inc. ("PEI"), to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin,
which is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto;
(d) the January 16, 2001 letter from Colette Made McLaughlin,
Planner for SAUSD, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin,
which is attached as Exhibit "B" hereto;
(e) the January 16,2001 letter from Dante Gumucio of PEI to Dana
Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin, which is attached as Exhibit "C"
hereto; and
(f) the January 16, 2001 letter from Julie Slark, Executive Director of
Research Planning and Development, Rancho Santiago Community College
District, to Dana Ogdon, Senior Project Manager, City of Tustin, which is
attached as Exhibit "D" hereto.
Each of the above-listed letters is incorporated herein by reference as if set
forth in full hereat. In addition, the Concerned Parties also object to the FEIS/FEIR and
the Project on the basis of each of the objections raised, or comments or arguments made,
by the Concerned Parties, their representatives, or any other Project opponent at any
public hearing or meeting conducted by the City in connection with the Project or the
FEIS/FEIR, including, but not limited to, the public hearing conducted by the City's
Planning Commission on November 28, 2000.
The Agenda Report for the January 16, 2001 hearing on GPA 00-001 sets
forth comments in response to some of the points which I raised in my letter to you of
November 28, 2000. In those comments, staff repeatedly makes reference to the student
generation estimates set forth in a July 1996 report by SAUSD's consultant, PEI. In his
attached letter to you (Exhibit "A" hereto), Mr. Berg of PEI takes issue with the City's
attempt to compare the estimates set forth in PEI's July 1996 report to the "worst case"
projections for student generation impacts which were set forth in the FEIS/FEIR. In
addition, Mr. Berg points out in his letter that the FEIS/FEIR's projected range of 82 to
509 additional students to be generated for the SAUSD school system as a result of the
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin is not credible because it is based on unreasonable
assumptions which have materially skewed the results.
By incorporating more reasonable assumptions into the same
methodologies used by the City's consultants in arriving at its student generation
estimates, PEI has generated a new range of estimates to better define the number of
RSCCDXMCAS-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3.Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 3
students that will potentially be added to SAUSD's schools when the City's Reuse Plan is
implemented. The calculations performed by PEI--based on the methodologies employed
by the City's consultants--show that the FEIS/FEIR has seriously underestimated the
student generation impacts associated with the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan.
When these new calculations are considered in light of (1) the CEQA
compliance analysis set forth in Ms. Culbertson's letter to the City Council, dated
December 18, 2000, and (2) the additional facts set forth in the materials attached as
Exhibits "A" through "E" hereto, it is clear that the FEIS/FEIR violates CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines and must be corrected and recirculated for public review and comment
before the City takes any action on GPA 00-001. On this basis, therefore, the Concerned
Parties hereby request that the City continue the City Council hearing on GPA 00-001
until all of the CEQA compliance issues raised on behalf of the Concerned Parties have
been properly addressed and resolved.
In particular, the concerned Parties request that the City defer taking any
action to certify the FEIS/FEIR for GPA 00-001 until the misstatements of law set forth
in Attachment 6 to the January 16, 2001 Agenda Report are corrected and the FEIS/FEIR
is amended accordingly to add appropriate mitigation measures to minimize the Project's
impacts on public services and facilities within the Districts.. Specifically, the City
should acknowledge that the following contentions are disingenuous and incorrect when
applied to the City's Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of surplus federal land at MCAS-
Tustin:
"Except for paying school impact fees (that will be required as part of the
project) a new development is not required to build or provide sites for new
schools .... Finally, since Goleta and El Dorado were decided, the obligation of
a development project to mitigate impacts on schools has been completely
revised. The State is now responsible under SB 50 for financing new schools and
mitigating the impacts of land use approvals (see Califomia Government Code
Section 65995(e)) .... Even if mitigation was warranted, State law prohibits
conditioning projects to require that land be provided for schools (Cal. Gov't.
Code Section 65995)." (Agenda Report, pp. 3-4.)
In the first place, SB 50 has no application whatsoever to the obligations
of the U.S. Department of the Navy (the "DON") under NEPA and the Environmental
Justice Order to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are adopted to minimize the
adverse environmental effects associated with the disposal and reuse of surplus federal
land at MCAS-Tustin, particularly impacts on minority populations. Since the
FEIS/FEIR is intended to be an environmental compliance document that will jointly be
R SCCD~MCA S-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 4
utilized by the DON and the City in issuing approvals relating to the City's Reuse Plan
for MCAS-Tustin, it is imperative that the FEIS/FEIR be revised and recirculated to
acknowledge the significant impacts which the Project will have on public services and
facilities within the Districts and to provide for appropriate mitigation measures to reduce
or eliminate these impacts. The City cannot attempt to unilaterally exonerate the DON
from complying with the requirements of NEPA and the Environmental Justice Order by
simply invoking the provisions of SB 50.
More impOrtantly, however, SB 50 provides no escape route for the City
to avoid its obligations under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to mitigate the adverse
impacts the Project will have on public services and facilities within the Districts.
Indeed, SB 50 was never intended to apply to the federal base closure and reuse process
relating to MCAS-Tustin. Under that process, the City, as the Local Redevelopment
Agency ("LRA") is required to prepare a Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of the surplus
federal land that is to be conveyed by the United States in closing the military installation
in question, The City's proposed approval of GPA 00-001 in support of its Reuse Plan
for MCAS-Tustin does not involve the imposition of the type of"conditions" or
"exactions" on real estate developers which are proscribed by SB 50.
The preparation and approval of a Reuse Plan for a military base is an
activity which is expressly subject to CEQA (see sections 21083.8 and 21083.8.1) and
there is no basis for asserting that the State Legislature intended that SB 50 could be used
by LRAs, such as the City, to circumvent the requirements of CEQA. In fact, SB 50
expressly states that it shall not be interpreted "to limit or prohibit the authority of a local
agency to reserve or designate real property for a schoolsite." (See, Gov. Code, §
65998(a).)
Not surprisingly, the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin does, indeed,
designate (1) 80 acres of land for schoolsites for the Tustin Unified School District and
the Irvine Unified School District and (2) 100 acres of land for a "Learning Village" site
for the South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD"). However, no
land for schoolsites for either of the Districts is provided under the Reuse Plan and both
the letter and the spirit of NEPA and CEQA--as well as SB 50--would require such sites
to be designated as appropriate mitigation for the impacts that will be generated by the
City's Reuse Plan for the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
Turning to another subject, the Concerned Parties strongly disagree with
staffs assertion in the Agenda Report that there is "no feasible way" to evaluate the
student generation impacts on RSCCD that will be created by build-out of the City's
Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin. Obviously, the community college facilities and programs
R SCCDXMCA S-Lan dTms fr\Ogdon 3 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 5
provided by RSCCD qualify as "public services" within the meaning of section 15126.2
of the CEQA Guidelines and, as such, any significant impacts to these services must be
addressed and mitigated in the FEIS/FEIR. Regrettably, the FEIS/FEIR fails to even
mention RSCCD in discussing impacts on public services and facilities and, in the
Agenda Report, staff attempts to justify this glaring omission by offering the explanation
that its EIR consultant has no prior experience in projecting indirect impacts on a
community college district.
In the attached letter from Ms. Julie Slark, the Executive Director of
Research, Planning, and Development for RSCCD, Ms. Slark points out that, by simply
modifying the methodologies employed by the City's consultants in the FEIS/FEIR, it is
possible to make a reasonable estimate as to the range of additional full-time students that
will be added to the RSCCD system as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
The point to be made here is that, if Ms. Slark can perform these calculations, the City's
consultant can certainly do likewise--and should have done so in analyzing the
environmental impacts of the City's Reuse Plan.
To underscore this point, PEI was asked to perform such an analysis on
behalf of RSCCD, and the results of that analysis are set forth in the letter from Mr.
Gumucio to Mr. Ogdon which is attached as Exhibit "C" hereto. Clearly, the provisions
of SB 50 do not apply to community college districts and thus the FEIS/FEIR not only
fails to address the impacts of the Project on the public services and facilities within
RSCCD, but also fails to provide any mitigation measures to address these impacts.
Merely alluding to the Reuse Plan's designation of the "Learning Village" parcel for
SOCCCD does not constitute adequate compliance with CEQA.
We believe that calculations supplied by Mr. Gumucio and Ms. Slark
demonstrate that the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan will have significant impacts on
RSCCD's already-overcrowded facilities. These impacts should have been disclosed and
analyzed in the FEIS/FEIR and appropriate mitigation measures should have been
discussed to. minimize or avoid such impacts. The failure of the FEIS/FEIR to contain
any discussion whatsoever regarding student generation impacts on RSCCD renders that
document legally defective and requires it to be supplemented and recirculated for public
review and comment.
In the light of the startling revelations regarding SOCCCD's plans to
develop a portion of the "Learning Village" parcel which were disclosed in an article
which appeared two weeks ago in the Los Angeles Times (see Exhibit "E," hereto), it is
now clear that significant new information has surfaced regarding the City's Reuse Plan
which requires the FE1S/FEIR to be revised and recirculated to address the Project's
RSCCD\MCAS-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3.Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLI~
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 6
impacts on community college district services and facilities. According to the attached
article, if SOCCCD obtains land at MCAS-Tustin, it intends to develop a project known
as the "Digital Innovation Center for the Arts, Science, and Technology ("DI-CAST") to
teach students in such high-tech areas as animation, laser optics and virtual reality.
However, the classes to be provided by SOCCCD will be directed toward "older
students" who need certification training to advance in their jobs or change professions.
In other instances, SOCCCD will contract to teach classes for companies. SOCCCD
expects most of the classes it offers as part of its DI-CAST project to be short,
immersion-style offerings, perhaps taught in five-week cycles, mostly at night or on
weekends.
What this means, therefore, is that, although the City's Reuse Plan for
MCAS-Tustin will be generating upwards to 3,000 new full-time community college
students for RSCCD, the programs to be offered by SOCCCD will not be geared to
address the needs of such students. That, of course, will leave RSCCD with the burden of
accommodating these new students in its already-overcrowded system with no new land
or facilities being provided at MCAS-Tustin. Obviously, these impacts need to be
addressed and appropriate mitigation measures need to be discussed in the FEIS/FEIR.
In revising the FEIS/FEIR to incorporate a discussion of such impacts and
mitigation measures as they relate to RSCCD, the City should be mindful that, as
reported in the attached LA Times article, officials of SOCCCD have now admitted
publicly that, if that district does not obtain land at MCAS-Tustin as part of the City's
Reuse Plan, SOCCCD can simply move its "DI-CAST" project to another location at one
of its two other campuses. This candid admission confirms what the Districts have long
suspected, i.e., that SOCCCD does not need any additional land at MCAS-Tustin because
it has a substantial amount of unused land at its two other campuses. Accordingly, since
the Districts desperately need surplus at MCAS-Tustin to build new school facilities, a
balancing of the equities would certainly favor--indeed it would mandate--that the City's
Reuse Plan and FEIS/FEIR be amended to provide that the entire "Learning Village"
parcel be conveyed to the Districts.
As a final note, in Attachment 6 to the Agenda Report for the January 16,
2001 public hearing, staff refers to a purported "offer" to provide SAUSD with 10 acres
of land at MCAS-Tustin and $3.5 million in up-front tier level 1 school impact
development fees. What is unclear is whether the City intends its reference to this so-
called "offer" to constitute "mitigation" for the adverse impacts which the Project will
have on SAUSD. If that is the City's intention, then such mitigation must properly be
addressed in the FEIS/FEIR and in the City's Mitigation Monitoring Report relating
thereto. As the City is well aware, of course, its belated "offer" is woefully inadequate in
RSCCD~dVl CA S-LandTrnsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLP
Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 7
light of SAUSD's needs and is grossly unfair in light of the 160 acres of land which it is
providing to Tustin Unified, Irvine Unified, and SOCCCD.
In light of the fOregoing, the Concerned Parties respectfully submit that
the City should refrain from taking any action to certify the FE1S/FEIR or to approve
GPA 00-001 until the CEQA-related deficiencies noted herein have been corrected and
the FEIS/FEIR has been recirculated for public review and comment.
Edm6ffd M. Connor
bcc: Dr. Edward Hemandez
Dr. A1 Mijares
Dr. Don Stabler
Martin N. Burton, Esq.
Ruben Smith, Esq.
Victor/Susan Garcia
Fortino/Bertha Rivera
Karina Valenzuela
R SCCD\MCAS-LandTmsfr\Ogdon3 .Doc
EXHIBIT "A"
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Public Finence
Urban Economics
Development Services
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), Public Economics,
Inc. ("PEI") has prepared this response ("Response") to certain staff comments set forth in
Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," prepared by City
staff in sUpport of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and
certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ("City") at the public
hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In particular, this Response addresses comments of City
staff regarding the number of new students projected to be generated within SAUSD from
proposed redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-fourths of all
redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California--including a number of
military base closures--on behalf of over 200 local school districts, community college districts,
and county offices of education.
Dwight Berg, principal investigator for this Response, has personally advised over 125 school
districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in
general, and redevelopment in particular. Mr. Berg has a Master of Science degree in Social
Science with an emphasis in Economics, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Economics and
Engineering, all from the California Institute of Technology.
820 W. Town and Country Road ' Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 ' FAX (714) 647-6232
World Wide Web: hhtp;//www:pub-econ.com
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 2
Analysis
The FEIS/FEIR relies on the (i) Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the
MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District CDMC
Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting CDMC") in May 1999, and (ii) Updated
Report School Facility Construction Cost Impact of Redevelopment (sic) of the MCAS Tustin
Site on the Santa Ana Unified School District ("JCJ Report"), prepared by JCJ Associates in June
1999. Specifically, City staff state that "the DMC Report brackets a .... high and low range of
probable household impacts to the [District, and the ] JCJ Report uses the DMC Report high and
low impact assumptions to identify a range of students.
Based on the DMC and JCJ Reports, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin will generate only 82 to 509 new students for SAUSD. As further support for this
conclusion, City staff refers to a report prepared by PEI in July 1996 for SAUSD, entitled
"Analysis of the Impact of MCAS-Tustin Reuse Plan on Santa Ana Unified School District"
("1996 PEI Report"), in which PEI projected an impact of 404 new households and 272 new
students.
City staff fails to disclose that the 1996 PEI Report utilized student generation factors which are
now out-of-date, and were not used by JCJ in calculating the figures reported in the FEIS/FEIR.
The 1996 PEI Report used 0.673 K-12 students per household, which in 1998 the District
updated to 0.93 K-12 students per household, the factor used in the FEIS/FEIR. In January
2000, the District updated the factor to 0.995 K-I 2 students per household--an increase of about
7 percent. For purposes of this letter and for the sake of comparison, all figures from the 1996
PEI Report have been adjusted to reflect the 1998 student generation factor utilized in the
FEIS/FEIR except where noted. Using the 1998 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report
would have shown a projected impact of 377 new students. (Using the 2000 student generation
rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 402 new students.)~
In referring to the 1996 PEI Report, City staff also fails to disclose the true purpose for which
that report was prepared. .Specifically, the 1996 PEI Report was prepared to identify the
minimum number of students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin, in a manner consistent with the requirements proposed at the time regarding how
mitigation payments by the redevelopment agency for MCAS-Tustin should be determined.
City staff did note that the 1996 PEI Report was based on the City's original estimate that 26,180 new
on-site jobs will be created at MCAS-Tustin. If the 1996 PEI Report had been based on the revised estimate of
24,852 new jobs utilized in the FEIS/FEIK the revised number of new students would be slightly less than the
amounts shown above.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 3
The 1996 PEI Report was prepared one and one-half years before the initial draft of the EIS/EIR
was prepared, when the City of Tustin was claiming that the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin would have no direct or indirect impact on SA USD. The 1996 PEI Report utilized
a conservative methodology to demonstrate that even under a "best case" scenario from the City's
point of view, redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin would generate at least 377 new students in
SAUSD, resulting in a significant impact that the City needed to address in the EIS/EIR.2
Although a "worst case" scenario is required to be examined in preparing an EIK, the 1996 PEI
Report was not intended to serve that purpose. Indeed, that task was left to the City's
consultants. IfPEI had been asked to develop a "worst case" scenario, the projections would not
only have been much higher than the projections set forth in the 1996 PEI Report, they would
also have been considerably higher than the projections from the DMC and JCJ Reports that were
incorporated within the FEIS/FEIR.
The fact of the matter is that in presenting a "worst case" scenario, the FEIS/FEIR greatly
understate the true range of new students that would be generated by the proposed
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the FEIS/FEIR's ignoring certain basic
economic principles related to job growth in Orange County, and misinterpreting or misapplying'
other economic data. As more fully explained below, if the FEIS/FEIR is corrected to properly
apply such principles and data, the range of new students that would be generated by the
proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would increase by approximately a factor of 10: from the
current projections of 82 to 509 new students, to a revised projection of 741 to 5,581 new
students.
The FE1S/FEIR underestimates the nu~nber of jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to
Orange County:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will generate only
82 new students for SAUSD. This projection is based on the following assumptions: (i) 90
percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin will involve firms which simply
relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) all such jobs will involve the same employees as
previously, and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be
The term "significant impact" appears to be applied differently by PE1 than by the City of Tustin. PE1
deems significant any students generated over and above SAUSD's existing student capacity (based on State
guidelines.) The City does not identify any objective criteria to be used in determining "significant," other than to
suggest that, if enough students were generated lo fill an entire grade school, middle school, or high school, then
the student generation impact would be deemed "significant" trader CEQA. PEI is not aware of any such standard
being used in California to gauge the significance of estimated increases in student enrollment.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 4
closer to their place of work. However,
reasons.
these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four
First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be created
on-site at MCAS-Tustin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not Possibly be
"relocated" from somewhere else in the County ((FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.). The regional and
community parks, the golf course, the learning village, the housing facilities are unique land uses
which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that
relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS/FEIR rather than
an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional park, or other similar facility will actually be
relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected
in the FEIS/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas designated
as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to
create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere in the County.
However, many of the jobs associated with the retail, wholesale, and discount businesses that are
also projected for these land use areas will be new to the County. Indeed, at least some of these
jobs will be "big box" retail establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses
are most likely to open new stores at MCAS-Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously
serve (including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEIR projects will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that only 10%
of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could" be new to Orange County, i.e., that 90 percent of such jobs
would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated that this claim is based on
interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff economists at certain companies and
agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically identify any person interviewed or, more
importantly, what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to
make in arriving at this 90 percent figure. No verifiable information regarding these supposed
responses is provided in the FE1S/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply
relocate from elsewhere within the County, but that such relocation will not have any impact on
SAUSD. In 'so doing, the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban
economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin will be
occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but whose former
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 5
homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim would be inappropriate
since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "backfilled" by new occupants. The
FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
residential uses.
However, the FEIS/FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when commercial/industrial space
previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms
new to the County (or by other firms that move from elsewhere in the County, which in turn
vacate space filled by firms from outside the County).3
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FEIS/FEIR implicitly assumes
that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to
MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this assumption is just as inappropriate
for non-residential uses as for residential uses. Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at
MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still be
substantial net additional impacts on total County employment. HoweVer, the FEIS/FEIR fails to
consider these additional impacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors as the
number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii) unemployed, or (iii)
not in the labor force. However, in claiming that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will
be filled by persons who already have jobs in the County, the FEIS/FEIR not only ignores the
backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems
highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the
County than there are employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and
labor force participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere
in Orange County, the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold
New jobs lead to migration of new workers to fill these jobs, and migrating employees may follow or
precede local job creation. In its report "Causes of Growth and Possible Control measures in the San Diego
Region (Agenda Report No. R-83, September 11, 1987), the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG")
states that "many of these labor-force dependent migrants are lured to the .... area by non-economic factors such as
climate and environment. But without a job or at least the prospect of one, they would not migrate here, or after
arrival, would be unable to afford a permanent stay." Moreover, migration impacts are relevant even "if all new
jobs went to local workers," in which case "migrants would simply ~oack-fill' a large share of the jobs vacated by
local residents, i.e., take the existing 'Group A' jobs vacated by current residents who take new jobs, or fill existing
'Group B' jobs vacated by current residents who fill the 'Group A' jobs, and so on."
