HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 ZA REPORT CONCEPT PLAN 2015-002AGEN A
D R PORT
MEETING DATE: APRIL 23, 2015
TO: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ITEM #1
SUBJECT: CONCEPT PLAN 2015-002 AND DESIGN REVIEW 2015-001 TUSTIN
LEGACY LINEAR PARK LOCATED WITHIN THE MCAS TUSTIN
SPECIFIC PLAN
APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER:
CITY OF TUSTIN CITY OF TUSTIN
300 CENTENNIAL WAY 300 CENTENNIAL WAY
TUSTIN, CA 92780 TUSTIN, CA 92780
LOCATION: MCAS TUSTIN, PLANNING AREAS 9 THROUGH 12 IN
NEIGHBORHOOD E. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF
BARRANCA PARKWAY, EAST OF RED HILL AVENUE, WEST OF
(FUTURE) ARMSTRONG AVENUE AND SOUTH OF (FUTURE)
WARNER AVENUE.
GENERAL PLAN: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
ZONING: MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL
STATUS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), AN
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS PREPARED FOR THE
PROPOSED PROJECT THAT CONCLUDED NO ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR FROM
APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT. PURSUANT TO SECTIONS
151629 151639 151649 AND 15183 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
NO NEW EFFECTS WOULD OCCUR
REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN LINEAR PARK WITHIN THE
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN
Zoning Administrator
April 23, 2015
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Zoning Administrator adopt Zoning Administrator Action (ZAA) No. 15-003
approving Concept Plan 2015-002 and Design Review 2015-001 for Tustin Legacy
Linear Park within Neighborhood E, Planning Area 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the MCAS Tustin
Specific Plan.
APPROVAL AUTHORITY:
In accordance with MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.7 (Neighborhood E, Planning
Areas 9, 103 11, 12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, recreation
uses such as public or private parks, and cafes are permitted uses.
Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin SP requires a concept plan to be prepared and
submitted or updated for Zoning Administrator approval concurrent with the submission
of a new development proposal.
Pursuant to Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9272, Design Review is required for review
of building design, site planning and site development.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The MCAS Tustin was decommissioned in the 1990s and the facility is still largely
underdeveloped land with the two aircraft hangars, base related structures, landing
strips, and tarmac areas. Currently, the project site for Tustin Legacy Detention
Basin/Linear Park on the corner of Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway is bare and
empty of vegetation.
In 2007, the Tustin Legacy Detention Basin was required and approved as part of the
tract map for that portion of the Tustin Legacy development near the corner of Barranca
Parkway/Red Hill Avenue. The environmental documents were approved along with
tract map approval. The City has completed conceptual design and preliminary
engineering, and has rough graded the basin. Inlet and outlet structures have been
constructed and the basin is fully functional in its current temporary status.
Design and construction of the Tustin Legacy Detention Basin/Linear Park will be
overseen by the City of Tustin. Under this proposal the basin/park will be designed as a
naturalized setting using native and naturalized plants. Upon completion of the project,
the Public Works Field Services Division will maintain and operate the park and ensure
that the stormwater detention basin functions as designed.
Project Description
The 1,600 acres of the former Tustin MCAS is in the process of development for a
planned community of parks, schools, homes and businesses. The City of Tustin is
Zoning Administrator
April 23, 2015
Page 3
proposing to construct and maintain a 26 acre park and stormwater detention basin
(Project). The Project is located in Neighborhood E of Planning Areas 9 through 12 (see
Figure 1) and consists of a Linear Park which will diagonally bisect the community.
Neighborhood
PA 9-12
Figure 1 — Linear Park Planning Area
In the southwest corner of the park will be the sculpted stormwater detention basin,
vegetated with native and naturalized plants and a botanic walk which emphasizes
water wise planting. The park will be designed as somewhat "organic" intended to
encourage exploration of the outdoor environment and appreciation of our native plants.