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 6
those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work. City staff claims
that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is
negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the
amount of relocating workers that they deem to be "negligible."
In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percentmcompared to the City's
figure of 10 percent-- is much more reasonable for establishing the l°w end of the range of new
jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100 percent is an
appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent figure still appears
highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County, it
assumes that either one-half of the old space will not be backfilled, and/or one-half of the new
on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously
unemployed or not in the labor force. Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50
percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method//2 of the FEIS/FEIR as a Iow end
measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange
County.
The FEIS/FEIR fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods:
Method //2 of the FEIS/FEIR properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined total of
0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on-site firms (indirect
jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs). However, Method #1 of
the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such indirect or induced jobs (DMC
Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect employment
that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the intent of Method
#1. However, this results in the anomalous situation in which Method #2, which includes direct
and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates fewer impacts than Method #1, which ignores
multiplier effects.
If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a range of
impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier effects result
from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method #1 because it uses
total on-site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness of Method //1 for
bracketing impacts.4
Perhaps failure to acknowledge tlts point in the FEIS/FEIR and related staff reports, is based on confusion
by staff regarding the meaning of "direct impacts." On the one hand, staff uses "direct" to refer to student
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 7
In addition, City staff has stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 . . . would result in
identical.., conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as "direct
employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of on-site jobs (as
currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the previous page) rather than 10
percent as shown in Method//2.
If the same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method #2 is applied to
Method #1, the number of new students generated within SAUSD increases by 60.5 percent, i.e.,
from 509 new students to 819 new students based on 1998 student generation factors (876 new
students based on 2000 student generation factors--see Alternative Method A below).
The FEIS/FE1R improperly utilizes the "Household Capture" figure from 0CP-96 in each of
its Methods:
The FEIS/FEIR references the following statistic from OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing growth in
Orange County from 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Aha." In each of the two
methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD, the FEIS/FEIR
misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers taking the new jobs
created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns and (ii)
housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent
on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of homes being created
elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent figure from OCP-96, which estimates the
percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000
and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at
MCAS-Tustin and establish new households in Santa Ana.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail, clerical,
warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best. However,
housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-family housing that
will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs
generation impacts of on-site housing, and "indirect" to refer to student impacts of generated by job creation. On
the other hand, staff uses "direct" to refer to those on-site jobs that have multiplier effects, and "indirect" to the
multiplier effects themselves (which in fact include "indirect" impacts--off-site jobs created by firms within the
region that sell to or buy from on-site firms--and "induced" impacts---off-site jobs created by firms within the
region that produce or sell goods and services demanded by new employees).
January 16, 2 0 01
Mr. Dana Ogdon
.Page 8
(FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable
housing in other areas and communities near MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important
that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are likely to establish
new households in Santa Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other
communities around MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns--and by inference,
housing affordability--Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96 for
estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana. Census data
from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45,414 workers (25.49 percent) also live
in Santa Ana. In other words, 25.49 percent of jobs in Santa Ana are filled by workers who found
Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing.
Census data also show that of 1,123,048 jobs in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent)
live in Santa Ana.5
Since MCAS-TusIin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that a similar
percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In other words, it is
prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent of workers will
reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns,
and by inference, housing affordability. Accordinglyl in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and
(E) below, the figures of 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent derived from the 1990 Census have been
substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP-96.
Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be generated in
SA USD by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin:
Alternative Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC Report included in its
Method #2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method #1. The number of indirect or induced jobs
that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the
FEIS/FEIR. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By simply including the number of new students that will
be generated by these indirect or induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR's projection of 509 new students
increases to 819 with 1998 student generation rates (876 students with 2000 student generation
rates).
By comparison, the 1990 Census also demonstrates that of the 33,531 people who work in Tustin, only
5,789 (17.26 percent) also live in Tustin. The fact that the number of workers who live and work in Santa Ana is
more than eight percentage points higher than the number that work and live in Tustin suggest that housing is
more affordable in Santa Aha than in Tustin--and as a result, that Santa Aha would draw relatively more of the
workers from MCAS-Tustin.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 9
Alternative Method (/~.): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC
Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin that would be new to
Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 7.24 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for
the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new household created by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These two modifications cause
the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase
by a factor of nine from 82 to 741 new students with 1998 student generation rates (793 students
with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (C): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 7.24 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 3 from 509 to 1,482 with 1998 student generation
rates (1,585 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created
at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 25.49 percent
figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within
SAUSD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 32 from 82 to 2,192 new
students with 1998 student generation rates (2,791 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (E): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 25.49 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will reside within. SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of more than 10 from 509 to 5,217 new students with 1998
student generation rates (5,581 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Conclusion
In conclusion, by making reasonable modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new
household estimates set forth in the FEIS/FEIR are based, a more credible range of estimates
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 10
emerges to better define the student generation impacts on SAUSD which will be caused by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. The current "best case" and "worst case" scenarios set forth in
the FEIS/FEIR (i.e., 82 to 509 additional students) are simply not credible and should be revised
upward (i.e., to 741 to 5,217 students based on 1998 student generation factors (and to 793 to
5,581 new students based on 2000 student generation factors) in light of the points discussed
above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
Dwight°E. Berg, P.E.0 ~
Consultant
attachment
KSSANTA AN.USDXEIRRESP5.SAM
--
EXHIBIT "B"
San a Ana Unified hool District
~ ~-LAN"~'~ '~ Mijares'"'~ Ph.D.---~ ~
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, Califomia 92780
January 16, 2001
Re: GPA-O0-O01; FE1S/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
At the request of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, the attorneys for the Santa Ana Unified
School District ("SAUSD") and the Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD")
[hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the "Districts"], ! have been
asked to submit this letter in response to certain comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the
"Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," which has been prepared by the ''~
Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment
No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") and the certification of the related FEIS/FEIR by the City Council
of the City of Tustin (the "City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001.
I am currently employed as a facilities plam~er in the Facilities Planning Department of
SAUSD, and I am presently completing my doctoral studies at the School of Social Ecology at
the University of California at Irvine. Prior to working for SAUSD, I provided planning services
for the Cities of Westminster and Long Beach. My present duties include the coordination and
administration of facilities planning activities related to new school construction, renovation of
existing schools, and other support activities. A large portion of my current workload involves
the acquisition of land for the new school facilities, which SAUSD desperately needs. My work
in this area has included research regarding the feasibility of developing new schools at the
Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin").
In the Agenda Report prepared for the public hearing to be held on GPA 00-001 on
January 16, 2001, staff continues to assert that the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will neither
(1) generate any significant adverse impacts on public services and facilities within the two
Districts, nor (2) necessitate the City's adoption of any mitigation measures to minimize such
adverse impacts by, for example, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be set aside
as new school sites for SAUSD and RSCCD. I do not believe that the City has properly assessed
the significant environmental effects associated the reuse of MCAS-Tustin, particularly with
respect to impacts on public services and facilities affecting the Districts.
In order to properly assess the "significance" of such environmental impacts, the City
should consider all of the letters, testimony, and other materials submitted to date on behalf of the
1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Aha, CA 92701-6322 (714) 480°5357
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Nadia Maria Davis, President ° Nativo Lopez, Vice President
Sal Tinajero, Clerk · Rosemarie Avila, Member · John Palacio, Member
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 2
Districts with respect to the FEIS/FEIR, as well as the following additional facts which I have
extrapolated from SAUSD's records and files:
(1) SAUSD has a student population which is 96% minority and is
characterized by limited English language proficiency at a rate about three times that of
the State and Orange County as a whole. About two-thirds of SAUSD's students reside
in households with incomes at or below the federal poverty level. SAUSD experienced
explosive enrollment growth during the latter 1980s and early 1990s. Though the pace of
enrollment growth has moderated in recent years, the State Class Size Reduction program
that emerged suddenly in mid-1996 put additional stress on SAUSD's already
overcrowded facilities, as classrooms had to be subdivided to accommodate no more than
20 students in the first and second grades throughout the District. To accommodate all of
the school facilities needs, SAUSD has acquired over 400 portable classrooms and
operates most of its elementary and intermediate schools on year-round schedules;
(2) Enrollment counts at SAUSD rose sharply through 1990 and the
composition of its student population has changed markedly. To date, virtually all
students enrolled in SAUSD are members of one or another racial/ethnic minority (with
Latinos comprising almost 92% of all students). Socioeconomically, nearly two-thirds
qualify for free lunches; 71% possess limited English language skills; 40% are
immigrants;
(3) At the elementary level, nearly four students in five are limited English-
proficient ("LEP"), and in many of SAUSD's elementary schools, LEP students
collectively speak at least five separate primary languages, principally Spanish.
Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that particular neighborhoods may be evolving
differently. In community meetings held in connection with the preparation of the FMP,
SAUSD's consultants heard accounts of areas where young families with children often
rent homes formerly occupied by older "empty nesters," extended families often pool
resources to buy homes, and many families who cannot afford separate dwellings often
"double up" in the same residence;
(4) California is a major entry port into the United States, and Santa Ana and
its schools are a conspicuous front doorstep into American society. Many families who
children attend SAUSD are newly legalized residents, the natural aftermath of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"). Under the IRCA, some 66,000 persons
in Santa Ana applied to legalize their status--one of every 46 applicants nationwide in a
city inhabited by 1/1000th of the nation's population. According to a 1994 American
Housing Survey, 87% of households in Santa Ana with children send them to the City's
public schools (vs. 81% for Orange County as a whole). Most transfers into SAUSD are
children of parents holding jobs in Santa Ana, for whom convenience is a factor;
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 3
(5) In recent years, scores of Mexicans immigrants from the community of
Granjenal, for example, have settled in Santa Ana, essentially re-creating the community
and supplying the next generation of more educated young adults. More recently, nearly
one-fifth (4,417) of the 23,068 refugees coming to Orange County between 1990 and
1994 settled in Santa Ana. The pattern of settlement of California's new immigrants
resembles that of earlier immigrants. As before, the majority settled in a handful of
California counties to join their family and friends. The distinctiveness of Orange
County is its increasing popularity as an intended designation of residence for
immigrants;
(6) Immigrant communities, once established, become conspicuous
designations for future immigrants with common origins (as the movement from
Granjenal to Santa Ana exemplifies). Newcomers eager to settle near kin and friends
manage to secure accommodations, doubling up and pushing levels of residential density
(persons per household) even higher. The household configuration of Santa Ana's
population is distinctive. Residential density is extraordinarily high, yet continues to rise.
Persons per household in 1997 averaged 4.19, far above any other city in Orange County;
and
(7) Santa Ana's population is conducive to future school enrollments. First,
30% of the population is under 18, well above the corresponding figure for the rest of
Orange County or California. Second, a disproportionate share of Santa Ana's population
is within the childbearing ages (18-44 years). Santa Ana's age structure (conducive to
future enrollments) and its surrounding setting (permeated by public school enrollment
growth) are two distinctive features bearing on its future.
In addition to the above-listed facts, the new Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City of Santa Ana, which was adopted in December 2000, contains the following relevant facts:
(1) Household Size. During the 1990s, there was an increase in average
household size from 4.1 to 4.3 persons per household in Santa Ana;
(2) Age Distribution. During the 1990s, the preschool (under 4) and prime
working (25-54) age groups added 9,000 and 15,000 persons respectively while all other
age groups showed a decline or a very small increase;
(3) Ethnicity. The City's Hispanic population increased from about 65% of
the total in 1990 to 68% in 1997. The Asian population increased from 9% to 10%
during this same period, while the non-Hispanic White and African American populations
showed a net decline. (Housing Elements, p. A-27.)
Attached hereto as Exhibits "1" through "4" are three charts and one table which I have
prepared as follows:
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 4
(1) Exhibit "1" is a chart entitled "Average School Enrollment," which
compares the average enrollment of the elementary, middle, and high schools for the
SAUSD, the Tustin Unified School District, and the Irvine Unified School District.
Exhibit "A" was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department
of Education and the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS-Tustin;
(2) Exhibit "2" is a chart entitled "Housing Estimates, Jan. 1, 2000," which
compares the average number of persons per household for the Cities of Santa Ana,
Tustin, and Irvine and the County of Orange. Exhibit "B" was prepared based on
information obtained from the California Department of Finance;
(3) Exhibit "3" is a chart entitled "Comparison of SAUSD School Densities
With California Department of Ed. Recommended Average Student Per Acre," which
compares the average number of students per acres for elementary, middle, and high
schools in the SAUSD to the recommended averages for such schools. Exhibit "C" was
prepared based on information obtained from the California Department of Education;
and
(4) Exhibit "4" is a table entitled "SAUSD Enrollments, Acreage, and
MTYRE Info.," which summarizes the number of students, the size in acres, the number
of students per acre, and the type of multi-track year round education ("MTYRE"), if any,
for each school in the SAUSD. The table also provides average information for the all
elementary, middle, and high schools in the District, as well as the District as a whole.
Exhibit "4" was prepared based on the SAUSD's own data.
Hopefully, the data provided above, as well as the charts and table enclosed herewith,
will assist the City in reevaluating the environmental impacts associated with the City's Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin and will enable it to conclude that (1) the project will have significant
adverse effects on minority populations seeking to avail themselves of public services and
facilities with the two Districts and (2) such impacts need to be adequately mitigated by, among
other things, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be used for new school sites for
the Districts.
Very truly yours,
Colette Marie McLaughlin
Planner, SAUSD
EXHIBIT "1"
E
0
r.f)o Lr) 0
q.) ~.- ..f,,..
LO 0 LO 0 LO 0 LO
0
EXHIBIT "2"
HouSing Estimates, Jan. ,' 2000
..
b.U
4.5
4.0
3.5 ......
3.0 ,,i,; :':..'".::.:'.:~. ~
2.5- "':'1'"':' ~i
:~.:~
2.0 - ~';',-~.'_ :..,
'~.','.'.'.'
,· ..-...-., '. ~
1.5- '"'"""""' ..'.'
,".".'.','~,
,..........., ,
,-.'.','._'.~, , ·
,-._.~... ~, ,'.
;..'.'.".', ,'.
.......,, I
,=. ·
0.5 - ':<5:.:':':.
~._,~¢: '.,
,;.;.-..~,; 1~
,...--.-.-
0.0 '-'"-"%'~
Persons/Household
......
~B Irvine 2.9
Santa Ana 4.3
B;ITustin 2.9
Orange County 3.1
http:llwww.dof, ca.govlhtmllDemograplE-5text.htm
EXHIBIT "3"
OLI. i
0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >
0
EXHIBIT "4"
SAUSD
Enroll,.,ents, Acreage, and MT¥..Z Info.
School
10/99 CBEDS I
Davis
Diamond
iEdison
Franklin
Fremont
Garfield
Grant*
Greenville
Harvey
Heninger
lackson
Jefferson
Kennedy
King
Lincoln
Lowell
Madison
Martin
Monroe
Monte Vista
Plo Pico
Remington
Hero-Cruz
~oosevelt
Santiago
Sepulveda
Taft
Thorpe
Walker
Washington
;on
Total K-5
.~arr
Lathrop
~,rthur
McFadden
Mendez*
Sierra
Spurgeon
Villa
Willard
Total 6-8
856
78O
78O
935
1 ,O42
643
1,124
1,106
337
986
595
1,088
1,208
1,233
966
970
1,056
1,306
1,056
1,281
993
906
921
948
948
575
431
1,177
1,106
940
1,153
763
914
1,327
1,164
33,614
1,833
1 779
1 236
1 748
1.300
1010
1 573
1 168
1.623
13,270
2,707
243
236
24O
2,986
3,449
2,829
Century
Chavez
:Middle College
Mountain View**
Saddleback
Santa Ana
Valley
Acres
[ MTYRE (multi-track
Students per acre year round education)
6.75 127
4.03 194
4.75 164
5.58 168
3.69 282
2.53 254
2.88 390
4.99 222
2.75 123
6.5 152
5.5 108
6.69 163
4.47 270
9.52 ' 130
9.64 100
6 162
4.98 212
9.53 137
5.12 206
6.12 209
6.81 146
6.6 137
9.98 92
8.86 107
4.27 222
4.05 142
2.3 187
5.57 211
8.97 123
5.44 173
10 115
6.67 114
7.1 129
8.63 154
3.86 302
211.13 159.2
25.22 73
7.65 233
10 124
24.18 72
12 108
11.84 85
19 83
11.25 104
9.79 166
130.93 101.4
24.99 108
2.47 98
0 NA
2.44 98
36.44 82
24.3 142
50.02 57
140.66 90.2
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
I cycle
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
2 cycles
2 cycles
the number below is
stUdents per acre
adjUSted by adding
·
students from new
schools and
excluding students
from schOOls that
share facilities
Total 9-12 12,690 "
Total All Grades 57,937 482.72 122.9
· new schools: counts are excluded from total enrollment but are included in adjusted students/acre **
student enrollment count has been excluded from adjusted students/acre
EXHIBIT "C"
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Pub§c Finance
Urban Economics
Development Services
January 16, 2000
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Rancho Santiago Community College District ("CCD"),
Public Economics, Inc. ("PEI") has prepared this response ("Response") to certain staff
comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager,
William Huston," prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General
Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of
the City of Tustin ("City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In
particular, this Response addresses comments of City staff that "there is no feasible way
to evaluate indirect impacts" of MCAS-Tustin on the CCD.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-
fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California-
including a number of military base closures-on behalf of over 200 local school districts,
community college districts, and county offices of education.
Dante Gumucio, CEO of PEI, has personally advised over 200 school districts and
community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in gen.eral,
and redevelopment in particular. Mr. Gumucio has over 20 years academic and
consulting experience. He has been on the full-time economics faculty at California State
University, Fullerton (and taught part-time at Chapman University), where his classes
820 W. Town and Country Road · Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 ° FAX (714) 647-6232
World Wide Web: h htp ;//www. pub-ec on.c om
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 2 of 10
included urban economics, benefit-cost analysis, public fmance, and mathematical
economics, as well as classes in the MPA and MBA programs. He has also taught in the
University extension at the University of California, lrvine, including courses in the
Economic Fundamentals of Planning and Development and Financial Aspects of
Planning. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Economics and has a Master of Science degree in
Economics, both from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a Bachelor of Science
degree in Economics from Brigham Young University.
Back~,round
In comments submitted on November 28, 2000 on the CCD's behalf by. Connor, Blake &
Griffin ("Connor"), that firm noted that the FEIS/FE1R contains no analysis of the
number of credit or non-credit students that will be added to the CCD due to
redevelopment ofMCAS-Tustin. In its response to Connor's comments, City staff stated
that "there is no feasible way to evaluate indirect impacts [of job creation] on the [CCD].
Moreover, City staff also stated that "there is no universally recognized methodology for
projecting indirect impacts [of job creation] on a Community college district." The first
statement is incorrect and the second statement is irrelevant.
Just because student generation factors are expressed relative to residential dwelling units
(" DUs") or resident population within a school district does not mean that it is infeasible
to project the impact on student generation of non-residential development. To the
contrary, K-12 districts typically levy developer fees on non-residential development
based on a fee justification analysis which demonstrates a rational and substantial nexus
between non-residential development and employment, migration, household formation,
and K-12 student generation.
Just because community college districts do not levy or have to justify developer fees
does not mean that there is not a similar rational and substantial nexus between non-
residential development and employment and generation of community college students.
Indeed, program EIRs prepared for redevelopment plans, program EIRs prepared for
general plans and specific plans, and various project E1Rs have attempted to quantify the
impacts of development on community college districts. And many such impact reports
include not only the impact of non-residential development, but the impact of both direct
and indirect/induced non-residential development.
The City attributes its position regarding the lack of a universally recognized
methodology for estimating impacts on community colleges to the City's environmental
consultant, Cotton and Beland and Associates ("CBA"). PE1 is quite certain that it has
reviewed EIRs prepared by CBA which do estimate the impacts of future development on
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 3 of 10
community college districts. And PEI does not know why such impacts were excluded
fi.om the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS-Tustin. However, even if CBA had never included such
impacts in EIRs for other projects (which PEI believes not to be the case), there are a
number of other environmental firms which have included such impacts in their
environmental documentation, and which use similar methods in doing so.
However, even if there were not one single, universally recognized methodology for
estimating such impacts, what is required by CEQA, as well as by case law and the State
and federal constitutions is not universality, but rationality. One such rational method is
used by the California State Department of Finance and the State Chancellor's Office for
California Community Colleges. This method involves applying "credit enrollment rates"
to projected future populations over the age of 18 within a college district's (primary)
"service area." Following is an analysis prepared by PEI in conjunction with Rancho
Santiago CCD staffwhich utilizes this very method.
Analysis
In projecting the impact on household formation of on-site employ~nent at MCAS-Tustin,
the FEIS/FEIR relies on the Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of
the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Ana Unified School District
("DMC Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ("DMC") in May 1999. Had
student generation rates available fi-om the CCD for college credit and adult education
enrollment been combined with household projections from the DMC Report, the
FEIS/FEIR could have included estimates of enrollment impact on the CCD.
Unfortunately, no such impacts were estimated.
As shown in Exh~it 1, the CCD's combined credit/adult education student enrollment
rate is 0.1392 students per service area population. PEI and the CCD have used
household projections contained in the FEIS/FEIR to project future student generation for
the CCD fi.om redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. However, household projections in the
FEIS/FEIR were for Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), which has a smaller
geographic area and resident population than the CCD. Hence, PE1 and the CCD have
adjusted household projections for SAUSD for some scenarios to reflect the CCD's larger
area.
However, the FEIS/FEIR greatly understates the true range of new households that will
be generated within SAUSD by reuse of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the
FEIS/FEIR's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange
County, and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data. As more fully
explained below, if the FEIS/FE1R is corrected to properly apply such principles and
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 4 of 10
data, the number of new households within the boundaries of the CCD generated by reuse
of MCAS-Tustin would range from 880 new households to 6,602 new households, which
would increase student enrollment in the District by 303 to 2,270 new community college
students.
The FEIS/FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at MCA$-Tustin that will be new
to Orange County:
Method #2 of the FE1S/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will
generate only 88 new households within SAUSD. This projection is based on the
following assumptions: (i) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin
will involve firrns which shnply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) all such
jobs will involve the same employees as previously, and (iii) none of these same
employees will relocate their residence in order to be closer to their place of work.
However, these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four reasons.
First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be
created on-site at MCAS-Tustin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not
possibly be "relocated" from somewhere else in the County (FE1S/FEIR at p. 4-18). The
regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village, and housing facilities
are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses
which might house tenants that relocate fi.om other buildings. We believe that this is an
oversight of the FEIS/FE1R rather than an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional
park, or other similar facility will actually be relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this
oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected in the FE1S/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas
designated as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land
uses are projected to create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate
from elsewhere in the County. However, many of the jobs associated with the retail,
wholesale, and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will be
new to the County. lndeed, at least some of these jobs will be "big box" retail
establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses are most likely to
open new stores at MCAS-Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve
(including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEIR project will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that
only 10% of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could" be new to Orange County, i.e., that 90
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 5 of 10
percent of such jobs would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated
that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff
economists at certain companies and agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically
identify any person interviewed or, more importantly, what questions such persons were
asked or what assumptions they were asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure.
No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in the
FEIS/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin
simply relocate from elsewhere within the County, but that such relocation will not have
any impact on SAUSD. In so doing, the FEIS/FE1R entirely ignores the phenomenon
known to urban economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FE1R could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin
will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but
whose former homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim
would be inappropriate since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "back-fdled"
by new occupants. The FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill
phenomenon when it comes to residential uses.
However, the FEIS/FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when
commercial/industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space
is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that move
from elsewhere in the County, which in turn vacate space filled by firms from outside the
County).
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FE1S/FEIR implicitly
assumes that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that
allegedly relocate to MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this
assumption is just as inappropriate for non-residential uses as for residential uses.
Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the
County (which we dispute) there will still be substantial net additional impacts on total
County employment. However, the FEIS/FE1R fails to consider these additional impacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors
as the number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii)
unemployed, or (iii) not in the labor force. However, in claiming that 90 percent of the
new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will be filled by persons who already have jobs in the County,
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 6 of 10
the FEIS/FEIR not only ignores the backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these
factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems highly Unlikely given that Orange
County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the County than there are
employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and labor force
participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from
elsewhere in Orange County, the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the
workers who hold those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place
of work. City staff claims that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be
closer to their place of work is negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to
support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be
"negligible."
In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent-compared to the
City's figure of 10 percent is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the
range of new jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100
percent is an appr. opriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent
figure still appears highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocated from
elsewhere in the County, it assumes that either one-half the old space will not be
backfflled, and/or one-half the new on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously
employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force.
Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50 percent is substituted for the
10 percent figure used in Method //2 of the FEIS/FE1R as a low end measure of the
percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange County.
The FEIS/FEIR fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods:
Method/42 of the FE1S/FE1R properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined
total of 0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on-site
firms (indirect jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs).
However, MethOd #1 of the FEIS/FE1R entirely ignores the impacts associated with such
indirect or induced jobs (DMC Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect
employment that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the
intent of Method #1. However, this results in the anomalous situation in which Method
#2, which includes direct and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates fewer impacts
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 7 of 10
than Method #I, which ignores multiplier effects.
If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a
range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier
effects result t~om direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method
/41 because it uses total on-site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness
of Method #1 for bracketing impacts.
In addition, City staffhas stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1... would result
in identical.., conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as
"direct employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of
on-site jobs (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the
previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown in Method #2.
If the same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method #2 is applied
to Method #1, the number of new students generated within CCD increases from 188 new
students to 303 new students
The FEIS/FEIR improperly utilizes the "Household Capture" figure from 0CP-96 in
each of its Methods:
The FEIS/FE1R references the following statistic fi.om OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing
growth in Orange County from 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Ana." In each of
the two methodologies it uses i~or projecting the number of new students within SAUSD,
the FEIS/FEIR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers
taking the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns
and (ii) housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is
directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Aha relative to the
number of homes being created elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent
figure fi.om OCP-96, which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide
that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to
the number of workers who fall the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin and establish new
households in Santa Ana.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail,
clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best.
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 8 of 10
However, housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-
family housing that will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the
workers who fill these types of jobs (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling
these jobs will need to find affordable housing in other areas and communities near
MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important that the data used to estimate the
number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are l~ely to establish new households in Santa
Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around
MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns-and by inference,
housing affordability-Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96
for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana.
Census data fi.om 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45,414 workers
(25.49 percent) also live in Santa Aha. In other words, 25.49 percent of jobs in Santa
Aha are filled by workers who found Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting
distance and to provide affordable housing. Census data also show that of 1,123,048 jobs
in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent) live in Santa Ana.
Since MCAS-Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that
a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In
other words, it is prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent of workers will reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically
to identify commuting patterns, and by inference, housing affordability.
The boundaries of the CCD include all of SAUSD. The comparative size of the two
districts is indicated by their respective assessed valuations, which in FY 2000-01 totaled
$35.2 billion for the CCD and $15.5 billion for the SAUSD. Nonetheless, PEI and CCD
staff have adjusted the Census-based estimates for SAUSD of 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent by much less than the relative difference in assessed values. The adjusted
estimates for the CCD conservatively range fi.om 9.5 percent to 30 percent. Accordingly,
in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and (E) below, the figures of 9.5 percent and 30
percent derived by adjusting the 1990 Census for SAUSD have been substituted for the 4
percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP-96..
Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be
generated in CCD by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin
Alternative Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 fi.om the
FE1S/FEIR modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 9 of 10
Report included in its Method #2 but unjustifiably eXcluded fi.om Method #1. The
number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same
number that is estimated by the City in the FEIS/FEIR. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By
simply including the number of new students that will be generated by these indirect or
induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR would have a projection of 303 new CCD students.
Alternative Method (B): This alternative method is based on Method #2 fi.om the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent
figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin
that would be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 9.50 percent figure
derived from the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used bY the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will
locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students
generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 359.
Alternative Method (C): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the
FEIS/FEIR xvith two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 9.50 percent figure to
estimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that
will locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 719.
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the
number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it
substitutes the 25.49 percent figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure
utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within CCD. These two modifications
cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-
Tustin to increase to 1,135.
Alternative Method (E): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the
FEIS/FE1R with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 30.00 percent figure to
estimate the number of new household created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that
will locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 2,270.
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 10 of 10
Conclusion
In conclusion, the preceding analysis demonstrates that it is feasible to estimate the
indirect impacts on the CCD of job creation at MCAS Tustin. Moreover, such estimates
can be prepared using a fairly standard estimation methodology. By making reasonable
modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new household estimates set forth
in the FE]S/FEIR are based, and combining these with the CCD's student enrollment
rates, a more credible range of estimates emerges to better define the student generation
impacts on CCD which will be caused by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. "Best case"
and "worst case" scenarios of 303 to 2,270 students should be set forth in the FEIS/FEIR
in light of the points discussed above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
D~nte Gumucio
Chief Executive Officer
attachment
EXHIBIT "D"
RAHCHO SAHTIA )
COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Sani'a Ana College - Santiago Canyon College
2323 North Broadway
Santa Ana, California
92706-1640
(714) 480-7300
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re'
GPA 00-001; FE1S/FE1R for Disposal and Reuse
of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
I currently serve as the Executive Director of Research, Planning and Development for the
Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD"). I understand that, in the Agenda
Report which has been prepared in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan
Amendment No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") and the proposed certification of the Final EIS/EIR
("FEIS/FEIR") for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California
("MCAS-Tustin") by the City Council of the City of Tustin (the "City"), staff has concluded that
there is "no feasible way" to evaluate the student generation impacts on RSCCD which will be
caused by the build-out of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin.
As the person principally in charge at RSCCD for estimating growth in student enrollment, I
believe that it is, in fact, possible to estimate the range of full-time (i.e., credit) students that will
be added to the RSCCD system by the City's Reuse Plan. For example, by utilizing the
methodologies employed in the May 1999 report prepared by the City's consultant, Dennis
Macheski Consulting ("DMC"), I have prepared a spreadsheet (see enclosed) showing that,
depending on which methodology is used, between 302 and 2,266 additional students could be
generated for RSCCD as a result of the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
The DMC analysis follows a series of estimates from "employment added to site" to "SAUSD's
student generation ratio per household." I have modified and augmented the DMC
methodologies to address the RSCCD population and enrollment specifically. I used population
and enrollment projection conventions typically used by California community college
statisticians and by our Research Department. Based on these calculations, it is apparent that the
build-out of the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin will further exacerbate our facilities
shortage by adding new students that we do not have the space to accommodate.
Considering the limited amount of land that our community college district currently owns, the
current status of classroom overcrowding, and future enrollments expected, the additional
community college students that may be generated by MCAS-Tustin redevelopment, would
become extremely problematic. As noted in Santa Ana College's Facilities Master Plan/A
Report by President's Facilities Ad Hoc Committee, Draft 1, November 30, 2000:
Board of Trustees
.Brian E. Conley, M.A. · John R. Hanna, J.D. · Lawrence R. "Larry" Labrado · Michael N. Ortell, J.D. - Enriqueta L. Ramos, Ph.D. · Lisa Woolery · PhilJip E. Yarbrough
Edward Hernandez Jr., Ed.D., Chancellor
With 56 acres and 20,000 full time equivalent students (FTES), Santa Ana College
[SAC] is the third smallest in size and the sixth largest in enrollment out of the 107
community colleges in the State.
· Based on Fall 99-00 headcount, SAC enrollment is greater than every campus of the
California State University and the University of California.
Prior to 1995, there were no relocatable buildings in campus. In the past five years,
22 portable facilities have been brought to campus. There are now as many
relocatable/portable buildings as there are permanent buildings on campus.
In addition to the problems noted above, we expect to soon experience huge increases in
enrollments from what many refer to as "Tidal Wave Two", given that the enrollments in our K-
12 Unified Districts are swelling. In fact, by the year 2005, the RSCCD will qualify, according
to California Community College Board of Governors' standards, for 26,000 square feet of
additional laboratory space and 18,000 square feet of additional office space. (This was
calculated from the RSCCD 2001 Five Year Plan submitted'to the California Community
College Chancellor's Office in February 2000.)
For these reasons, we have been attempting to acquire additional land, and it had been our hope
that the City's Reuse Plan could be modified to accommodate us in this regard by recommending
that surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed to us in conjunction with one or more
land transfers to also meet the needs of the Santa Ana Unified School District.
Very truly yours,
Julie Slark, Executive Director
Research, Planning, and Development
Eric.
EXHIBIT "E"
·
C '"
I . '
Exhibit C
.:
'NN. OR, BLAKE & GRIFFIlX ~P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
2600 IVI~CHELSON D~-VE
SmTE 1450
lgvI~, Cncn:o~ 92612
TELEP.O~£ (949) 622-2600
TELEF^CSlM~L£ (949) 622-2626
E-MAIL: e¢onnor~businesslit.com
November 28, 2000
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
VIA MESSENGER
Re~
Objections to Adequacy of FEIS/FEIR for General Plan
Amendment 00-001 Re Disposal and Reuse of Marine
Corps Air Station - Tustin, California
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
We are the attorneys for Santa Ana Unified School District (the
"SAUSD"), the Rancho Santiago Community College District (the "RSCCD"), Victor
and Susan Garcia (the "Garcias"), Fourtino and Bertha Rivera (the "Riveras"), and Karina
Valenzuela [hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as the
"Districts") and the Districts, the Garcias, the Riveras, and Ms. Valenzuela shall
collectively be referred to as the "Concerned Parties"].
We understand that, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of the Navy
(the "Navy"), the City of Tustin (the "City") is currently reviewing the "Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Final Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter,
"FEIS/FEIR") for the disposal and reuse of the Marine Air Corps Air Station at Tustin,
California ("MCAS-Tustin"). We further understand that the City intends to use the
FEIS/FEIR as the enviromental documentation to support its proposed adoption of
General Plan Amendment 00-001 (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"). On behalf of
each of the Concemed Parties, we submit the following objections to the adequacy of the
FE1S/FEIR:
(1) in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "CEQA Guidelines" or the
"Guidelines'D, including, but not limited to, section 15126.2 of the Guidelines, the
FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately address the significant environmental effects and
growth-inducing impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia,
socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana;
RSCCDXMCAS-LandTmsfr\Ogdon.doc
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL'
Dana Ogdon
November 28, 2000
Page 2
(2) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including,
but not limited to, section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FE1R fails to
describe all feasible mitigation measures to minimize the significant
environmental effects and growth-inducing impacts which the Project will have
on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of
Santa Ana;
(3) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including,
but not limited to, section 15126.6 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to
discuss all reasonable project alternatives which would avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects and growth-inducing impacts which
the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics and public 'services and
facilities in the City of Santa Ana;
(4) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including,
but not limited to, section 15130 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to discuss
the cumulative impacts which the Project will have on, inter alia, socioeconomics
and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Ana;
(5) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including,
but not limited to, section 15131 of the Guidelines, the FEIS/FEIR fails to
adequately identify and analyze the economic and social effects with the Project
will have on persons residing in the City of Santa Ana, particularly with respect to
public services and facilities;
(6) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including,
but not limited to, sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the Guidelines, the
proposed Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
Project and the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequate address the significant impacts,
reasonable project alternatives, and feasible mitigation measures for the Project,
as more particularly described in the preceding subparagraphs;
(7) in violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including,
but not limited to, section 15097 of the Guidelines, the Mitigation Monitoring
Program with the City proposes to adopt in connection with the Project fails to
incorporate adequate mitigation measures and is legally deficient for the reasons
set for in the preceding subparagraphs.
In addition to the foregoing objections, each of the Concerned Parties also
incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each of the comments and
RSCCDWICAS-LandTmsfr~Engagement
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LL'
Dana Ogdon
November 28, 2000
Page 3
objections set forth in the three letters which SAUSD previously submitted to the City of
Tustin (the "City") relating to the FEIS/FEIR (or to the Draft EIS/EIR), dated March 2,
1998, August 23, 1999, and May 19, 2000. Likewise, each of the Concerned Parties
incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full hereat, each of the oral or written
comments, objections, or contentions regarding the FEIS/FEIR (or the Draft EIS/EIS)
which have been, or will be, submitted to your Department, or to the City, by any other
persons or entities, prior to or at the time of any of the public hearings which the City
conducts before approving the Project.
To be placed in the proper context, this letter must be read in conjunction
with (1) the letter, dated November 24, 2000 (the "November 24 Letter"), which I sent to
Mr. William Cassidy, Jr. of the Navy on behalf of each of the Concerned Parties and (2)
the letter, dated November 28, 2000 (the "November 28 Letter"), which I transmitted to
Mr. Cassidy earlier today. Copies of both these letters are attached hereto for your
reference and each of them is incorporated herein as if set forth in full hereat.
In the November 24 Letter, a number of objections to the City's Reuse
Plan (i.e., the Project) were raised under (1) Iitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
("Title VI") and (2) the regulations of the Department of Defense regarding
"Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs." The November 24 Letter and the
November 28 Letter both contained a great deal of statistical information relevant to the
matters discussed in those letters, but, to avoid unnecessary duplication, that information
will not be restated in full here.
The basic thrust of this letter is that the FEIS/FEIR has failed to
adequately analyze--and to attempt to lessen or avoid--the impacts which the Project will
have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in the City of Santa Aha. In
general, it is the position of the Concerned Parties that the FEIS/FEIR has grossly
underestimated these impacts as a result of, among other things, (1) the flawed analysis in
the FEIS/FEIR as to the number of students that will be added to the already-
overcrowded public schools in the SAUSD when the Project is developed and (2) the lack
of any.analysis in the FEI S/FEIR as to the number of credit and non-credit students that
will be added to the community college facilities operated by the RSCCD as a result of
the City's Reuse Plan.
Of course, not only does the FEIS/FEIR fail to adequately address the
impacts which the Project will have on socioeconomics and public services and facilities
in the City of Santa Ana, particularly the public schools and community college facilities,
but it also fails to provide adequate mitigation measures to minimize those impacts,
including, but not limited to, the most obvious mitigation measure of transferring an
RSCCDWICA S-LandTmsfr~;ngagemenl
CONNOR, BLAKE & GRIFFIN LLi
Dana Ogdon
November 28, 2000
Page 4
adequate amount of surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to SAUSD and RSCCD so that
those Districts could construct new facilities to help ease the overcrowding problems
which they currently face.
In addition to failing to specify adequate mitigation measures to alleviate
the Project's impacts on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana,
the FEIS/FEIR also fails to discuss any reasonable project alternatives that would reduce
or eliminate these impacts by allowing SAUSD and RSCCD to obtain surplus land at
MCAS-Tustin to build new facilities. Not a single one of the reuse alternatives discussed
in the FEIS/FEIR contemplates the conveyance of surplus land to all five educational
districts whose boundaries cover portions of MCAS-Tustin, i.e., SAUSD, RSCCD, the
Irvine Unified School District ("IUSD"), the Tustin Unified SchOol District ("TUSD"),
and the South Orange County Community College District ("SOCCCD").
Regrettably, the alternatives discussed in the FEIS/FEIR only contemplate
surplus land transfers to 1USD, TUSD, and SOCCCD. The City's decision to exclude
SAUSD and RSCCD from receiving any land transfers at MCAS-Tustin not only raises
Title VI concerns as explained in the November 24 Letter, but it also has environmental
implications to the extent that the FEIS/FEIR fails to adequately explore ways to avoid
Project impacts on socioeconomics and public services and facilities in Santa Ana.
On behalf of each of the Concerned Parties, we respectfully request that
the City withhold its approval of the FEIS/FEIR until each of the serious legal
deficiencies noted above has been corrected and a new environmental document has been
recirculated for public review and comment in accordance with section 15088.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines.
~lzomon~.~ connor. '
R SCCDXMCAS-LandTmsfrXEngagement
Exhibit D
December 18, 2000
CULBERTSON, .~DA.M$ & ~$OCIATE$
]PLANNING CONS UET'ANT$
City Council
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780-3767
SUBJECT:
GPA 00-001' Failure lo Adequately Disclose Significant Impacts in
FEIS/FEIR on Base Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station,
Tustin, California; Fa/lure to Identify Feasible Mitigation Measures and
Project Alternatives
Honorable Council Members:
This office represents Santa Aha Unified School District (hereinafter "SAUSD") in
preparing environmental documentation for school facilities, and has for over 10 years.