The growth habitat and subtle seasonal change of native plants will be the underlying
beauty of this section of the park. The proposed park will provide public access, a
parking lot, monumentation, and a cafe/restroom building. When the park is opened to
the public, kiosks will be placed strategically in the park to explain the significance of the
detention basin and the intrinsic quality of plants to act as water treatment processes.
Additional amenities and improvements include landscaping and hardscape
improvements to the detention basin (with planting and irrigation), a resin trail with a
decomposed granite shoulder; picnic tables; trash receptacles; decorative concrete and
seatwalls at the entry nodes; benches; trash receptacles; a concrete amphitheater a
cafe/restroom building and parking lot (Figure 2).
CITY
OF
PRIVATE PROPERTY OUTSIV
5 '0 6aCA' R(}3.MDARY tiN RUSE Po
TUSTtN
1USTR COMMUTER'
RAIL STA;'C9 STE
�E
kSCRWOCTA
RAILWAY
�.F
£AGER
SEVERYNS
ROAQ
E r
iA�5• ; .
00y1wA
P.
F
+ }
ROS
,.w V
v
AIon
PA 6
rl cap
, -
PA 2
MOUNTAi
AU
PA 2.2
CITY'
i
f
1IRVINE
OF
.}.t
Figure 1 — Linear Park Planning Area
In the southwest corner of the park will be the sculpted stormwater detention basin,
vegetated with native and naturalized plants and a botanic walk which emphasizes
water wise planting. The park will be designed as somewhat "organic" intended to
encourage exploration of the outdoor environment and appreciation of our native plants.
The growth habitat and subtle seasonal change of native plants will be the underlying
beauty of this section of the park. The proposed park will provide public access, a
parking lot, monumentation, and a cafe/restroom building. When the park is opened to
the public, kiosks will be placed strategically in the park to explain the significance of the
detention basin and the intrinsic quality of plants to act as water treatment processes.
Additional amenities and improvements include landscaping and hardscape
improvements to the detention basin (with planting and irrigation), a resin trail with a
decomposed granite shoulder; picnic tables; trash receptacles; decorative concrete and
seatwalls at the entry nodes; benches; trash receptacles; a concrete amphitheater a
cafe/restroom building and parking lot (Figure 2).
Zoning Administrator
April 23, 2015
Page 4
SITE FUMIUSEs
*HTING
Figure 2 — Tustin Linear Park Concept Plan
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
Tom. Legacy Bam an Lire Paris
City of Tustin
'k2C, 21715
The 26 acre Linear Park/Detention Basin proposal is consistent with the City Council
approved MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed stormwater detention basin will use
landscaping and its capacity to aid in the treatment of runoff from nuisance flows and
small storms and provide flood flow attenuation. This will have the effect of reducing
runoff volumes associated with these smaller storms, and to this extent, will help
mitigate the effects of runoff on hydro -modification of downstream receiving waters. This
basin, which is already rough graded, is required to remain in place until ultimate
downstream channel improvements are constructed.
The proposed constructed detention basin will use natural processes to remove these
contaminants from urban runoff. The detention basin is also planned to capture
sediment and trash from first flush rain events. Plants such as bulrush and cattails and
the beneficial bacteria within the soils will provide natural cleanup of pollutants that
would otherwise flow to the Newport Bay and the ocean. Secondary benefits include
habitat creation and enhancement, aesthetics, recreation, and education.
Parking for the park was analyzed in the conceptual design and engineering review. It
was determined based on analysis of each of the proposed passive park uses, that
Zoning Administrator
April 23, 2015
Page 5
approximately 136 parking stalls would provide adequate parking for the park. Further,
the Public Works Traffic Engineering Division has determined that the development for
the park would not result in any new traffic impacts.
Monumentation is proposed at the corner of Barranca Parkway and Red Hill Avenue
(Figure 3). This will include the signature Legacy arches, letters (Tustin Legacy) and
blue accent piece with illumination. These monuments are consistent with Legacy
identification that is located throughout the Legacy project. Additional wayfinding and
kiosk signs will be located throughout the Project site to provide direction to park users.
Figure 3 - Monumentation
A facilities storage and cafe building (approximately 2,700 sq ft) is proposed to be
located north of the parking lot at the south east end of the park. Access to the building
will be off of Barranca Parkway. The building is in the conceptual design phase and is
proposed to house facilities storage, bike rental room and a small cafe tenant space
with indoor and outdoor seating (Attachment 1).
General Plan Consistency
The site has a General Plan Land Use designation of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, which
includes park facilities as an acceptable use within the designation. Therefore, the Linear
Park/Detention Basin use is consistent with the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan General Plan
Land Use Element designation. In addition, the proposed park supports the following
General Plan Land Use Element Goals and Policies:
• Goal 1: Provide for a well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates existing
and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open space and
community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy, diversified
economy adequate to provide future City services.
• Policy 1.11: Where feasible, increase the amount and network of public and
private open space and recreational facilities which will be adequate in size and
location to be usable for active or passive recreation as well as for visual relief.
Zoning Administrator
April 23, 2015
Page 6
Findings
The location, size and architectural features of the park will not impair the orderly and
harmonious development of the area, the present or future development therein, the
occupancy thereof or the community as a whole in that the following findings can be
made:
• The proposed project is consistent with the current overall development potential,
allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Urban Design Guidelines as set
forth in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan including massing and siting of
development has been incorporated into the design process of the park.
• The Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EI R, Addendums, and Supplement.
• The amenities and site layout of the park has been designed to serve the
surrounding community as a detention basin, community facilities storage and
cafe building and park which is part of a larger green belt potentially connecting
the Metrolink station. Trails and paths will have native grasses and shrubs to
enhance the experience of the users and provide linkages between the
development and surrounding uses.
• The proposed park and stormwater detention basin is consistent with the current
overall development potential, intensity, and/or residential capacity allowed by
the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
• Public Works Department has reviewed potential traffic related to park use and
has determined that there is adequate capacity to support the proposed use.
• Monuments and additional wayfinding and kiosk signs will be located throughout
the Project site and are consistent with identification for the Legacy project.
• Continuity and adequacy of all circulation systems, such as roads, access points,
trails, pedestrian ways, parking and other infrastructure systems needed to serve
the project pursuant to Concept Plan review criteria have been reviewed and
found to be consistent with the integrity of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
• Pursuant to Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines
no new effects would occur.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
On January 16, 2001, the City certified the program Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS
Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a
Zoning Administrator
April 23, 2015
Page 7
Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut
Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR and, on
May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a Second
Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendums and Supplement is
a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR,
Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated
with development on the former MCAS, Tustin.
An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no
additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of the project (Attached to
ZAA 15-003). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant
effect on the environment since the proposed project would not increase the overall
development potential or residential capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement are sufficient
for the proposed project. Furthermore, the park use for Planning Areas 9, 101 11, and
12, is permitted in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the checklist should be considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to
approving the project as proposed.
Amy tonic ,
Senior Planner
Attachments:
1. Site Plan of Project Limits and Concept Plans
2. Exhibit A: Environmental Analysis Checklist
3. ZAA 2015-003 and Exhibit B: Conditions of Approval
ATTACHMENT 1
RBF Consulting
EXHIBIT licff
PROJECT LIMITS
Now&
Tustin Legacy — Proposal December 11, 2014
NE Linear Pork Page 14
0
z
>!
�VT194
1 s.
z
z
w
LU
1l"—
z
LO
co
co
C\j
0 i!l
ca
M-
70
a)
LL
cs5 {CS
CO
co
CD
..........
. ....... .
LZ
0
z
>!
�VT194
1 s.
z
z
w
LU
1l"—
z
i
3411 ti'i*'k �^aa;.4.a-,w . -. r..-..,,,,...,.,....,-.,.,.....,..,.,,...,..,,..,.,_...,.. .,,.,.,...�............. .,..._......,-,..-..,,.....,.�. i f i g
rwa r.w, w�r...r� r .., rv�m..•
r aw wu i
..... ...