The signatory to tiffs letter is no stranger to the California Environmental QuaJity Act
("CEQA"), having administered, written or critiqued over 500 documents in the last 27+
years. Some of the more coniroversial projects in Orange County have been addressed by
the undersigned to the satisfaction of rev/owing courts. My professional commitmem to
complete, unbiased and accurate administration of CEQA has been a hallmaxk of my
work
The SAUSD has recently requested that we (1) review the record so far established for
the Final EIS/EIR ("FE1S/FEiR') and determine if there has been full and accurate
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Slate CEQA
Guidelines and (2) respond to the staff's CEQA-related comments set forth in
Attachment 5 to the Agenda Report which has .been prepared by the Redevelopment
Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 00-
001 ("GPA 00-001") and the certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the
City of Tustin (the "City~') at the public hear/ng scheduled for December 18, 2000,
Please note that the Agenda Report was only obtained fi.om the City by SAUSD'$
counsel, Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, last Friday aflemoon, December 15, 2000, and
was forwarded to me for my review on Friday evening. As such, my office has had l/tile
time to fully anal~,ze and respond to the many new points raised by staff m its response to
the written comments which SAUSD's counsel submitted 1o the City's Planning
Commission in connection with lhe public hearing on GPA 00-00I which was held
November 28, 2000.
85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso Viejo, California 92656-4105 · (9491 581-2858 - Fax (9491 581-3599
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 2
However, notwithstand~g th~ severe time ijmitations With which my office had to
contend over lhe past weekend, our review of the record has sufficed to demonstrate that
the CEQA compliance process for GPA 00-001 is seriously flawed and must be
malerialIy revised before the City Council can legally proceed to approve lhat project.
The reason to address the City Council at th.is late point m the process is to make one last
attempt- in a direct fashion - to alert the City Council lo majo~ errors in the CEQA
process. Whatever the reasons ostensibly compelling the City Council to move forward
at this point, the City Council alone is responsible for determining the adequacy of this
CEQA process, and the mitigation which (or which does not, in the case of Santa Aaa
Unified School District), attend it. As a frequent representative of public agencies and
school districts, we find ourselves obligated to point out these problems - and their
solutions- to the City Council directly.
Failure to Adequately Disclose Significant Impacts to SAUSD School Sys~.em
The FEIS/FEIR concedes that, under the City's preferred alternative, referred to as
"Alterrmtive 1," 'up to 509 new students would be indirectly generated for the SAUSD
school system as a result of the tens of thousands of new jobs that would be created by
the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin (FEIS/FEIR, at pp. 4-61 to 4-64.) According to
the FEIS/FEIR, the build-out of'Alternative 1 could result in "indirect or induced growth"
which would add up to 547 new households within SAUSD's jurisdiction as new
employees moved into the Santa Ana area to fill some of the new jobs created at MCAS-
Tusfin. (,rd.)
For the reasons staled below, the failure of the FEIS/FEIR to adequately identify the
student generation impacts associated with the development of Alternative I as
"significant env/ronmental effects" under CEQA and to specify feasible mitigation
measures to minimize or eliminate these impacts .is a clear-cut violation of CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City's apparent refusal to adopt the appropriate
findings, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring report to
properly address these impacts likewise rum afoul of the mandatory provisions of CEQA
and the Guidelines.
Sections 15126 and 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requite an EIR to identify all
"significant environmeraal effects of the proposed project." In this regard, EIRs must
discuss "changes'induced m po_pulation__ distribution, population concentration, the human
use of the land.., and other aspects of the resource base such as... public servj, cCs."
(Emphasis added.) Of course, in this context, the tem'~ "public services" would include
public schools within the SAUSD school aystem.
SAUSD~cbool Imlo~:ts Icuer
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 3
In determining wheihe~ the student generation impacts on SAUSD which would be
associated w/th the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin 'should be deemed "~ignificant"
w/thin the meaning of CEQA and would require adequate mitigation, the provisions of
Semion 15064(e) of the CEQA Guidelines are quite instructive and appear to address
very school "overcrowding" problems which will be exacerbated by the City's Reuse
Plan for MCA S-Tustin:
"Alternatively, economic and social effects of a physical change maybe used to
determine that the physical change is a significant effect on the env/ronment. If
t_he physical change causes adverse economic or social effects on people_, those
adverse effects may be used as a factor in determining whether lhe physical
change is significant For example, if.a project would cause overcrowding
9fa public facility and the overcrowding muses an adverse effect on
p_e_ovle,..the overcrowding would be ~e.~arded as a significant effect"
(Emphasis added.)
A/though school overcrowding, standing alone, may not, in every instance, constitule a
"significant environmental effect" within the meaning of CEQA, the California courts
have held that, when a proposed project would add additional' students to an already-
overcrowded school district, thereby necessitating the construction of new school
facilities--and possibly changing bus tomes and altefing traffic patterns--to accommodate
the influx of such new students, these student generation impacts would be considered
"significant" under CEQA and would requite adequate mitigation. (See, e.g., Goleta
Union School Dist. v. Regents of Universi,tv of Cali_fornia (1995) 37 Cal. App.4th 1025,
1032; El Dorado Union High School Dist. v. City of I'lacerville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d
123, 131-132.)
In the Goleta Union case, the thal court found that the EIR initially prepared by the
Regents violated CEQA because it failed to provide relevant information and adequate
mitigation measures regarding the significant env/ronmer}tal impacts which the Regenls'
plan to expand the University of California at Santa Barbara CUCSB") might have on
student emollment in the schools run by the Goleta Union School District (the
"D/strict"). Specifically, the trial court found that, because of severe overcrowding of the
Districts' classrooms, the additional students that would be generaled by the expansion of
UCSB would eventually necessitate construction of new classroom facilities or additional
busing of students. The Supplemental EIR which the trial court required the Regents to
prepm'e after making this finding reported that the cumulative effect of the Regents'
expansion plan would involve an increase of 192 new students in the District. The
Court of Appeal in the Goleta Union case agreed that, based upon the tr/al court's
findings, this projected increase in student enrollment was a s_j~ificant effect which
SAUSD~chool Impacts lette~
City Council
City of Tuslin
December 18, 2000
Page 4
'required approphale mitigation measures tO be specified in the Supplemental ER in
order to comply with the dictates of CEQA.
Likewise, in thc El Dorado Union case, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Ix/al court's
ruling that the City's EIR fell "woefully short" of the requirements imposed by CEQA
because (1) it did not adequately address of the effects of adding 88.3 new high school
studenls to an already overcrowded school system and (2) it failed to specify any
mitigation measures Io minimize those impacts. In contrast to the 192 additional
students in the Goleta Union case, and the 88.3 additional studenls in the Et Dorado
Union case--both of which were deemed to be "significant" impacts requiring proper
CEQA compliance--the FEIS/YEIR in this case estimates that up to 509 new students for
the SAUSD school system could be generated by thc build-out of the City's Reuse Plan
fox MCAS-Tustia. Inexplicably, however, the FEIS/FEIR fails to identify ~h/s student
generation impact as significant and likewise fails to specify any mitigation measures,
other than a br/efreference to developer fees, to m/nirnJze th/s impact.
Prior letters submitted on behalf of SAUSD have clearly demonstrated that SAUSD is
experiencing severe overcrowding problems and is in desperate need of additional school
facilities to handle some 24,000 students who are temporarily housed in "portable"
classrooms. Obviously, add/ng over $00 new students to an already overcrowded and
over-capacity school system will necessitate the construction of new classroom lac/l/ties
to accommodate these new students because there is no excess capacity to absoxb these
students. Moreover, depending on where these new students reside w/thin SAUSD's
boundaries, their transportation needs to and from their respective schools may
necessitate chang/ng existing school bus roules and altering traffic patterns within the
Santa Aha area. Each of these impacts needs to be adequately addressed and mit/gated in
the FEIS/FEIR before the City proceeds to approve GPA 00-001.
What is imperative to r~.ote here is that, when the FEIS/FEIR is read in conjunction with
the staff comments set forth in the Agenda Report regarding GPA 00-00 I, it is apparent
that the City, itself, has provided the ev/dence necessary to establish that the student
generation impacts of its Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin are so "significant" that, at a
minimum, an entire new grade school will need to be built to handle the influx of the
hundreds of new students that will be added to the SAUSD school system. At page 9 of
the "Response to Written Comments" section of the Agenda Report, the staff makes the
following observations:
"The FEIS/FEI~R states only that, based on the assumption that perhaps new
employees at the former MCAS Tustin site might seek new housing within the
SAUSD, there is the potential for an indirect impact on the SAUSD flora the
MCAS Tustin project. To bracket the raoge of probable indirect impacts, the
SAUSDkgchool Impacts
City Council
City ofTustin .
December 18, 2000
Page 5
City's experts presented an eslimate using two scenarios. Both scenario l,a
hi~hl_y unlikely worst-case .s_cenario, and scenario 2, the more likely scenarig.
~we~e orepared fgr the FE. IS/FE..IR. Based on the projections under each scenario
of household growth, either 509 students might be generated over a 20 year
period (scenario 1) or 82 students (scenario 2) over the same period. Based on
SAUSD student generation information, 78% of any indirect potential impact to
SAUSD would be in grades K-8 w/th over 50% of this impact in grades K-5
(under either scenario). --With an av. erage K-5 elementary school built to
accommodate 800. students, the average middle school built to accommodate
1560 students and the average high school built to accommodate 2400 students~
neither of the hdirect impact scenarios examined substantiates allocation of an
entire school site at MCAS Tustin as requesled_b_y_ the SAUSD." (Emphasis
added.)
The clear/replication of the above-quoted passage from the Agenda Report for GPA 00-
001 is that, if either of the "indirect impact scenarios" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR
indicated lhat at least 800 new students would be generated for the SAUSD school
system by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin, then the City would have to agree that
such an impact would be si~ificant and would requite "an entire school sile at MCAS-
Tustin" to be provided as mitigation. By carefully scrutinizing Ire calculations
performed by the City's consultant in projecting the 509 additional sludents under
"scenario 1" discussed in the FEIS/FEIR, it tums out that, after accounting for an
unjustified omission which was made in the calculations performed by the City's
consultant, lhe actual number of students that wouId be generated under "scenario l"
would be 817 new students. This, of course, would be well above the City's gOO-student
threshold--which, by the way, has no basis in CEQA law--for establishing a significant
impact requiting mitigation.
In the May 1999 ~eport entitled "Updated Report on the School Facility Indirect Impact
of Redevelopment on the MCAS-Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Aha
Unified School District," which was prepared at the City's request by Dennis Macheski
Consulting (DMC") and which forms the basis of the indirect student generation figuJes
set fortl~ on pages 4-62 and 4-63 of the FEIS/FEER, DMC failed to utilize any multiplier
for indirect and induced employment in determining that some 509 additional students
would be added to SAUSD's school under "scenario I." However, in determining that
82 new students would be indirectly generated for the SAUSD school system under
"~cenaxio 2," DMC used a multiplier of 0.61 for indirect and induced employment, which
resulted in a projeOion of additional new jobs, which DMC included in its calculation.
When that same 0.61 multiplier is applied to the figures set forth on page 5 of DMC's
report, the revised number of "new households estimated to live in the SAUSD" would
SAUSDk$¢hool Impacts lenor
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 6
be 878 new households, rather than the 547 households set forth in Table 4.4-1 on page
4-63 of the FEIS/~IR. Then, by applying the same 0.93 student generation multiplier
used in the FEIS/FEIR (wh/ch is now outdated and is no longer used by SAUSD), the
number of additional students that would be generated under "scenario 1" would be 817
new studen~-,which is substantially different than the 509-student figure reported in the
FEIS/FEIR,
Since the FEIS/FEIR clearly concedes that the City's Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin will
result in 24,852 "direct', jobs and 15,081 "indirect and induced" jobs (see. Table 4.2-2 at
p. 4-18), there is no rational justification for why the same 0.61 multiplier for this second
category of "indirect and induced" jobs would have been omitted from DMC's
calculations for "scenario 1," but included in his calculations for "scenario 2." Once his
calculations for "scenario 1" are adjusted to account for the proper number of "indirect
and induced" jobs to be generated by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tusfin, it is cleax that
the supposed "worst case" scenario for the student generation impacts to SAUSD is off
by a factor of over 609/~ and this can hardly be considered to be an insignificant error that
can be disregarded. In fact, this miscalculation is so material that it ~equires the
FEIS/FEIR to be supplemented and recirculated for public review and comment
Moreover, what this omission underscores is the need to critically reevaluate DMC's
calculations and carefully reexamine the assum~ions upon which those calculations
were based to determine whether the FEIS/~IR has ser/ously underest/mated the
number of new students that roll be generated for the SAUSD school system by the
City's proposed Reuse Plan for MCAS-Tustin. At the request of SAUSD's counsel, the
consulting firm of Public Economics, Inc. ("PEF') has been asked to m~dertake such an
reevaluation m time for the City's Council December 18 hearing on GPA 00-001, and I
will defer to PHI to direct its wr/lten analysis lo the City for its review in this regmd
As the record stands now, however, the so-called "worst case" scenario for student
generation impacts on SAUSD is factually incorrect and is patently inadequate under
CEQA. In addition, the 82-student scenario-referred to as "scenario 2" in the Agenda
Report-is highly questionable because it is based on the untenable and wholly
unsupportable assumption that only ten percent (10%) of the "direct" jobs generated by
the development of the City's Reuse Plan will be "new" jobs to the MCAS~Tustin
development area that will not already be filled by pre-exJst/ng employees. This
assumption will also be examined in the report to be subm/tted by PEI.
As a final observation in this area, ,ye find the City's reliance on the "d/reef' or
"indirect" nature of school impacts troubling. This is clearly a distinct/on w/thout a
difference. Whether the students are generaled by increases in households brought about
by a neighboring agency's promolion of job and revenue producing opportunities, or
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 7
whether the sludents are generated by th~ construction of homes, is irrelevant to a
determination of whether the impact is required to be disclosed under CEQA. By
obscuring this issue, the City has essentially eliminated the logical progression of
analytical events leading to mitigation and project alternative discussions. It is precisely
this type of indifferent agency conduct that CEQA is aimed at exposing, particularly in
multi-jurisdictional settings.
Failure to Disclose the Unavailab_.______ility of Land for New School Facilities
Irrespective of the number of students truly generated by the City's Reuse Plan, the
FEIS/FEIR completely overlooks whether the SAUSD can a.Ouall¥ accommodate these
student_.._.~s. Even a cursoD, evaluation of sAUSD facilities-if one had been undertaken at
all by the City--reveals that there is no l_md available for absorption of these students.
The City simply ignores the effect of the addition of 509 new students to the 58,000
studenB already housed in SAUSD.
The City fails to acknowledge that significant impacts attend the addition of,~_~X students
to a school district which is already on multi-tra,.;k year round educ. ation, Ikaturing some
of the h/ghest student per acre densities in the state of California. While schools in other
districts operate elementary schools of 750-900 students on 10-12 acres, the same schools
in SAUSD house as many as 1,124 such children on 2.88 acres. To state thru SAUSD has
feasible "options" to acqu/re additional school sites to accommodate more students in an
urban district is simply false.
A proper environmental analysis would have addressed this space issue d/rectly. Instead,
the FEIS/FEIR avoids taking a hard look at whcthcr it is feasible to find space available
to construct classroom facilities to house the hundreds and hundreds of new students that
will be added to SAUSD's schools as a result of the proposed redevelopment of MCAS-
Tustin. The "ratio" approach to impact assessment - the concept that the impact of 509
students is "small" in relation to the ~otal size of the District (58,000) - has long been
regarded as inappropriate under CEQA. Accordingly, th/s is yet another example of a
material failure on the part of the City to adequately assess the significant impacts of its
Reuse Plan on public serviccs and facilities.
Failure to !denfi~ Fe_asi___ble Mitigation Measures and Proj.ect Alternatives
In pursuit of iddnt/fying adequale mitigation, the SAUSD has asked for undeveloped
I_and. which is virtually non-existent in the Santa Ann area. The City, however, has
refused this request. Ostensibly, the City seems to believe that it cm~ dismiss effects to
SAUSD because (1) the students added could be spread d/strict-w/de (even thought there
are no facilities to house them); (2) the students generated are "secondary effects"; in
other words students generated by houses built for the base are more important; and (3)
SAUSDKSchool Impacts letter
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 8
the portion of the base in SAUSD involves is 'non-residential, employment-generating
land uses. Of course, as to this last point, it is the ~ which has made this land use
decision. Therefore, to the extent the City has elected to shape/ts land use plan in a
manner that reduces the obligation for school sites genuinely owed to SAUSD, this is the
Ci _ty'_s, not SAUSD's, fault.
Happily, CEQA provides a solution in these cases - the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures, follow/rig the consideration of a reasonable range of project alternatives.
There can be no question that such feasible mitigation or project alternatives are required
to be considered and that they may only be xejected if found infeasible on the basis of
subslantial ev/dence. It is difficult to imagine, with some 150 acres of the base falling
w/thin SAUSD's jurisdiction, that a land dedication could not be made ava/lable.
Clearly, il is feasible- land in generous portions has been made available to other school
districts on the basis of lesser hnpacts.~ Notably, there are more students in SAUSD
housed in portables (24,000) than the entire student population of Irvine Unified
(23,400). When considered in this light, the failure to Frovide land 1o SAUSD presents a
stark - and troubling- contrast.
It is clear that the City of Tustin has made accommodation for its impacts in olher
contexts, and in fact mit__._igated in excess of. its impacts in at least two instances. With
respect to traffic, the record discloses that in the City of Sanla Aha, the City of Tust/n
mitigated impacts to affected intersections to the degree the reuse project contributed
traffic - pro rata, in other words. Notably, however, with respecl to t~vo overcrowded
intersections, the City of Tusfin proposed to pay for ~lete - not pro rata -
improvements to these intersections to offset the impacts.
If the City of Tustin can spend money to lay asphalt to help autos move more efficiently
through intersections, can there be a justification for ignoring m/tigation for children in
an overcrowded school district? We think not.
What is so unique about this case is that it involves a military base disposal and reuse
process and, as such, the City, in .its capacity as the Local Redevelopment Agency
designated for this process, has the ability to recommend to the U. S. Department of the
~ Compare the disparate treatment given to the Irvine Unified and Tusfin Unified School Districts, both of
which have existing capacity at all grad~ levels. Irvine USD ~eceived 20 acre, oflancl for 302 smdenl~
generated; Tus'tin USD received 60 acre, for 1,143 ~udents. S~ata Ann received no acreage for 509
students. Using a pro-rata share approach, Irvine US,D received 1 ~cre of land for every 15.1 srudent~;
Tustin received I acre oflancl for every 19.05 students. If one were lo merely extrapolate an equivalent
amount of screage for Santa )ma USD using these ratios, Santa Arm USD would be entitled too 33.7 ac'res
(using lh~ ratio for lrvine USD) or 26.7 scre.& respectively. The "solutions" proposed by the city to this
land availability issue for SALrSD fall far short of the City's treatment of'tho other two school districts
involved.
SAUSD'~chooi Impacts letter
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page 9
Naw (the "Naw") lhat surplus federal land al MCAS-Tustin be transferred lo SAUSD--
al no cost to the City-4o help mitigate the Student generation impacB that will be caused
by the City's Reuse Plan. At present, MCAS-Tusfin is overflowing with the precious
commodity of vacant land which 8AUSD desperately needs for school sites to construct
the ~dditional classroom facilities necessary to accommodate the hundreds and hunckeds
of'new students which w/Il be generated by the redevelopment of MCAS-Tusfin.
As a feasible mitigation measure, the City could recommend to the Navy that a sufficient
amount of surplus land lying w/thin SAUSD's boundaries at MCAS-Tustin be conveyed
to SAUSD for r~ew school sites. Alternatively, without any t~eat to the economic
v/ability of the City's Reuse Plan, the City could propose mitigation measures ,,,,,h/ch
would entail a public benefit conveyance of surplus land at MCAS-Tusfin which was
outside of SAUSD's boundaries, but which could be acquired by a Joint Powers
Authority ("J-PA") of which SAUSD would be a member along with the Rancho Santiago
Community College District ("RSCCD"). For example, instead of supporting the
conveyance of 100 acres of surplus land at MCAS-Tustin to the South Orange County
Community College District ("SOCCCD"), the City could recommend to lhe Navy that a
sufficient portion of this acreage to construct a K-14 facility be transferred Io a JPA,
which would consist of au "Education Coalition" including SAUSD and RSCCD. This
option was discussed ha the earl/er correspondence, which SAUSD's counsel submitted
to the City in connection with GPA 00-001.
Unfortunmely, in instead of tfiscussing any mitigation measures in the FEIS/FEIR which
would involve the transfer of surplus federal land to SAUSD. either directly to SAUSD or
indirectly to a JPA of wkich SAUSD was a member, the City has wrongfiflly concluded
in the FEIS/FEIR that any problems caused by the additional students which will be
generated by its Reuse Plan could be resolved by the imposition of school impact
development fees, or other revenues which SAUSD could attempt to obtain from the
state of California. (FEI$/FEIR, p. 4-63.) However, even assuming for the sake of
argument that such fees or other state funds might be available for SAUSD to obtain,
those revenues would not mitigate the overriding problem faced by SAUSD, i.e., the
critical shortage of available land w/ihin its boundaries that can be used of new school
sites. Such land does, however, e~ist in abundance at MCA$-Iustin.
Without acknowledging the fact lhat it holds the key to provid/ng SAUSD with the land it
needs to construct new school sites, the City offers the follow/ng unsubstantiated
comments in the FEIS/FEIR in an attempt to justify its failure to propose feasible
mitigation measures lo lessen or avoid the significant student generation impacts
associated with ~he build-out of the City's Reuse Plan:
SAUSD'~School Impacts letter
City Council
City of Tusfin
December 18, 2000
Page 10
"S/nee the need for____._nnew facilities is not vel confined, there is no facility design
or location that could be evalualed in this E1S/EIR For fiscal impacts to the
environment. ~uch physical im_vacts ma~ant and, if so,
would be the responsib~ SAUSD." (FEIS/~IR, pp. 4-63 to 4-64,
emphasis added.)
In the first place, SAUSD believes that, in its prior submittals to the City, it has
adequately dcmonstrated "the need for new faeilit/es," and it has proposed any number of
facility designs, including, most recently, a K-14 facility, Which could have--and should
have--been evaluated in the FEIS/FEIR in the form of feasible mitigation measures and
project altemat/ves. Instead of doing this, however, the FEIS/FEIR concluded that:
"Any mitigation for possible fiscal impacts associated with future new fac/I/ilea
to accommodate potential indirect student generation _would lpe the res~
of lhe S_~AUSD_ because the actual need at this time is s_pecnlafive, and there is no
facility design or location for evaluation in this EIS/EIR." (Iai at pp. 4-66 to 4-
67, emphasis added.) '
As evidenced by the staff cOmments set forth in Volume 2 of the FEISfFEIR (see,
Response Lg-I), the City has apparently based the above-quoted conclusions on (I) the
provisions of.section 15145 of the CEQA Cmidel/~es and (2) the court's discussion in
Goleta Union case. Of course, to suggest that student genetat/on impacts are too
"speculative for evaluation" and that they can be ignored under section 15145 of the
Guidelines would be to completely ignore the holdings the Goleta Union and El Dorado
Union cases-which stand for the exact opposite proposition. Indeed, by claiming that
student generation impacts were too "speculative" to analyze in an El[R, any project
proponent could sh/rk any and all r~sponsibility for ever discussing or attempting to
mitigate such impacts.
More importantly, the City's attempt to rely on the Goleta Union case ha its effort to sh/tt
the respons~ility for mitigating student generation impacts to SAUSD, rather than itself,
is entirely misplaced. Nowhere in the Goleta Union case does it state, or even suggest,
that it is the sole responsibility of the.impacted school district to devise ways to mit/gate
the addition of new students to be generated by the build-out of a development project
To contrary, thai case underscores the absolule necessity for an appropriate EIR to
provide "a !ange of possible mitigation measures related to potential physical impacts of
the [development plan]." (37 Cal.App. 4th at pp. 1033-1034.)
Unlike the Supplemental El[R, which was under attack in the Goteta Union case, the
FEIS/FEIR in this case conta/ns no statements or fmdlngs of significant student
generation impacts to SAUSD and provides no mitigation measures, other than
unspecified developer fees, to minimize or eliminate such impacts. To date, the CEQA
SAUSD\School hnpac~s leRer
City Council
City of Tustin
December 18, 2000
Page ] 1
cases decided.by the California courts wh/ch have addressed student generation impacts,
such as the Goleta Union al~d El Dorado Union cases, have not involved a situation in
which a city, county, or local agency which was proposing to app,'eve a new development
project which would generate new students for one or more school d/stricB has had the
ability, as part of a military base closure and reuse process, to make free federal land
available to the affected school districts for use as new school sites.
In this case, the City has recognized its ability to mitigate (1) the 302 ad~tiorml students
to be added to Ir'vine Unified by providing thai district with 20 acres for a new school site
and (2) the 1,143 additioaal students to be added to the Tustin Unified by prey/ding that
d/strict w/th a total of 60 acres for three new school sites. What is missing here,
however, is the City's xecogaition of/ts need to mitigate the 509 (actually 817) additional
studerrts to be added to SAUSD by providing that d/strict with adequate acreage for new
school sites at MCAS-Tustin. CEQA does not countenance such an omission in the
FEIS/FEIR, and lhe City must correct this glaring deficiency before proceeding to
approve GPA 00-001.
Sincerely,
M, Andriette Culbertson
President
MAC/lid
Attachment
cc: Hoa William Cassidy, Jr.
Dr. Edward Hemandez
Dr. A1Mijares
Dr. Don Stabler
John Did/on
Ruben Smith, Esq.
Edmond M. Conner, Esq.
SAUSD\Schoo! Impacts le~tcr
Exhibit E
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Public Finance
Urban Economics
Development Services
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), Public Economics,
]nc. ("PEt") has prepared this response ("Response") to certain staff comments set forth in
Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," prepared by City
staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and
certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of the City of Tustin ("City") at the public
hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In particular, this Response addresses comments of City
staff regarding the number of new students projected to be generated within SAUSD from
proposed redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-fourths of all
redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California--including a number of
military base closures--on behalf of over 200 local school districts, community college districts,
and county offices of education.
Dwight Berg, principal investigator for this Response, has personally advised over 125 school
districts and community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in
general, and redevelopment in particular. Mr. Berg has a Master of Science degree in Social
Science with an emphasis in Economics, and Bachelor of Science degrees in Economics and
Engineering, all from the California Institute of Technology.
820 W. Town and Country Road ° Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 ° FAX (774) 647-6232
World Wide Web: hhtp;//www, pub-econ.com
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
]Page 2
Analysis
The FEIS/FEIR relies on the (i) Updated Report on the Indirect Impact of Redevelopment of the
MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Growth in the Santa Aha Unified School District ("DMC
Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ("DMC") in May 1999, and (ii) Updated
Report School Facility Construction Cost Impact of Redevelopment (sic) of the MCAS Tustin
Site on the Santa Ama Unified School District ("JCJ Report"), prepared by JCJ Associates in June
1999. Specifically, City staff state that "the DMC Report brackets a .... high and low range of
probable household impacts to the [District, and the ] JCJ Report uses the DMC Report high and
low impact assumptions to identify a range of students.
Based on the DMC and JCJ Reports, the FEIS/FEIR concludes that proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin will generate only 82 to 509 new students for SAUSD. As further support for this
conclusion, City staff refers to a report prepared by PEI in July 1996 for SAUSD, entitled
"Analysis of the Impact of MCAS-Tustin Reuse Plan on Santa Aha Unified School District"
("1996 PEI Report"), in which PEI projected an impact of 404 new households and 272 new
students.
City staff fails to disclose that the 1996 PEI Report utilized student generation factors which are
now out-of-date, and were not used by JCJ in calculating the figures, reported in the FEIS/FEIR.
The 1996 PEI Report used 0.673 K-12 students per household, which in 1998 the District
updated to 0.93 K-12 students per household, the factor used in the FE1S/FE]]~. In January
2000, the District updated the factor to 0.995 K-I 2 students per household--an increase of about
7 percent. For purposes of this letter and for the sake of comparison, all figures from the 1996
PE1 Report have been adjusted to reflect the 1998 student generation factor utilized in the
FEIS/FEIR except where noted. Using the 1998 student generation rate, the 1996 PEI Report
would have shown a projected impact of 377 new students. (Using the 2000 student generation
rate, the 1996 PEI Report would have shown a projected impact of 402 new students.)~
In referring to the 1996 PEt Report, City staff also fails to disclose the true purpose for which
that report was prepared. Specifically, the 1996 PEI Report was prepared to identify the
minimum number of students that would be generated by the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin, in a manner consistent with the requirements proposed at the time regarding how
mitigation payments by the redevelopment agency for MCAS-Tustin should be determined.
City. stafl did note that the 1996 PEI Reporl was based on the City's original estimate that 26,180 new
on-site jobs will be created at MCAS-Tuslin. If the 1996 PEt Reporl had been based on the revised estimate of
24,852 new jobs utilized in 1he FEIS/FEIR, the revised number of new students would be slightly less than the
amounts shown above.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 3
The 1996 PEI Report was prepared one and one-half years before the initial draft of the EIS/EIR
was prepared, when the City of Tustin was claiming that the proposed redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin would have no direct or indirect impact on SA USD. The 1996 PEI Report utilized
a conservative methodology to demonstrate that even under a "best case" scenario from the City's
point of view, redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin would generate at least 377 new students in
SAUSD, resulting in a significant impact that the City needed to address in the EISfEI~.2
Although a "worst case" scenario is required to be examined in preparing an ElK, the 1996 PEI
Report was not intended to serve that purpose, lndeed, that task was left to the City's
consultants. IfPEI had been asked to develop a "worst case" scenario, the projections would not
only have been much higher than the projections set forth in the 1996 PE1 Report, they would
also have been considerably higher than the projections from the DMC and JCJ Reports that were
incorporated within the FEIS/FEIR.
The fact of the matter is that in presenting a "worst case" scenario, the FEIS/FEIR greatly
understate the true range of new students that would be generated by the proposed
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the FEIS/FEIR's ignoring certain basic
economic principles related to job growth in Orange County, and misinterpreting or misapplying
other economic data. As more fully explained below, if the FEIS/FEIR is corrected to properly
apply such principles and data, the range of new students that would be generated by the
proposed reuse of MCAS-Tustin would increase by approximately a factor of 10: from the
current projections of 82 to 509 new students, to a revised projection of 741 to 5,581 new
students.
The FEIS/FEIR underestimates the nu~nber of jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to
Orange County:
Method//2 of the FEIS/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will generate only
82 new students for SAUSD. This projection is based on the following assumptions: (i) 90
percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin will involve firms which simply
relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) all such jobs will involve the same employees as
previously, and (iii) none of these same employees will relocate their residence in order to be
The term "significant impact" appears to be applied differently by PEI than by the City of Tustin. PEI
deems significant any students generated over and above SAUSD's exisling student capacity (based on State
gmidelines.) The City does nol identify any objective crileria lo be used in determining "sigmficant," other than to
suggest lhal, ff enough students were generaled to fill an enlire grade school, middle school, or high school, then
the student generation impact would be deemed "significant" trader CEQA. PEt is nol aware of any such standard
beiv, g used in California to gauge the significance of estimated increases in student enrollment.
danuary 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 4
closer to their place of work. However,
reasons.
these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four
First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be created
on-site at MCAS-Tustin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not possibly be
"relocated" from somewhere else in the County ((FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.). The regional and
community parks, the golf course, the learning village, the housing facilities are unique land uses
which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses which might house tenants that
relocate from other buildings. We believe that this is an oversight of the FEIS/FEIR rather than
an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional park, or other similar facility will actually be
relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected
in the FE1S/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas designated
as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land uses are projected to
create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate from elsewhere in the County.
However, many of the jobs associated with the retail, wholesale; and discount businesses that are
also projected for these land use areas will be new to the County. lndeed, at least some of these
jobs will be "big box" retail establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses
are most likely to open new stores at MCAS-TusIin to serve areas that they did not previously
serve (including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEIR projects will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/FEIR fails to provide ar~y credible data to substantiate its claim that only 10%
of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could" be new lo Orange County, i.e., that 90 percent of such jobs
would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated that this claim is based on
interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff economists at certain companies and
agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically identify any person interviewed or, more
importantly, what questions such persons were asked or what assumptions they were asked to
make in arriving at this 90 percent figure. No verifiable information regarding these supposed
responses is provided in the FE1S/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply
relocate from elsewhere within the County, but that such relocation will not have any impact on
SAUSD. In so doing, the FE1S/FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon known to urban
economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin will be
occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but whose former
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 5
homes will never be occupied by new residents.
Of course, such a claim would be inappropriate
since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "backfilled" by new occupants. The
FEIS/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
residential uses.
However, the FEIS/FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when commercial/industrial space
previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space is ultimately occupied by other firms
new to the County (or by other firms that move from elsewhere in the County, which in turn
vacate space filled by firms from outside the County).3
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FEIS/FEIR implicitly assumes
that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that allegedly relocate to
MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this assumption is just as inappropriate
for non-residential uses as for residential uses. Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at
MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the County (which we dispute) there will still be
substantial net additional impacts on total County employment. However, the FEIS/FEIR fails to
consider these additional impacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors as the
number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii) unemployed, or (iii)
not in the labor force. However, in claiming'that 90 percent of the new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will
be filled by persons who already have jobs in the County, the FEIS/FEIR not only ignores the
backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems
highly unlikely given that Orange County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the
County than there are employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and
labor force participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from elsewhere
in Orange County, the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the workers who hold
3 New jobs lead Io migration of new workers to fill these jobs, and migrating employees may follow or
precede local job creation. In its report "Causes of Growth and Possible Control measures in the San Diego
Region (Agenda Report No. R-83, September 11, 1987), the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG")
stales thal "many of these labor-force dependent migrants are hired Io the.., area by non-economic factors such as
climate and environmenl. But wilhout a job or at least the prospect of one, they would nol migrale here, or after
arrival, would be unable Io afford a permanent slay." Moreover, migration impacts are relevant even "ff all new
jobs went to local workers," in which case "migrants would simply 'back-fill' a large share of 1he jobs vacaled by
local residents, i.e., take the existing 'Group A' jobs vacated by current residents who take new jobs, or fill exisling
'Group B' jobs vacated by current residents who fill lhe 'Group A' jobs, and so on."
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 6
those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place of work. City staff claims
that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be closer to their place of work is
negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to support such claim or to quantify the
amount of relocating workers that they deem to be "negligible."
In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent--compared to the City's
figure of 10 percentM is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the range of new
jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100 percent is an
appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent figure still appears
highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocated from elsewhere in the County, it
assumes that either one-half of the old space will not be backfilled, and/or one-half of the new
on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously employed outside the county or previously
unemployed or not in the labor force. Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50
percent is substituted for the 10 percent figure used in Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR as a low end
measure of the percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange
County.
The FEIS/FE1R fails to include indirect and induced jobs in all of its Methods:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined total of
0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy from on-site firms (indirect
jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs). However, Method #1 of
the FEIS/FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such indirect or induced jobs (DMC
Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect employment
that would occur from implementation of the project," while that was not the intent of Method
#1. However, this results in the anomalous situation in which Method #2, which includes direct
and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates fewer impacts than Method # 1, which ignores
multiplier effects.
If the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a range of
impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier effects result
from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method #1 because it uses
total on-site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefulness of Method #1 for
bracketing impacts.~
Perhaps failure to acknowledge this point in the FEIS/FEIR and related staff reports, is based on confusion
by slaff regarding the meaning of "direct impacts." On the one hand, staff uses "direct" Io refer 1o student
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 7
In addition, City staff has stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 . . . would result in
identical . . . conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as "direct
employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of on-site jobs (as
currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the previous page) rather than 10
percent as shown in Method #2.
If the same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method //2 is applied to
Method #1, the number of new students generated within SAUSD increases by 60.5 percent, i.e.,
from 509 new students to 819 new students based on 1998 student generation-factors (876 new
students based on 2000 student generation factors--see Alternative Method A below).
The FEIS/FEIR improperly utilizes the "Household Capture".figure from 0CP-96 in each of
its Methods:
The FEIS/FEIR references the following statistic from OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing growth in
Orange County from 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Ana." In each of the two
~nethodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD, the FEIS/FEIR
misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers taking the new jobs
created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa Ana.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns and (ii)
housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is directly dependent
on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the number of homes being created
elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent figure from OCP-96, which estimates the
percentage of all housing growth countywide that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000
and 2020 bears no direct correlation to the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at
MCAS-Tustin and establish new households in Santa Ana.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail, clerical,
warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best. However,
housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-family housing that
will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the workers who fill these types of jobs
generation impacls of on-sile housing, and "indirect" Io refer 1o studenl impacls of generaled by job crealion. On
lhe other hand, staff uses "direct" to refer lo fl~ose on-site jobs thai have multiplier effecls, and "indirect" 1o the
multiplier effects themseh, es (which in fact include "indirect" impacts--off-site jobs crealed by firms witlfin the
region that sell lo or buy from on-sile firms--and "induced" impacts--off-site jobs created by firms within the
region lhat produce or sell goods and services demanded by new employees).
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 8
(FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling these jobs will need to find affordable
housing in other areas and communities near MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important
that the data used to estimate the number of workers at MCAS-TusIin who are likely to establish
new households in Santa Aha account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other
communities around MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns--and by inference,
housing affordability--Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96 for
estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Aha. Census data
from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Aha, 45,414 workers (25.49 percent) also Iive
in Santa Ana. In other words, 25.49 percent of jobs in Santa Ana are filled by workers who found
Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting distance and to provide affordable housing.
Census data also show that of 1,123,048 jobs in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent)
live in Santa Aha.s
Since MCAS-Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that a similar
percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In other words, it is
prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent of workers will
reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns,
and by inference, housing affordability. Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and
(E) below, the figures of 7.24 percent and 25.49 percent derived from the 1990 Census have been
substituted for the 4 percent figure that the DMC Report derived from OCP-96.
Alternative methodologies for estimating the number of additional students to be generated in
SA USD by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin:
Alternative Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC Report included in its
Method//2 but unjustifiably excluded from Method #1. The number of indirect or induced jobs
that is utilized in this alternative method is the same number that is estimated by the City in the
FE1S/FEIR. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By simply including the number of new students that will
be generated by these indirect or induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR's projection of 509 new students
increases to 819 with 1998 student generation rates (876 students with 2000 student generation
rates).
5 By comparison, lhe 1990 Census also demonslrales that of lhe 33,531 people who work in Tuslin, only
5,789 (17.26 percent) also live in Tusfin. The fact lhal the number of workers who live and work in Santa Aha is
more thm~ eight percentage points higher than the number that work and live m Tustin suggest that housing Js
more affordable in Santa Ana than in Tuslin~and as a result, that Santa Ana would draw relatively more of the
workers from MCAS-Tustin.
January 16, 2001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 9
Alternative Method (/~): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent figure that the DMC
Report used to estimate the number of jobs created 'at MCAS-Tustin that would be new to
Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 7.24 percent figure derived from the 1990 Census for
the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEER to estimate the number of new household created by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These two modifications cause
the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase
by a factor of nine from 82 to 741 new students with 1998 student generation rates (793 students
with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (C): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 7.24 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 3 from 509 to 1,482 with 1998 student generation
rates (1,585 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the number of jobs created
at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 25.49 percent
figure derived from 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within
SAUSD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of nearly 32 from 82 to 2,192 new
students with 1998 student generation rates (2,791 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Alternative Method ('E): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the FEIS/FEIR
with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total number of jobs
created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 25.49 percent figure to estimate the number of new
households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will reside within SAUSD. These
two modifications cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of
MCAS-Tustin to increase by a factor of more than 10 from 509 to 5,217 new students with 1998
student generation rates (5,581 students with 2000 student generation rates).