OU 09 OT 0
j
}
UA
t
ui
3
LL
cn
LL
r
J
w
L
04
O
00
N
co
Y
;
LLN
U)
0O Lo Cf) LL Q J
22 � c� W co
L Co N M LO
a) .. O N M
U) U o
0
_ o >
a) Q > m U a
v W N C 0- M (n c
U LO
Cl) 0 C) ao
U1 1 i V N 1
(D CD CD CD Lo C7
Zm Z_ Z_ Z_ r, -Z_
> o > > > W 0 >
W Z W W W Q W
Lfr- W W F- 2 ry
U Z U U U V Q U
Z Q Z Z Z W Z
O O O OW O
a
v
0
N
N
N
d
0
U
C9
Z
U
m
a
`m
a)
c
J
U
m
0)
a)
J
C
U)
0
U
U)
O
-Np
a
ai
rn
m
U
m
Cl.
rn
c
U
CL
Y
`m
a
®■ ®- F-
0
0
i
..w......,..� .� _
�% �aN+leMw�MWM MroMM)M�
fin,.-! Ni"� �'� .�'S. r .. "+s t �).,':e�', 7/ � M�w.+_e �r. w a'".�.w ..,.�++,,..�,_,.....,_..__..._...-....,.._........«,,._._,..........,.».....,..,.,,.,_._,...�..,........,..._ .W......._ �
-v _M '.w.T .., +..N'*= .)Pgd 18841 A3041 u.grn.t
X.. 6 1091
M 06
"r C?
`�
u
LL
J
LO
U')
r
N
a)
C LL
a) �
i N_
LLLL
0 J ti U J
NU')
U) 04`L pip w 00
J V O N
m 0 w
o m
�' a a.
Q
ca ca _ c
ui � a 0-
m _�
N Q C 0 J p W
m L) Z Z Z a M Z
! U Q Q Q w Q
Z - H H H Z U� H
r
U) of w 2
—J Z Z Z w a) Z
Q
LL O O O LL w 0 0
G
Q
Q
r
r
O
N
N
N
6
I'
0
U
CD
Z_
U
c�
IL
cv
a)
c
J
T
U
ca
0)
(1)
J
C
cn
7
H
d
ti
M
U)
0
0
i
'O.
U-
0
0
U-
0
LU
I �� C� I
---
--
---------------------------- - - - --------- - ----------------
rI
In
a:
uj
'0 C15
46
LLJ
�-z
<0
no
W
L co
�w
z
I I
...........
-----------
Al
.0c
'j --------------'-----_---------------..I ----------------------------------------
-------------
.0-.00 .0-.Oc
�6 _
A-02
z
O
LL
U-
F -
PP -P
it
2
F -
q
n
w. - - .., — —
w
<
.i n� jo b.c)
Ld
w C)
DIPS CISAM(I
Z
IL
LL
0
vc) 'uilsni
--------- ----
LLJ
Usn9
�Jed Pea4peii Aoe6a-1 l•
.Ii
---- - -----
F-
r2
oir oz OL 0
w
-i
m
w
0
V\) z
<
IL
EL
w
F-(L
LLJ
F-
>
<
LLI
w
(Dw
LL, C6
n-
w c6
2
F -
q
n
w. - - .., — —
w
<
----- _ [--,
Ld
w C)
LL
0
2
F -
q
n
uqsnl J'o 4.o ne .wm p
r1�aS�itA3 M'� __.
JO; P�W-aO ......> W,�..,.w..,�.. _
cm
u� , y ��s.. ■ �wA �» ,r..,,. y. w.M.�,..
Vdrl
Q.
ov oz M 0
vv
a
y
w
Ix
g�� w
M 0 0 w
Lo
O
cR14� -0 pw
b
L,
I
66,_ - _w.
LO
�
�■ . .
k �
a�
: \.v..:
\
.� ...
..
.