Conclusion
In conclusion, by making reasonable modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new
household estimates set forth in the FEIS/FEIR are based, a more credible range of estimates
January ! 6, £001
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Page 10
emerges to better define the student generation impacts on SAUSD which will be caused by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. The current "best case" and "worst case" scenarios set forth in
the FEIS/FEIR (i.e., 82 to 509 additional students) are simply not credible and should be revised
upward (i.e., to 741 to 5,217 students based on 1998 student generation factors (and to 793 to
5,581 new students based on 2000 student generation factors) in light of the points discussed
above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
DwightVE Berg, P.E.O ~
Consultant
attachment
K:\SANTA AN.USDX~I RRESP5.SAM
--
--.. o 0o go
Exhibit F
San - Ana Unified hool District
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
January 16, 200i
Re: GPA-O0-OOI; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal a~d Reuse of MCAS- Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
At the request of Connor, Blake & Griffin LLP, the attorneys for the Santa Aha Unified
School District ("SAUSD") and the Rancho Santiago Community College District ("RSCCD")
[hereinafter, SAUSD and RSCCD shall collectively be referred to as lhe "Districts"], 1 have been
asked to submit this letter in response to certain comments set forth in Attactm~ents 5 and 6 to the
"Agenda Report to City Manager, William Huston," which has been prepared by the
Redevelopment Agency staff in support of the proposed adoption of General Plan Amendment
No. 00-001 ("GPA 00-001") and the certification of the related FEIS/FEIR by the City Council
of the City of Tuslin (the "City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001.
I am currently employed as a facilities planner in the Facilities Plmming Department of
SAUSD, and I am presently compleling my doctoral studies at the School of Social Ecology at
the University of California at lrvine. Prior to working for SAUSD, I provided planning services
for the Cities of Westminster and Long Beach. My present duties include the coordination and
administration of facilities planning activities related to new school construction, renovation of
existing schools, and other support activities. A large portion of my current workload involves
the acquisition of land for the new school facilities, which SAUSD desperately needs. My work
in this area has included research regarding the feasibility of developing new schools at the
Marine Corps Air Station at Tustin, California ("MCAS-Tustin").
In the Agenda Report prepared for the public hearing to be held on GPA 00-001 on
January 16, 2001, staff continues to assert that the redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will neither
(1) generate any significant adverse impacts on public services and facilities within the two
Districts, nor (2) necessitate the City's adoption of any mitigation measures to minimize such
adverse impacts by, for example, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be set aside
as new school sites for SAUSD and RSCCD. I do not believe that the City has properly assessed
the significant environmental effects associated the reuse of MCAS-Tustin, particularly with
respect to impacts on public services and facilities affecling the Districts.
In order to properly assess the "significance" of such environmental impacts, the City
should consider all of the letters, testimony, and other materials submitted 1o date on behalf of the
1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Aha, CA 92701-6322 (714) 480-5357
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Nadia Maria Davis, President ' Nati,,'o Lopez, Vice President
Sal Tinajero, Clerk · Rosemarie Avila, Member ° John Palacio, Member
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 2
Districts with respect to the FEIS/'FEIR, as well as the following additional facts which I have
extrapolated fi.om SAUSD's records and files:
(1) SAUSD has a student population which is 96% minority and is
characterized by limited English language proficiency at a rate about three times that of
the State and Orange County as a whole. About two-thirds of SAUSD's students reside
in households with incomes at or below the federal poverty level. SAUSD experienced
explosive enrollment growth during the latter 1980s and early 1990s. Though the pace of
enrollment growth has moderated in recent years, the State Class Size Reduction program
that emerged suddenly in mid-1996 put additional stress on SAUSD's already
overcrowded facilities, as classrooms had to be subdivided to accommodate no more than
20 students in the first and second grades throughout the District. To accommodate all of
the school facilities needs, SAUSD has acquired over 400 portable classrooms and
operates most of its elementary and intermediate schools on year-round schedules;
(2) Enrollment counts at SAUSD rose sharply through 1990 and the
composition of its student population has changed markedly. To date, virtually all
students enrolled in SAUSD are members of one or another racial/etlmic minority (with
Latinos comprising almost 92% of all students). Socioeconomically, nearly two-thirds
qualify for free lunches; 71% possess limited English language skills; 40% are
immigrants;
(3) At the elementary level, nearly four students in five are limited English-
proficient ("LEP"), and in many of SAUSD's elementary schools, LEP students
collectively speak at least five separate primary languages, principally Spanish.
Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that particular neighborhoods may be evolving
differently. In community meetings held in connection with the preparation of the FMP,
SAUSD's consultants heard accounts of areas where young families with children often
rent homes formerly occupied by older "empty nesters," extended families often pool
resources to buy homes, and many families who cannot afford separate dwellings often
"double up" in the same residence;
(4) Califomia is a major entry port into the United States, and Santa Ana and
its schools are a conspicuous front doorstep into American society. Many families who
children attend SAUSD are newly legalized residents, the natural aftermath of the
Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA"). Under the IRCA, some 66,000 persons
in Santa Ana applied to legalize their status--one of every 46 applicants nationwide in a
city inhabited by l/1000th of the nation's population. According to a 1994 American
Housing Survey, 87% of households in Santa gma with children send them to the City's
public schools (vs. 81% for Orange County as a whole). Most transfers into SAUSD are
children ofparenls holding jobs in Santa Aha, for whom convenience is a factor;
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 3
(5) In recent years, scores of Mexicans immigrants from the community of
Granjenal, for example, have settled in Santa Ana, essentially re-creating the community
and supplying the next generation of more educated young adults. More recently, nearly
one-fifth (4,417) of the 23,068 refugees coming to Orange County between 1990 and
1994 settled in Santa Ana. The pattern of settlement of California's new immigrants
resembles that of earlier immigrants. As before, the majority settled in a handful of
California counties to join their family and friends. The distinctiveness of Orange
County is its increasing popularity as an intended designation of residence for
immigrants;
(6) Immigrant communities, once established, become conspicuous
designations for future immigrants with common origins (as the movement from
Granjenal to Santa Ana exemplifies). Newcomers eager to settle near kin and friends
manage to secure accommodations, doubling up and pushing levels of residential density
(persons per household) even higher. The household configuration of Santa Ana's
population is distinctive. Residential density is extraordinarily high, yet continues to rise.
Persons per household in 1997 averaged 4.19, far above any other city in Orange County;
and
(7) Santa Ana's population is conducive to future school enrolhnents. First,
30% of the population is under 18, well above the corresponding figure for the rest of
Orange County or California. Second, a disproportionate share of Santa Ana's population
is within the childbearing ages (18-44 years). Santa Ana's age slructure (conducive to
future enrollments) and its surrounding setting (permeated by public school enrollment
growth) are two distinctive features bearing on its future.
In addition lo the above-listed facts, the new Housing Element of the General Plan of the
City of Santa Aha, which ',vas adopted in December 2000, contains the following relevant facts:
(1) Household Size. During the 1990s, there was an increase in average
household size from 4.1 to 4.3 persons per household in Santa Aha;
(2)
working (2
age groups
Age Distribution. During the 1990s, the preschool (under 4) and prime
5-54) age groups added 9,000 and 15,000 persons respectively while all other
showed a decline or a very small increase;
(3) Ethnicity. The City's Hispanic population increased from about 65% of
the total in 1990 to 68% in 1997. The Asian population increased from 9% to 10%
during this same period, while the non-Hispanic White and African American populations
showed a net decline. (Housing Elements, p. A-27.)
Attached herelo as Exhibits "1" through "4" are three charts and one table which I have
prepared as follows:
Mr. Dana Ogdon.
January 16, 2001
Page 4
(1) Exhibit "1" is a chart entitled "Average School Enrollment," which
compares the aYerage enrollment of the elemenlary, middle, and high schools for the
SAUSD, the Tustin Unified School District, and the lrvine Unified School District.
Exhibit "A" was prepared based on information obtained from the California Department
of Education and the FEIS/FEIR for MCAS-Tustin;
(2) Exhibit "2" is a chart entitled "Housing Estimates, Jan. 1,2000," which
compares the average number of persons per household for lhe Cities of Santa Ana,
Tustin, and Irvine and the County of Orange. Exhibit "B" was prepared based on
information obtained from the California Department of Finance;
(3) Exhibit "3" is a chart entitled "Comparison of SAUSD School Densities
With California Department of Ed. Recommended Average Student Per Acre," which
compares the average number of students per acres for elementary, middle, and high
schools in the SAUSD to the recommended averages for such schools. Exhibit "C" was
prepared based on information obtained from the California Deparlment of Education;
and
(4) Exhibit "4" is a table entitled "SAUSD Enrollments, Acreage, and
MTYRE Info.," which summarizes the number of students, the size in acres, the number
of students per acre, and the type of multi-track year round education ("MTYRE"), if any,
for each school in the SAUSD. The table also provides average information for the all
elementary, middle, and high schools in the District, as well as the District as a whole.
Exhibit "4" was prepared based on the SAUSD's own data.
Hopefully, the data provided above, as well as the charts and table enclosed herewith,
will assist the City in reevaluating the environmental impacts associated with the City's Reuse
Plan for MCAS-Tustin and will enable it to conclude that (1) the project will have significant
adverse effects on minority populations seeking to avail themselves of public services and
facilities with the two Districts and (2) such impacts need to be adequately mitigated by, among
other things, designating surplus federal land at MCAS-Tustin to be used for new school sites for
the Districts.
Very truly yours,
Colette Marie McLaughlin
Planner, SAUSD
EXHIBIT "1"
o~
EXHIBIT "2"
Hodsing Estimates, Jan. ,, 2000
,.
~.U
:...~,;,:
.:,'.,:..
2.5 ,'.',
2.0 - ~.~,
1.o - ~:~: ....
0.0 -'---'
Persons/Household
..,
,,.
Irvine 2.9
Santa Ana 4.3
~Tustin 2.9
Orange County .,. 3.1
http:/Iwww.dof, ca.govlhlml/Demograp/E-5text.hlm
EXHIBIT "3"
0 0
0 r~
::::D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EXHIBIT "4"
SAUSD
EnroiL.,ents, Acreage, and
School [ 10/99CBEDSI Acres
Adams
Carver
Davis
;)iamond
!dison
Franklin
Fremont
Garfield
Grant*
Greenville
Harvey
Heninger
Hoover
Jackson
Jefferson
Kennedy
King
Lincoln
Lowell
Madison
Martin
Monroe
te Vista
856
780
78O
935
1,042
643
1,124
1,106
337
986
595
1,088
1,208
1,233
966
97O
1,056
1,306
1,056
1,281
993
9O6
921
948
948
575
431
1,177
1,106
940
1,153
763
914
1,327
1,164
33,614
1,833
1,779
1,236
1,748
1,300
1,010
1,573
1,168
1,623
13,270
2,707
243
236
24O
2,986
3,449
2,829
Info.
Pico
Remington
rnero-Cruz
Roosevelt
Santiago
Sepulveda
Taft
Thorpe
Walker
Washington
Wilson
Total K-5
Carr
Lathrop
MacArthur
McFadden
Mendez*
Sierra
Spurgeon
Villa
Willard
Total 6-8
[ MTYRE (mulli-track
Students per acre year round education)
6.75 127 4 cycles
4.03 194 4 cycles
4.75 164 4 cycles
5.58 168 4 cycles
3.69 282 4 cycles
2.53 254 I cycle
2.88 390 4 cycles
4.99 222 4 cycles
2.75 123
6.5 152
5.5 108
6.69 163 4 cycles
4.47 270 4 cycles
9.52 130 4 cycles
9.64 100
6 162 4 cycles
4.98 212 4 cycles
9.53 137 4 cycles
5.12 206 4 cycles
6.12 209 4 cycles
6.81 146 4 cycles
6.6 137
9.98 92 4 cycles
8.86 107
4.27 222 4 cycles
4.05 142
2.3 187 4 cycles
5.57 211 4 cycles
8.97 123
5.44 173 4 cycles
10 115
6.67 114
7.1 129
8.63 154
3.86 302
211.13 159.2
25.22 73
7.65 233
10 124
24.18 72
12 108
11.84 85
19 83
11.25 104
9.79 166
130.93 101.4
· 4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
4 cycles
2 cycles
2 cycles
Century 24.99 108
Chavez 2.47 98
ddle College 0 NA
Mountain View** 2.44 98
Saddleback 36.44 82
Santa Aha 24.3 142
Valley 50.02 57
Total 9-12 12,690 140.66 90.2
Total All Grades 57,937 482.72 122.9.
* new schools: counts are excluded from total enrollment but are included in adjusted students/acre **
student enrollment count has been excluded from adjusted students/acre
the number below is
students per acre
adjUSted by adding
students from new
schools and
excluding students
from schools that
share facilities
Exhibit G
PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC.
Public Finance
Urban Economics
Developmen! Services
January 16, 2000
Mr. Dana Ogdon
Senior Project Manager
City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, California 92780
Re: GPA-00-001; FEIS/FEIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS-Tustin
Dear Mr. Ogdon:
Introduction
At the request of counsel for Rancho Santiago Community College District ("CCD"),
Public Economics, Inc. ("PEI") has prepared this response ("Response") to certain staff
comments set forth in Attachments 5 and 6 to the "Agenda Report to City Manager,
William Huston," prepared by City staff in support of the proposed adoption of General
Plan Amendment No. 00-001 and certification of the FEIS/FEIR by the City Council of
the City of Tustin ("City") at the public hearing scheduled for January 16, 2001. In
particular, this Response addresses comments of City staff that "there is no feasible way
to evaluate indirect impacts" of MCAS-Tustin on the CCD.
PEI is California's leading provider of redevelopment consulting services to the education
community. Since its founding in 1992, PEI has been involved in more than three-
fourths of all redevelopment plans and amendments approved in the State of California-
including a number of military base closures-on behalf of over 200 local school districts,
community college districts, and county offices of education.
Dante Gumucio, CEO of PEI, has personally advised over 200 school districts and
community college districts regarding the impacts of growth and development in general,
and redevelopment in particular. Mr. Gumucio has over 20 years academic and
consulting experience. He has been on the full-time economics faculty at California State
University, Fullerton (and taught part-time at Chapman University), where his classes
820 W. Town and Country Road ° Orange, CA 92868-4712
(714) 647-6242 ° FAX (714) 647-6232
~,'Vorld VVide Web: hhtp;//www, pub-econ, corn
Nix. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 2 of 10
included urban economics, benefit-cost analysis, public finance, and mathematical
economics, as well as classes in the N[PA and MBA programs. He has also taught in the
University extension at the University of California, lrvine, including courses in the
Economic Fundamentals of Planning and Development and Financial Aspects of
Planning. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Economics and has a Master of Science degree in
Economics, both from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a Bachelor of Science
degree in Economics from Brigham Young University.
Backeround
In comments submitted on November 28, 2000 on the CCD's behalf by Connor, Blake &
Griffin ("Connor"), that firm noted that the FEIS/FEIR contains no analysis of the
number of credit or non-credit students that will be added to the CCD due to
redevelopment ofMCAS-Tustin. In its response to Connor's comments, City staff stated
that "there is no feasible way to evaluale indirect impacts [ofjob creation] on the [CCD].
Moreover, City staff also stated that "there is no universally recognized methodology for
projecting indirect impacts [of job creation] on a community college district." The first
statement is incorrect and the second statement is irrelevant.
Just because student generation factors are expressed relative to residential dwelling units
(" DUs") or resident population within a school district does not mean that it is infeasible
to project the impact on student generation of non-residential development. To the
contrary, K-12 districts typically levy developer fees on non-residential development
based on a fee justification analysis which demonstrates a rational and substantial nexus
between non-residential development and employment, migration, household formation,
and K-12 student generation.
Just because community college districts do not levy or have to justify developer fees
does not mean that there is nol a similar rational and substantial nexus between non-
residential development and employment and generation of community college students.
lndeed, program EIRs prepared for redevelopment plans, program EIRs prepared for
general plans and specific plans, and various project EIRs have attempted to quantify the
impacts of development on community college districts. And many such impact reports
include not only the impact of non-residential development, but the impact of both direct
and indirect/induced non-residential development.
The City attributes its position regarding the lack of a universally recognized
methodology for estimating impacts on community colleges to the City's environmental
consultant, Cotton and Beland and Associates ("CBA"). PE] is quite certain that it has
reviewed E1Rs prepared by CBA which do estimate the impacts of future development on
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 3 of 10
community college districts. And PEI does not know why such impacts were excluded
fi.om the FEIS/YEIR for MCAS-Tustin. However, even if CBA had never included such
impacts in EIRs for other projects (which PEI believes not to be the case), there are a
number of other environmental firms which have included such impacts in their
environmental documentation, and which use similar methods in doing so.
However, even if there were not one single, universally recognized methodology for
estimating such impacts, what is required by CEQA, as well as by case law and the State
and federal constitutions is not universality, but rationality. One such rational method is
used by the California State Department of Finance and the State Chancellor's Office for
California Community Colleges. This method involves applying "credit enrollment rates"
to projected future populations over the age of 18 within a college district's (primary)
"service area." Following is an analysis prepared by PE] in conjunction with Rancho
Santiago CCD staffwhich utilizes this very method.
Analysis
In projecting the impact on household formation of on-site employment at MCAS-Tustin,
the FEIS/FEIR relies on the Updated Report on the lndirect ]mpact of Redevelopment of
the MCAS Tustin Site Upon Household Grow-th in the Santa Aha Unified School District
("DMC Report"), prepared by Dennis Macheski Consulting ("DMC") in May 1999. Had
student generation rates available from the CCD for college credit and adult education
em'ollment been combined with household projections from the DMC Report, the
FEIS/FEIR could have included estimates of enrollment impact on the CCD.
Unfortunately, no such impacts were estimated.
As shown in Exhibit 1, the CCD's combined credit/adult education student enrollment
rate is 0.1392 students per service area population. PEI and the CCD have used
household projections contained in the FEIS/FEIR to project future student generation for
the CCD from redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin. However, household projections in the
FEIS/FEIR were for Santa Ana Unified School District ("SAUSD"), which has a smaller
geographic area and resident population than the CCD. Hence, PEI and the CCD have
adjusted household projections for SAUSD for some scenarios to reflect the CCD's larger
area.
However, the FEIS/FEIR greatly understates the true range of new households that will
be generated within SAUSD by reuse of MCAS-Tustin. This is the result of the
FEIS/YE1R's ignoring certain basic economic principles related to job growth in Orange
County, and misinterpreting or misapplying other economic data. As more fully
explained below, if the FEIS/FEIR is corrected to properly apply such principles and
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 4 of 10
data, the number of new households within the boundaries of the CCD generated by reuse
of MCAS-Tustin would range from 880 new households to 6,602 new households, which
would increase student em'ollment in the District by 303 to 2,270 new community college
students.
The FEIS/FEIR underestimates the number of jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will be new
to Orange County:
Method #2 of the FEIS/FEIR estimates that redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin will
generate only 88 new households within SAUSD. This projection is based on the
following assumptions: (i) 90 percent of the 24,852 jobs created on-site at MCAS-Tustin
will involve fn'rns which simply relocate from elsewhere in Orange County, (ii) all such
jobs will involve the same employees as previously, and (iii) none of these same
employees will relocate their residence in order to be closer to their place of work.
However, these assumptions are simply untenable for at least four reasons.
First, the FEIS/FEIR ignores the fact that at least 1,934 (7.8 percent) of the jobs to be
created on-site at MCAS-TusIin are of such a site-specific nature that they could not
possibly be "relocated" from somewhere else in the County (FEIS/FE1R at p. 4-18). The
regional and community parks, the golf course, the learning village, and housing facilities
are unique land uses which are not at all suitable for relocation, as opposed to land uses
which might house tenants that relocate fi.om other buildings. We believe that this is an
oversight of the FEIS/FEIR rather than an attempt to claim that a golf course, regional
park, or other similar facility will actually be relocated to MCAS-Tustin. Correcting this
oversight alone nearly doubles the impact projected in the FEIS/FEIR.