� �
LO
PME4
pmmmmmmmmmwl
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780
(714) 573-3100
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST
For Projects With Previously Certified/Approved Environmental Documents:
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin
This checklist of environmental impacts takes into consideration the preparation of an environmental document
prepared at an earlier stage of the proposed project. The checklist and evaluation evaluate the adequacy of the
earlier document pursuant to Section 15162 and 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines.
A. BACKGROUND
Project Title(s): Concept Plan 2015-002(CP 2015-002) and Design Review 2015-001 (DR 2015-001)
Lead Agency: City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780
Lead Agency Contact Person: Amy Stonich, AICP Phone: (714) 573-3126
Project Location: MCAS Tustin, Planning Areas 9 through 12 in Neighborhood E. The property is
located North of Barranca Parkway, East of Red Hill Avenue, west of (future)
Armstrong Avenue and south of (future) Warner Avenue.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Tustin
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92780
General Plan Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Zoning Designation: MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Project Description: The City of Tustin is proposing to construct and maintain a 26 acre park and
public detention basin within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed
park is designed as a passive park, public detention basin, with public
access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a cafe/restroom building.
Amenities and improvements include landscaping and hardscape
improvements to the detention basin (with planting and irrigation), a resin
trail with a decomposed granite shoulder; picnic tables; trash receptacles;
decorative concrete and seatwalls at the entry nodes; benches; trash
receptacles; a concrete amphitheater a cafe/restroom building and parking
lot.
194
receptacles; a concrete amphitheater a cafe/restroom building and parking
lot.
The proposed park and public detention basin is consistent with the current
overall development potential, intensity, and/or residential capacity allowed
by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
Surrounding Uses: North: Future Commercial/Business Park
South: City of Irvine - Light Industrial/Commercial
East: Future Commercial/Business
West: City of Santa Ana - Commercial/Business Park
Previous Environmental
Documentation: On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR)
for the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the
FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue
and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the
City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the
FEIS/EIR. And, on May, 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No.
13-32 approving a second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along
with its Addenda and Supplement is a program EIR under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addenda and Supplement
considered the potential environmental impacts associated with development
on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below.
F -]Land Use and Planning
F]Population and Housing
F -]Geology and Soils
F -]Hydrology and Water Quality
F -]Air Quality
F-1 Transportation & Circulation
r -]Biological Resources
F]Mineral Resources
F -]Agricultural Resources
r—]Hazards and Hazardous Materials
F]Noise
F]Public Services
FlUtilities and Service Systems
F]Aesthetics
F]Cultural Resources
FIRecreation
❑Mandatory Findings of
Significance
C. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL
NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Preparer:
Amy Stonich, AICP, Senior Planner
Date
Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
See Attached
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the
following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
1:1
0
No Substantial
New
More
Change From
Significant
Severe
Previous
Impact
Impacts
Analysis
❑
❑
1:1
0
F�
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
1:1 1:1 F�
1:1
1:1
F1
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
❑
❑
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
❑
❑
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
❑
❑
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? ❑ ❑
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property? ❑ ❑
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ❑ ❑
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? El ❑
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? ❑ ❑
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? El El
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? El ❑
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? ❑ ❑
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the project area? El El
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are intermixed with wildlands?
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: — Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on -
or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1:1 1:1 H
No Substantial
New
More
Change From
Significant
Severe
Previous
Impact
Impacts
Analysis
❑
1:1
a) Physically divide an established community? 1:1 1:1 H
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the residents
of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
XI. NOISE —
Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excess noise levels?
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
El
F-1
Z
El
El
Z
El
El
Z
El
El
Z
El
F-1
Z
El
F1
Z
El
El
Z
F1
F-1
El
F-1
M
El
F-1
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
❑
No Substantial
New
More
Change From
Significant
Severe
Previous
Impact
Impacts
Analysis
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
El
❑
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑
❑
El
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
❑
El
Police protection?
El
❑
Schools?
El
El
Parks?
El
❑
Other public facilities?