Many of the R & D or professional office jobs that will be created in the land use areas
designated as commercial/business, commercial, and community core (these three land
uses are projected to create 22,394 jobs out of a total of 24,852 jobs) may well relocate
fi.om elsewhere in the County. However, many of the jobs associated with the retail,
wholesale, and discount businesses that are also projected for these land use areas will be
new to the County. lndeed, at least some of these jobs will be "big box" retail
establishments such as Wal-Mart. Such large-scale chain businesses are most likely to
open new stores at MCAS-Tustin to serve areas that they did not previously serve
(including the 12,500 new residents the FEIS/FEIR project will live at MCAS-Tustin) as
opposed to closing a store and relocating it to MCAS-Tustin.
Second, the FEIS/'FEIR fails to provide any credible data to substantiate its claim that
only 10% of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin "could" be new to Orange County, i.e., that 90
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 5 of 10
percent of such jobs would be filled by current County residents. City staff has stated
that this claim is based on interviews with research personnel, brokers, and staff
economists at certain companies and agencies. However, City staff fails to specifically
identify any person interviewed or, more importantly, what questions such persons were
asked or what assumptions they xvere asked to make in arriving at this 90 percent figure.
No verifiable information regarding these supposed responses is provided in the
FEIS/FEIR.
Third, the FEIS/FEIR claims that not only will 90 percent of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin
simply relocate fi.om elsewhere within the County, but that'such relocation will not have
any impact on SAUSD. In so doing, the FE]S/FEIR entirely ignores the phenomenon
known to urban economists as "backfill."
The FEIS/FEIR could just as easily claim that the new housing units at MCAS-Tustin
will be occupied by other residents of Orange County who move to MCAS-Tustin, but
whose former homes will never be occupied by new residents. Of course, such a claim
would be inappropriate since the former homes of new Tustin residents are "back-filled"
by new occupants. The FE1S/FEIR appears to correctly accounts for the backfill
phenomenon when it comes to residential uses.
However, the FEIS/FEIR appears to ignore the backfill phenomenon when it comes to
non-residential uses. With non-residential uses, backfill occurs when
commercial/industrial space previously occupied by businesses that relocate to new space
is ultimately occupied by other firms new to the County (or by other firms that move
from elsewhere in the County, which in turn vacate space filled by firms from outside the
County):
By ignoring the backfill phenomenon for non-residential uses, the FEIS/FEIR implicitly
assumes that the 7.8 million square feet of business space vacated by businesses that
allegedly relocate to MCAS-Tustin will remain vacant indefinitely. Of course, this
assumption is just as inappropriate for non-residential uses as for residential uses.
Because of backfill, even if all new jobs at MCAS-Tustin went to existing workers in the
County (which we dispute) there will still be substantial net additional impacts on total
County employment. However, the FEI S/FEIR fails to consider these additional flnpacts.
Additional employment impacts will depend not only on the backfill, but on such factors
as the number of County residents currently (i) employed outside the County, (ii)
unemployed, or (iii) not in the labor force. However, in claiming that 90 percent of the
new jobs at MCAS-Tustin will be filled by persons who already have jobs in the County,
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 6 of 10
the FEISfFEIR not only ignores the backfill, it presents no analysis of any of these
factors. As a result, the 90 percent claim seems highly unlikely given that Orange
County is a net exporter of jobs (i.e., there are more jobs in the County than there are
employed County residents), unemployment rates are at historic lows, and labor force
participation is at all time highs.
Finally, should any significant portion of the jobs at MCAS-Tustin simply relocate from
elsewhere in Orange County, the FEIS/FEIR also ignores the likelihood that some of the
workers who hold those jobs will relocate to SAUSD in order to be closer to their place
of work. City staff claims that the number of workers who do relocate to SAUSD to be
closer to their place of work is negligible. However, staff fails to provide any evidence to
support such claim or to quantify the amount of relocating workers that they deem to be
"negligible."
In light of the foregoing, we believe that a figure of at least 50 percent-compared to the
City's figure of 10 percent is much more reasonable for establishing the low end of the
range of new jobs at MCAS-Tustin that will also be new to Orange County, and that 100
percent is an appropriate figure for establishing the high end of the range. The 50 percent
figure still appears highly conservative, since even if all on-site jobs are relocated from
elsewhere in the County, it assumes that either one-half the old space will not be
backfilled, and/or one-half the new on-site jobs will be filled by persons previously
employed outside the county or previously unemployed or not in the labor force.
Accordingly, in Alternative Methods (B) and (D) below, 50 percent is substituted for the
10 percent figure used in Method //2 of lhe FEIS/FEIR as a low end measure of the
percentage of jobs projected to be filled by employees who are new to Orange County.
The FEIS/FEIR fails to include indirect and inducedjobs bt all of its Methods:
Method #2 of the FE1S/FE1R properly notes that on-site jobs at MCAS-Tustin will have a
"multiplier" effect; that for every on-site job at MCAS-Tustin, there will be a combined
total of 0.61 additional off-site jobs created by firms that (i) sell to or buy fi.om on-site
firms (indirect jobs), and (ii) produce or sell goods to new employees (induced jobs).
However, Method #1 of the FE1S/FEIR entirely ignores the impacts associated with such
indirect or induced jobs (DMC Report pp. 3-4, 6).
City staff has stated that Method #2 was intended "to calculate direct and indirect
employment that would occur fi.om implementation of the project," while lhat was not the
intent of Method #1. Howeverl this results in the anomalous situation in which Method
//2, which includes direct and indirect (i.e., multiplier) effects, generates ftn,'er impacts
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 7 of 10
than Method #1, which ignores multiplier effects.
]f the City expects there to be multiplier effects, the only meaningful way to bracket a
range of impacts is to show multiplier effects in all scenarios. Moreover, since multiplier
effects result from direct employment impacts, to exclude multiplier effects from Method
#1 because it uses total on-site employment, not direct impacts, invalidates the usefidness
of Method #1 for bracketing impacts.
In addition, City staffhas stated that "to use a multiplier for [Method] #1 ... would result
in identical.., conclusions for both [Methods]." This is clearly not the case as long as
"direct employment" in Method #1 is assumed to reflect the worst case of 100 percent of
on-site jobs (as currently shown in that scenario and recommended by PEI on the
previous page) rather than 10 percent as shown in Method #2.
lfthe same 0.61 multiplier for these indirect or induced jobs used in Method//2 is applied
to Method #1, the number of new students generated within CCD increases from 188 new
students to 303 new students
The FEIS/FEIR improperly utilizes the "ltousehold Capture" figure from 0CP-96 in
each of its Methods:
The FEIS/FEIR references the following statistic from OCP-96: "3.8% of the housing
grouch in Orange County fi'om 2000-2020 will be captured by Santa Ana." In each of
the two methodologies it uses for projecting the number of new students within SAUSD,
the FE1S/FEIR misapplies this statistic by assuming that only 4.0 percent of the workers
taking the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin will live in homes located within Santa' Aha.
The household location of workers is based on two major factors: (i) commuting patterns
and (ii) housing affordability. Neither commuting patterns nor housing affordability is
directly dependent on the number of homes being created in Santa Ana relative to the
number of homes being created elsewhere in Orange County. Therefore, the 3.8 percent
figure from OCP-96, which estimates the percentage of all housing growth countywide
that will be captured by Santa Ana between 2000 and 2020 bears no direct correlation to
the number of workers who fill the new jobs created at MCAS-Tustin and establish new
households in Santa Ana.
Moreover, the OCP-96 figure in no way considers the type of jobs that will be created at
MCAS-Tustin. As stated above, a significant number of such jobs are service, retail,
clerical, warehouse, or other similar types of jobs that tend to offer moderate pay at best.
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 8 of l 0
However, housing to be constructed at MCAS-Tustin is predominately upscale, single-
family housing that will invariably be beyond the economic means of many of the
workers who fill these types of jobs (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-20). As a result, workers filling
these jobs will need to find affordable housing in other areas and communities near
MCAS-Tustin. Accordingly, it is very important that the data used to estimate the
number of workers at MCAS-Tustin who are likely to establish new households in Santa
Ana account for housing affordability in Santa Ana and other communities around
MCAS-Tustin.
By including data tabulated specifically to identify commuting patterns-and by inference,
housing affordability-Census data prove a much more appropriate source than OCP-96
for estimating the number of workers who will establish new households in Santa Ana.
Census data from 1990 show that out of 178,187 jobs in Santa Ana, 45,414 workers
(25.49 percent) also live in Santa Ana. In other words, 25.49 percent of jobs in Santa
Ana are filled by workers who found Santa Ana to be within a reasonable commuting
distance and to provide affordable housing. Census data also show that ofl,123,048 jobs
in Orange County, 81,313 workers (7.24 percent) live in Santa Aha.
Since MCAS-Tustin is located within and directly adjacent to SAUSD, it is expected that
a similar percentage of workers from jobs at MCAS Tustin will reside within SAUSD. In
other words, it is prudent to estimate that somewhere between 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent of workers will reside within SAUSD based on Census data tabulated specifically
to identify commuting patterns, and by inference, housing affordability.
The boundaries of the CCD include all of SAUSD. The comparative size of the two
districts is indicated by their respeclive assessed valuations, which in FY 2000-01 totaled
$35.2 billion for the CCD and $15.5 billion for the SAUSD. Nonetheless, PEI and CCD
staff have adjusted the Census-based estimates for SAUSD of 7.24 percent and 25.49
percent by much less than the relative difference in assessed values. The adjusted
estimates for the CCD conservatively range fi.om 9.5 percent to 30 percent. Accordingly,
in Alternative Methods (B), (C), (D), and (E) below, the figures of 9.5 percent and 30
percent derived by adjusting the 1990 Census for SAUSD have been substituted for the 4
percent figure that the DMC Report derived fi.om OCP-96.
Alternative methodologies .for estimating the number of additional students to be
generated OF CCD by redevelopment of MCAS- Tustin
Alter~Tative Method (A): This alternative method consists of Method #1 fi.om the
FEIS/FEIR modified to include the additional indirect/induced jobs which the DMC
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 9 of 10
Report included in its Method #2 but unjustifiably excluded fi.om Method #1. The
number of indirect or induced jobs that is utilized in this alternative method is the same
number that is estimated by the City in the FEIS/FEIR. (FEIS/FEIR at p. 4-18.) By
simply including the number of new students that will be generated by these indirect or
induced jobs, the FEIS/FEIR would have a projection of 303 new CCD students.
Alter~Tative Method ~): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it substitutes 50 percent for the 10 percent
figure that the DMC Report used to estimate the number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin
that would be new to Orange County. Second, it substitutes the 9.50 percent figure
derived from the 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure used by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate
the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will
locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new students
generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 359.
Alternative Method (C): This alternative method is based on Method #1 fi.om the
FE1S/FEIR with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-TusIin. Second, it uses the 9.50 percent figure to
eslimate the number of new households created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin.that
will locate withhi CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 719.
Alternative Method (D): This alternative method is based on Method #2 from the
FEIS/FEIR with two modifications. First, it uses the 50 percent figure to estimate the
number of jobs created at MCAS-Tustin that will be new to Orange County. Second, it
substitutes the 25.49 percent figure derived fi.om 1990 Census for the 4 percent figure
utilized by the FEIS/FEIR to estimate the number of new households created by
redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that will locate within CCD. These two modifications
cause the projected number of new students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-
Turin to increase to 1,135.
.qlternative Method ('E): This alternative method is based on Method #1 from the
FEIS/FE]R with two modifications. First, it includes indirect or induced jobs in the total
number of jobs created by MCAS-Tustin. Second, it uses the 30.00 percent figure to
estimate the number of new household created by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin that
will locate within CCD. These two modifications cause the projected number of new
students generated by redevelopment of MCAS-Tustin to increase to 2,270.
Mr. Dana Ogdon
January 16, 2001
Page 10 of 10
Conclusion
In conclusion, the preceding analysis demonstrates that it is feasible to estimate the
indirect impacts on ~he CCD of job creation at MCAS Tustin. Moreover, such estimates
can be prepared using a fairly standard estimation methodology. By making reasonable
modifications to the basic assumptions upon which the new household estimates set forth
in the FEIS/FEIR are based, and combining these with the CCD's student enrollment
rates, a more credible range of estimates emerges to better define the student generation
impacts on CCD which .will be caused by redevelopment of MCAS Tustin. "Best case"
and "worst case" scenarios of 303 to 2,270 students should be set forth in the FEIS/FEIR
in light of the points discussed above.
Sincerely yours,
Public Economics, Inc.
By:
D~nnte Gumucio
Chief Execm ire Officer
att achment
Attachment 5
Minutes from the October 28, 2002
Planning Commission Meeting
MINUTES
TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 2002
7:00 p.m.
Given
All present
Staff present
None
Approved
Adopted Resolution
No 3846, as
amended
7:02 p.m.
West
Jennings
West
Hamilton
West
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
Elizabeth Binsack, Community Development Director
Christine Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
Doug Holland, Assistant City Attorney
Doug Anderson, Senior Project Manager, Transportation
Dana Ogdon, Redevelopment Program Manager
Karen Peterson, Senior Planner
Matt West, Assistant Planner
Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary
PUBLIC CONCERNS
CONSENT CALENDAR
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 14, 2002,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
It was moved by Jennings, seconded by Nielsen, to approve the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
CONTINUED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-004 AND
DESIGN REVIEW 02-008 A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT
A 1,320 SQUARE FOOT CHOIR ROOM EXPANSION AT
AN EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3846
approving Conditional Use Permit 02-004 and Design
Review 02-008.
The Public Hearing opened.
Presented the staff report, using a PowerPoint presentation.
Asked if there is a planter box planned or the landscaping will be
put directly into the ground.
Indicated that no new planter box is proposed.
Stated his appreciation for the additional photographs; and, asked
what the purpose was for the flags along the sidewalk.
Responded that he is not familiar with any flags; and, suggested
Commissioner Hamilton ask the applicant that question.
Kozak Invited the applicant to come to the lectern.
Reverend Brian
Kent, Aldersgate
United Methodist
Church
Richard Rengel,
architect for the
project
Jennings
Mr. Rengel
Thanked everyone for the time and consideration spent on this
project; indicated the flags referred to by Commissioner Hamilton
were associated with painting of the church trim, marking sprinkler
heads for the painters; stated time limitations should not be a part
of this application since the church has operated without limits
since the church's inception; noted the church is not a 24-hour
operation but there are ovemight events several times each year:
until midnight Christmas Eve, Easter morning, overnight youth
groups, etc.; stated his desire to avoid friction between the church
and the City in the future, but would prefer not to have to request
and pay a fee for these occasions; indicated that churches have,
on occasion, been asked to shelter the homeless for up to a week
with complete supervision; stated that Aldersgate has not
participated in that program recently, but the church behind
Aldersgate has; referred to his testing of decibel levels during
playground hours and while chimes are ringing and found both to
be within the acceptable levels; noted there are no concerns
regarding the landscaping requirements; indicated that Aldersgate
has been approached by Christian legal organizations regarding
setting precedents; and, requested that the sanctuary and social
hall hours of operation not be restricted.
Stated his agreement with Reverend Kent that the landscape
requirements present no concems; mentioned that, to put the
addition in perspective, it should be noted that from the edge of the
fire station, beginning at the residential area, a six foot high solid
block wall extends along the sidewalk with no landscape buffer;
and, suggested that the time restrictions should be removed from
the sanctuary and social hall.
Asked if the request regarding no time restrictions included the
sanctuary and social hall and where the social hall is located.
Pointed out the social hall on the floor plans; and, added there are
other meeting rooms and a retail building buffering the residential
side.
Connie Moseley,
12888 Elizabeth Way
Delivered a petition to staff that was signed by several residents on
Elizabeth Way, Charloma, and Wass; indicated that, since her
husband recently had cancer surgery, she did not have enough
time to reach everyone who might have wanted to sign the
petition; stated that several neighbors were not aware this project
was planned; indicated the residents do not want 24-hour use
behind their homes for the following reasons: in the past, choirs
from other groups have used the facilities, creating sleepless
nights; during Easter week children have been loud and seemingly
unsupervised; the homeless are released into the community at
6:00 a.m. and litter neighboring yards; stated she had an engineer
check the decibel level of the chimes at the property line--it
registered 72 decibels; and, noted she has invited church
members to her home to witness the noise levels, but no one has
done so.
7:25
Kozak
The Public Hearing closed.
Asked staff for clarification regarding the notification of property
owners.
Director
Kozak
Answered that property owners within 300 feet were sent notices;
notice also appeared in The Tustin News ten days prior to the
Public Hearing.
Asked for Planning Commission comments.
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 2
Hamilton
Director
Jennings
Director
Jennings
Hamilton
Holland
Hamilton
Holland
Hamilton
Holland
Requested clarification regarding a precedent being set with this
project when the Church at Tustin Ranch has no time restrictions.
Responded that the Church at Tustin Ranch was initially planned
as a much larger facility; the daycare facility was removed and the
church reduced in size; the location was significantly removed from
residential uses; similar hours of operation were included at that
time, and Commissioner Hamilton recommended they be
removed; staff reserved the right to review the project based on
noise, traffic impacts, or other negative impacts on the surrounding
uses; pointed out that the Salvation Army, B'Nai Israel, Stevens
Square, First Baptist Church, gymnasiums, and banquet facilities
within the City have time restrictions; stated that the Swinging Door
in Old Town operates under a conditional use permit; the use has
caused concerns, impacts, and code enforcement issues which
staff has addressed; stated time restrictions on this project would
not establish a precedent because restrictions have been imposed
numerous times in the past on similar projects; indicated staff can
allow temporary uses up to ten times per year which would be
implemented administratively, all ten could be scheduled at the
beginning of the year under one permit with a requirement to notify
neighbors when these functions will take place.
Suggested that Aldersgate may have closer impacts on the
residential uses than other approved projects; and, asked what the
cost would be for the temporary use permits.
Indicated $95.00; and, stated that temporary use permit fees for
nonprofits can be waived.
Referred to her home's proximity to a church and Stevens Square
and her understanding of the noise concerns; and, offered her best
wishes to Mr. Moseley, indicating she had spoken with him earlier
in the week.
Asked the Assistant City Attorney if he has any concerns regarding
the laws that may be involved.
Stated the regulations are reasonable relating to the overall
intensity and density of the use, ensuring that this facility will be
operated as a good neighbor.
Referred to the City Attorney's memorandum conceming the 2000
Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act; stated he went
to their website and read that a government entity cannot impose a
substantial restriction on a church unless there is a compelling
State interest; and, asked what that compelling State interest is.
Indicated the excessive burden being imposed is the first part of
that test; staff does not believe there is any substantial burden
being placed on this facility; in regard to the public interest, the
ability of the neighbors to enjoy their residential properties is a
compelling public interest.
Suggested that the addition of a choir room is not changing the
existing use.
Answered that such an addition creates an intensification of the
use of the property; staff analyzed the context of the overall
increased intensity of the use and made recommendations and
conditions of approval addressing potential problems that may
arise from an over-intensification of the use of the property to
ensure that this facility remains a good neighbor.
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 3
Director
Nielsen
Denny
West
Denny
Kozak
Denny
Jennings
Nielsen
Kozak
West
Kozak
Stated that in Resolution No. 3846 staff set forth findings that
identified the potential impacts, which the conditions of approval
mitigate.
Indicated he would like to see the time restrictions removed from
the sanctuary and social hall, while leaving other time restrictions
in place.
Asked if the block wall on Irvine Boulevard referred to by Mr.
Renget is within Tustin's city limits.
Answered that the Tustin/County border goes between the fire
station properties and residential properties and down Irvine
Boulevard; the referenced wall is in the County of Orange
jurisdiction.
Included his best wishes for Mr. Moseley's recovery; noted that the
property owners on both sides of Elizabeth Way received notice of
the Public Hearing; suggested the special events can be
accommodated within the suggested temporary use permit; stated
the Village of Hope project at MCAS Tustin should alleviate some
homeless issues; reiterated his former position that in an ideal
world these types of restrictions would not be imposed on this use;
indicated that idealism was tempered by the reality expressed by
Mrs. Moseley and her neighbors and other neighbors in other
communities in the City; and, stated his appreciation for the other
Commissioners' comments and his hope that the Commission can
reach a consensus on this project and move forward.
Asked Commissioner Denny if he was referring to Commissioner
Nielsen's comments regarding deleting the time restriction on the
sanctuary.
Indicated he would like the Commission to reach a consensus and
was interested in identifying the number and type of events that
will require a temporary use permit.
Suggested the Commission should consider the reality that, even
though the sanctuary and social hall are buffered by buildings, the
parking lot, where the bulk of the noise will be generated, is not;
indicated the Commission must find that the proposed use will not
be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general
welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed use; stated that, if there are no hour restrictions,
noise in the parking lot will impact the well-being of the residents;
and, suggested Condition 3.1 be approved as it is.
Stated he has a philosophical issue with the City stating specific
regulations regarding the hours of operation for a sanctuary; while
he understands the residents' concerns, the parishioners have a
right to have the sanctuary available for emergency situations
without having to come to the City for a permit.
Commented that automobile noise becomes more pronounced
during late hours of the day; suggested the Church at Tustin
Ranch is much more far removed from residential properties than
Aldersgate; and, asked staff if the property line wall facing
Charloma are four feet high.
Answered in the affirmative.
Clarified that the standard is six feet eight inches; and, stated he
supports the findings for the recommended action in Condition 3.1;
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 4
Hamilton
Director
Holland
Denny
staff's flexibility in allowing ten temporary use permits to be exempt
from any fee provides for the special events anticipated; before the
October 14t~ Planning Commission meeting, there appeared to be
general acceptance of the times of operation for the particular
uses.
Stated his agreement with Commissioner Nielsen regarding
restricting the hours, since the church presently has the right to
meet at any time of the day; encouraged the parishioners and
residents to meet to address the concerns raised; indicated he
doubts there is an imminent health and safety issue requiring the
City to impose additional restrictions on the church, since the
business has operated without complaint for the past 50 years;
stated he would like things to remain as they are; offered to
provide his help; and, encouraged people to meet with him after
tonight's meeting to let him know what he can do to help.
Suggested the following language to amend Condition 3.1:
"Notwithstanding the limitation on days and hours of operation
specified in the above table, the applicant may use the sanctuary
for events outside of the permitted days and hours of operation
so long as written notice is provided to all property owners within
three hundred feet of the property at least ten (10) days in
advance of the commencement of the event and such notice
includes a description of the event and the days and hours of the
event."; and, added that this facility is not approved as a homeless
shelter.
Added that is why staff is recommending the amendment be
limited strictly to the sanctuary, not the social hall, which can be
used for receptions and similar activities.
Asked if this conditional use permit is applicable to the property,
not the occupant.
Holland
Denny
Holland
Hamilton
Director
Jennings
Director
Hamilton
Director
Kozak
Nielsen
Answered in the affirmative.
Asked, hypothetically, if in the event Aldersgate is sold to a similar
assembly use, these conditions apply.
Stated these conditions would apply if the occupant were another
church.
Asked for further clarification of the above point.
Answered the Commission would not re-review the conditional use
permit which runs with the land not with the applicant.
Asked if there would be an opportunity for the Commission to
review the application if a problem arises.
Stated that Condition 3.2 allows for re-review if necessary.
Stated his understanding that, if there is a change of ownership of
wireless communications facilities, the City's approval is required.
Responded that the allowance for a 5-year review involves major
wireless facilities when the conditional use permit is attached to
the leasehold interest.
Clarified that those conditions are not applied for assembly uses.
Asked the Director to repeat the new language.
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 5
Director
Kozak
Reverend Kent
Kozak
Jennings
Kozak
Nielsen
Adopted Resolution
No. 3848
8:05 p.m.
Ogdon
Hamilton
Ogdon
Hamilton
Ogdon
Holland
Denny
Shingleton
Repeated the modified language.
Asked if the applicant approved the suggested modification.
Responded that the new language coincides with Aldersgate's
intention to be a good neighbor; and, added that the sanctuary
hours are more important that the social hall's.
Asked for comments regarding the landscaping.
Stated that since a final landscaping plan is to be approved by the
Director, she has no problem with the plan.
Pointed out that Mr. Rengel expressed no concerns regarding the
landscaping recommendations.
Stated that, since the applicant is satisfied, he supports the
landscaping recommendations.
It was moved by Jennings, seconded by Kozak, to adopt
Resolution No. 3846, as amended. Motion carried 5-0.
.
ZONE CHANGE 02-006 - A PROPOSAL TO AMEND
THE TUSTIN ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC
PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) AND
AMENDMENT OF THE TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ADD
SECTION 9246 ESTABLISHING THE MCAS TUSTIN
SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN)
ZONING REGULATIONS.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3848
recommending that the Tustin City Council approve Zone
Change 02-006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map and
amending the Tustin City Code by adding Section 9246
establishing the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1
Specific Plan) zoning designation and regulations.
The Public Hearing opened.
Presented the staff report.
Asked where the 88 residential properties referred to in the report
are located.
Pointed out the location on the PowerPoint slide, indicating there
was a remnant parcel on which 88 residential units could be built.
Asked if this property is vacant.
Answered in the affirmative.
Emphasized that the Planning Commission is not being asked to
approve or adopt anything, only to make a recommendation to the
City Council regarding the matters before the Commission.
Asked if his understanding that the City Council has directed staff
to prepare a request for qualification or a request for a proposal for
a master developer for a majority of MCAS Tustin is correct.
Answered in the affirmative.
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 6
Denny
Shingleton
Denny
Shingleton
Jennings
Shingleton
Jennings
Ogdon
Nielsen
Shingleton
Kozak
David Hesseltine,
attomey,
representing the
SAUSD
Asked why the Specific Plan is required now rather than after the
master developer is selected.
Stated there is a disposition strategy that not only involves a
footprint for a master developer that includes about 711 acres of
the 1600 acres, but also development regulations that impact other
solicitation sites already on the market; them am government sites
that the Navy has publicly advertised for bid; the City's agreement
with the Navy requires that the City Council adopt the Specific Plan
before any property can be sold on the Base; no property can be
disposed of until the Navy's pm perties am zoned; under the City's
agreement with the Navy, there is no way to modify the Specific
Plan; the document must be brought forward as it was reviewed
and analyzed in the environmental process; development must
comply with the Specific Plan/Reuse Plan.
Referred to the City Council's verbal concerns regarding density
within the Specific Plan; and, asked if those concerns will be
addressed if the Planning Commission recommends approval to
the City Council.
Indicated the individual development sites would be reviewed
through the Design Review process; sites am seldom developed
at the maximum densities; based upon what is happening on some
of the initial proposals, the densities will come in below those
originally projected; indicated that the highest density residential
sites will be on the Harvard/Edinger property which will be an
ownership product far below the maximum densities permitted by
the Specific Plan; the range of densities elsewhere on the site are
about 40 percent less than the densities on the aforementioned
site; the project will be far less dense that any other planned
development of this scale and nature in this vicinity in Irvine.
Asked for clarification regarding the acres designated for the
master developer.
Indicated the master developer footprint is approximately 711
acres.
Asked to be shown the parcels that have been sold by the Navy.
Pointed out on the slide that the parcels identified in green were
kept by the Navy and sold through the GSA; the grey parcel is the
Rescue Mission site; most everything else on the map was part of
the Economic Development Conveyance transfer to the City of
Tustin.
Asked for an update on the property that was offered to the Santa
Ana Unified School District (the SAUSD).
Stated the settlement agreement with the SAUSD provided for the
City to offer 22 acres within the Learning Village in the vicinity of
Warner Avenue and Red Hill; the SAUSD had the right to decline
that site for no reason; the site was rejected on October 11, 2002;
that rejection requires the City to pay the SAUSD $38 million by
May 2003 and another $22 million by October 2003.
Invited other speakers to come to the lectern.
Provided a letter and wdtten documentation to staff and an oral
account of the masons the SAUSD was asking the Planning
Commission to delay their recommendation to the City Council
until the issues referred to in his letter have been addressed.
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 7
8:25 p.m.
Kozak
Holland
Kozak
Denny
Continued to the
December 9, 2002,
Planning
Commission meeting
Given
Director
The Public Hearing closed.
Asked the Assistant City Attorney to respond to Mr. Hessesltine's
comments.
Suggested that the SAUSD is apparently attempting to preserve
their rights in the event that any problem may arise regarding the
City's compliance with the requirements of the settlement
agreement; stated the City has proceeded in good faith and has
been complying with the terms of the settlement aqreement;
referred to inconsistencies in the comments which wer~ received
just moments before the start of the Planning Commission meeting
this evening; and, stated it is necessary to get the Specific Plan
before the City Council in order to address the real property issues
involved.
Stated his appreciation for the staff report; thanked the Assistant
City Attorney for his comments; and, stated his support of staff's
recommendation.
Noted the interesting consistency of the SAUSD's delivery of this
letter just before the start of the meeting; thanked staff for ten
years of hard work; and, stated his support of staff's
recommendation.
It was moved by Denny, seconded by Jennings, to adopt
Resolution No. 3848. Motion carried 5-0.
.
CODE AMENDMENT 02-007 (ASSEMBLY USES IN
INDUSTRIALLY ZONED AREAS) RELATING TO THE
PROHIBITION OF ASSEMBLY USES IN THE
INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission continue this item to the
December 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
It was moved by Kozak, seconded by Jennings, to continue this
item to the December 9, 2002, Planning Commission meeting.
REGULAR BUSINESS
5. Project Summary.
The summary focuses on the status of projects that the
Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, or
Community Development Director approved, major
improvement projects, and other items of interest.
STAFF CONCERNS
,
REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE OCTOBER 21,
2002, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Reported that the City Council held the second reading of
Ordinance No. 1260 (Wireless Communication Facility Regulations
and Guidelines).
Reminded the Planning Commissioners that the Planning Officials
Forum is November 14, 2002.
Asked the Commissioners if a general information workshop would
be desirable before the December meeting.
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 8
Denny Indicated he will be unable to attend that meeting.
Director
Nielsen
Peterson
Jennings
Petemon
Denny
Anderson
Denny
Jennings
Director
Holland
Jennings
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to postpone this
workshop to the first meeting in January.
Reminded the Commissioners there will be no second meeting in
November or December.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Offered congratulations to the Anaheim Angels, World Champions.
Stated he noticed the Ralphs Center is coming along nicely.
Asked if there has been any action regarding The Barn property.
Stated an application was received today for a mixed use
development--retail, office, and mini-self storage which will be
coming before the Planning Commission.
Asked if the building will be used.
Answered the entire site will be redeveloped.
Asked for clarification regarding the signs stating that Elizabeth
Way is a private street.
Indicated that Elizabeth Way is a private read that functions as a
public street; the signs are intended for the trash haulers, street
sweepers, etc.
Thanked staff for tonight's reports.
Reminded everyone the Dino Dash takes place Sunday.
Thanked staff for their work on the Aldersgate report.
Stated she has a neighbor with a concern that Commissioner
Jennings referred to Karen Peterson: the neighbor has a house on
a double lot on B Street; the new owners purchased the house in
May and told Commissioner Jennings' neighbor they want to build
apartments on the piece of land left over from her house.
Stated her concern that new owners in the Cultural Overlay District
do not know what the regulations are; and, asked if there is some
way, other than deed restrictions, to make certain the buyers of the
properties in the District are notified there are regulations they
must follow.
Suggested staff may be able to contact local realtors who do
business within that area and request the regulations be provided
to homebuyers; and, indicated staff would research how to
accomplish Commissioner Jennings' request.
Added that staff could create a notice referring to regulations
imposed by the City.
Indicated she noticed the flyer for a house currently for sale in the
Distdct stated no restrictions; and, suggested flyers would be a
good place to mention the regulations.
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 9
Hamilton Thanked staff for their work on this evening's reports.
Kozak
Director
Kozak
Director
8:47 p.m.
Indicated he was happy to see the parcel on Edinger being
farmed.
Reminded everyone that Dino Dash is this weekend
Encouraged everyone to vote next Tuesday; and, offered good
luck to any candidates in the audience this evening.
Added his thanks and appreciation to staff for the work on both
Aldersgate and the Reuse Plan at MCAS Tustin.
Thanked the Director and the Assistant City Attorney for the
suggested language for Condition 3.1.
Thanked Eloise Harris for coordinating the Planning Officials
Forum registration.
Thanked staff for the PowerPoint presentation; the photographs
are especially useful.
Indicated he hopes to see everyone at the Dino Dash.
Referred to Commissioner Nielsen's remarks regarding the Ralphs
Center on Red Hill; and, suggested that, since this was a self-
started rehabilitation by the owner resulting from the Burger King
development, staff could draft a letter of appreciation for the
Chairman's signature.
Stated that would be an excellent idea; and, added he is pleased
the pole sign will be coming down.
Referred to the Department's commitment to PowerPoint
presentations; and, indicated she thanked Matt West privately for
his excellent work on tonight's Aldersgate presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission is
scheduled for Tuesday, November 12, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at 300 Centennial Way.
Elizabeth A. Binsack
Planning Commission Secretary
~:epl~t"V~ Kozak
ChairpersOn
Minutes - Planning Commission October 28, 2002 - Page 10
Attachment 6
Written Response to October 28, 2002
Connor, Blake & Griffin Comments
JAN-13-2003 14:23 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN SMART
LAw OFFICES OF
WOODRUFF, SPRAI}LIN & SMART
714 835 ??8?
DIRECT DIAL: (714) 564.2607
DIRECT FAX: (714) 565-2507
E-MAIL: LEJi~WSS-LAW.COM
P.02/03
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
City of Tustin
City Attorney
January 13, 2003
City Council Consideration of Specific Plan Zoning for MCAS, Tustin
On October 28, 2002, attorneys for the Santa Ana Unified School District
CSAUSD") submitted objections to the Planning Commission's recommenclation of
approval of the Specific Plan. At that time, the Assistant City Attorney orally responded
to those objections.
,
,
,
My further response to objections by attorneys for SAUSD is as follows:
.
The case referenced by attorneys for SAUSD as containing their challenges to
the Specific Plan based on the Program EIS/EIR has been dismissed with
prejudice. In addition, when SAUSD officials executed the Settlement
Agreement with the City in May 2002, they released the City from such claims.
AB212 (Chapter 123, Statutes of 2001) provides that it may be satisfied by a
settlement agreement between SAUSD and the City. The Settlement Agreement
signed in May 2002, specifically provides that AB212 is satisfied. The Settlement
Agreement has been fully performed.
The City has approved revisions to its Housing Element suggested by HCD. The
case of Juan Garcia v. City of Tustin, OCSC No. 101CC02149, has been
dismissed by the trial court, Although the plaintiff has appealed, there is no merit
in his contentions.
There is no "new information" requiring additional environmental review. The
City has satisfied AB212 through the Settlement Agreement. As part of that
Agreement, the City offered SAUSD a 22 acre school site at MCAS, Tustin.
SAUSD elected to take $22 Million from the City instead of the 22 acre school
~163111\1
YAN-13-2003 14:29 714 835 ??8? P.02
JAN-13-2003 14:23 WOODRUFF SPRADLIN SMART 714 835 ??8? P.0~/03
Christine A. Shingleton, Assistant City Manager
City of Tustin
January 13, 2003
Page 2
site. As a result of the Settlement Agreement and SAUSD's election, SAUSD will
not locate any school facilities at MCAS, Tustin.
cc: William A. Huston, City Manager
\163111~1
JAN-l~-2003 14:2~
TOTAL P.03
P.03
Attachment 7
Planning Commission Resolution No.
3848 Recommending City Council
Approval of Zone Change 02-006
RESOLUTION NO. 3848
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE ZONE CHANGE 02-006, AMENDING
THE TUSTIN ZONING MAP FROM PUBLIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL (P&I) TO MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
DISTRICT (SP-1 SPECIFIC PLAN) AND AMENDMENT OF THE
TUSTIN CITY CODE TO ADD SECTION 9246 ESTABLISHING
THE MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN DISTRICT (SP-1
SPECIFIC PLAN) ZONING REGULATIONS.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin ("City") does hereby resolve as follows:
The Tustin Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
A.
Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin has been determined surplus to the
needs of the federal government and has been approved for disposal by the
United States Department of the Navy (DON) in accordance with the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act (DBCRA) of 1990 (10 USC 2687) and the
pertinent base closure and realignment decisions of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission approved 'by the' President and
accepted by Congress in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and,
Bo
The City of Tustin has been approved by the Department of Defense as the
Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for MCAS Tustin and is responsible for
preparing a Reuse Plan describing the reuse of the installation and providing
recommendations to the DON for disposal of the former base to various
public agencies and the homeless. The goal of base disposal and reuse is
economic redevelopment and job creation to help replace the economic
Stimulus previously provided by the military installation. The LRA submitted
the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin to the Department of Defense in October
1996, and an Errata amending the Reuse Plan in September 1998; and,
C,
On January 16, 2001, the Tustin City Council adopted Resolution 00-90 that
certified the Joint Final EIS/EIR for the Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin,
and adopted Resolution 00-91 that adopted General Plan Amendment 00-001
establishing a MCAS Tustin Specific Plan general plan land use designation
for the Tustin portion of the former MCAS Tustin and adjacent 4.1-acre
property in anticipation that Specific Plan zoning regulations would be
adopted for the site.
Resolution No. 3848
Page 2
D.
E,
F,
G,
Ho
California State law allows a City to adopt a specific plan for the systematic
implementation of the General Plan and to provide comprehensive direction for
the development type, location and intensity of uses, design and capacity of
infrastructure, design guidelines, and other planning activities. The closure of
MCAS Tustin and implementation of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
necessitates the amendment of the Tustin Zoning Map and Tusfin City Code;
and,
The Tustin Planning Commission has received a request to consider and make
a recommendation to the Tustin City Council on the proposed Zone Change 02-
006 that is intended to amend the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and
Institutional (P&I) to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and
amend the Tustin City Code to add Section 9246 establishing the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations that will apply to
future development within the Specific Plan area.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan project, evidenced by the proposed zone
change project was evaluated in the Program EIS/EIR. No additional
environmental analysis or action is required prior to City action on the
proposed project.
On October 28, 2002, the Tustin Planning Commission held a. duly-noticed
public hearing to provide a further opportunity for the general public to
comment on and respond to the proposed Zone Change 02-006; and
The Tustin Planning Commission has received, reviewed and considered the
proposed Zone Change 02-006, the testimony, evidence and comments made
at the publiC hearing and has made the following Findings:
,
That closure of MCAS Tustin and completion of the federally mandated
Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin necessitates that the current Tustin Zoning
Map and Tustin City Code be amended prior to implementing actions that
will result in the economic redevelopment of the base for civilian purposes.
.
That the City of Tustin has prepared Zone Change 02-006, an amendment
of the Tustin Zoning Map from Public and Institutional (P&I) to MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan District (SP-1 Specific Plan) and an amendment to
the Tustin City Code to establish the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan District
(SP-1 Specific Plan) zoning regulations in accordance with Section 65451
of the California Government Code.
1
That approval of the revisions proposed for Zone Change 02-006 will
result in the systematic implementation of the Tustin General Plan and will
serve as an effective guide for the orderly growth and development of
compatible uses of the subject property in a manner that will not be
Resolution No. 3848
Page 3
detrimental to the health, safety morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in or adjacent to the former MCAS Tustin
property
4 Reasonable alternatives to the project and their implications have been
considered.
5. That Zone Change 02 -006 and establishment of the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan District (SP -1 Specific Plan) conforms to the City's General Plan, as
most recently amended in February 2002 in accordance with Section
65454 of the California Government Code.
6. Administration of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan is thoroughly integrated
into the City's development processing system.
II. The Tustin Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Tustin City Council
approve Zone Change 02 -006, amending the Tustin Zoning Map and Tustin City
Code as identified in 'Exhibit 1" attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held
on the 28th day of October 2002.
IZAB 1-se. a Clf�
Planning Commission Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
E '' V KOZAK
Chairper .n
I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning
Commission Secretary of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3848 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the
28th day of October 2002.
IZA3ETH A. BINS ACK
Planning Commission Secretary
Mcas\peresc3848 doc