El
El
XIV. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
El
❑
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation
to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system
(i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or
congestion at intersections)? El ❑
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways? El El
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? El El
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? El El
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
No Substantial
New More Change From
Significant Severe Previous
Impact Impacts Analysis
SECTION D
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
CONCEPT PLAN 2015-002 AND DESIGN REVIEW 2015-001
MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN LINEAR PARK
BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the reuse and disposal of MCAS
Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a
Supplement to the FEIS/EIR for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut
Avenue and the future alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR and, on
May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a Second
Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendums and Supplement is
a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR,
Addendums and Supplement considered the potential environmental impacts associated
with development on the former Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin.
The FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums analyzed the environmental
consequences of the Navy disposal and local community reuse of the Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS) Tustin site per the Reuse Plan and the MCAS Tustin Specific
Plan/Reuse Plan (Specific Plan). The CEQA analysis also analyzed the environmental
impacts of certain "Implementation Actions" that the City of Tustin and City of Irvine
must take to implement the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
The MCAS Tustin Specific Plan proposed, and the FEIS/EIR analyzed, a multi-year
development period for the planned urban reuse project (Tustin Legacy). When
individual discretionary activities within the Specific Plan are proposed, the lead agency
is required to examine the individual activities to determine if their effects were fully
analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The agency can approve the activities as being within the
scope of the project covered by the FEIS/EIR. If the agency finds that pursuant to
Sections 15162, 15163, 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines no new effects
would occur, nor would a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects occur, then no supplemental or subsequent EIR is required.
Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast
of downtown Los Angeles. Tustin Legacy is that portion of the former MCAS Tustin
within the City of Tustin corporate boundaries. Owned and operated by the Navy and
Marine Corps for nearly 60 years, approximately 1,585 gross acres of property at MCAS
Tustin were determined surplus to federal government needs, and MCAS Tustin was
officially closed in July 1999. The majority of the former MCAS Tustin lies within the
southern portion of the City of Tustin. The remaining approximately 73 acres lies within
the City of Irvine. Tustin Legacy is in close proximity to four major freeways: the Costa
Mesa (SR -55), Santa Ana (I-5), Laguna (SR -133) and San Diego (I-405). Tustin Legacy
is also served by the west leg of the Eastern Transportation Corridor (SR 261). The
major roadways bordering Tustin Legacy include Red Hill Avenue on the northwest,
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 2
Edinger Avenue on the northeast, Harvard Avenue on the southeast, and Barranca
Parkway on the southwest. Jamboree Road transects the Property. John Wayne
Airport is located approximately three miles to the south and a Metrolink Commuter Rail
Station is located immediately to the northeast providing daily passenger service to
employment centers in Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 1,600 acres of the former Tustin MCAS is in the process of development for a
planned community of parks, schools, homes and businesses. Linear Park will
diagonally bisect the community. In the southwest corner of the will be the sculpted
stormwater detention basin, vegetated with native and naturalized plants and a botanic
walk which emphasizes water wise planting. The City of Tustin is proposing to construct
and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin and a community facilities
storage and cafe building. The park will be designed as somewhat "organic" intended to
encourage exploration of the outdoor environment and appreciation of our native plants.
The growth habitat and subtle seasonal change of native plants will be the underlying
beauty of this section of the park. The proposed park will provide public access, a
parking lot, monumentation, and a community facilities storage and cafe building. When
the park is opened to the public, kiosks will be placed strategically in the park to explain
the significance of the detention basin and the intrinsic quality of plants to act as water
treatment processes.
Additional amenities and improvements include landscaping and hardscape
improvements to the detention basin (with planting and irrigation), a resin trail with a
decomposed granite shoulder; picnic tables; trash receptacles; decorative concrete and
seatwalls at the entry nodes; benches; trash receptacles; a concrete amphitheater a
community facilities storage and cafe building and parking lot.
The proposed park and public detention basin is consistent with the current overall
development potential, intensity, and/or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan.
In accordance with MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.7 (Neighborhood E, Planning
Areas 9, 10, 11, 12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan district regulations, recreation
uses such as public or private parks, and cafes are permitted uses.
Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin SP requires a concept plan to be prepared and
submitted or updated for Zoning Administrator approval concurrent with the submission
of a new development proposal.
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
An Environmental Analysis Checklist has been completed and it has been determined
that CP 2015-002 and DR 2015-001 (Project or Proposed Project) is within the scope of
the previously approved FEIS/EIR and that pursuant to Title 14 California Code of
Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c), no new effects could occur, and no new
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 3
mitigation measures would be required. Accordingly, no new environmental document
is required by CEQA.
The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in
the Environmental Analysis Checklist.
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project would
not cause aesthetic impacts that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR,
Addendums, and Supplement. The Project proposes construction and
maintenance of a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. These uses were previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. If
approved, the Proposed Project would allow development of Linear Park within
these planning areas of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan pursuant to the City's
Community Park Master Plan. There are no new or increased significant
adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to aesthetics and
visual quality that would occur as a result of the implementation of the Project.
There is no new information relative to aesthetics and visual quality that was not
in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Proposed
Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. No new
mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to aesthetics and visual
quality.
The implementation of the park use would continue the visual change from the
abandoned military facilities onsite to a park/detention basin use. The new park
will provide beneficial impacts through development and improvement of the
existing vacant land to benefit the community.
Therefore, overall visual change of the former base to the larger Tustin Legacy
development was not a significant impact in the FEIS/EIR. There are no
designated scenic vistas in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not
result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The Project Site is also
not located within the vicinity of a designated state scenic highway. The Project
would not change the conclusions of the historical analysis of the historic blimp
hangars from the FEIS/EIR relative to visual changes since the Proposed Project
would not affect these hangars.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 4
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to aesthetics. Specifically, there have not been: (1)
changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due
to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes
with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that
require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of
substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR were certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No new impacts or substantially more severe
aesthetic impacts would result from the implementation of the Project; therefore,
no new or revised mitigation measures are required for aesthetics and visual
quality. No refinements related to the Project are necessary to the FEIS/EIR
mitigation measures and no new mitigation measures are required. Mitigation
measures were adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums
and Supplement; applicable measures will be recommended as conditions of
entitlement approvals.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-58
through 3-67, 4-81 through 4-92), Addendum 1 (Page 5-3 through 5-
7), and Addendum 2 (Page 24 through 26)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to
agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies
may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 5
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-
agricultural use?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Project proposal is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park,
public detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a
community facilities storage and cafe building.
There are currently no agricultural uses on the Site and there were no agricultural
uses on the Site in the recent past. The original site was operated by the
Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps as part of the air station base. The
MCAS Tustin was decommissioned in the 1990s and the facility is still largely
underdeveloped land with the two aircraft hangars, base related structures, landing
strips, and tarmac areas. Currently the site of the detention basin on the corner of
Red Hill Avenue and Barranca Parkway is bare and empty of vegetation. Under
this proposal the basin will be designed as a naturalized setting using native and
naturalized plants. The facilities and cafe building is designed as a low -profile
structure which will serve park users.
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to agriculture and forest resources
that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement.
There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative
impacts with regard to agricultural resources that are identified as a result of the
implementation of the Project. The impacts of the implementation of the Specific
Plan are already analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to
agricultural resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was
prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to agricultural resources.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to agricultural resources. Specifically, there have not been:
(1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require
major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 6
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: In certifying the FEIS/EIR, the Tustin City Council
adopted Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations on January
16, 2001 concluding that impacts to agricultural resources on other areas of
MCAS Tustin were unavoidable (Resolution No. 00-90). No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-83
through 3-87, 4-109 through 114), Addendum 1 (Page 5-8 through 5-
9), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 28)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis.
The Proposed Project was analyzed in the FEIS/EIR within the planned activities
at Tustin Legacy. It was determined that the park use impacts would not cause
impacts to air quality that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR,
Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased significant adverse
project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to air quality that would occur as
a result of the implementation of the Project that were not previously analyzed in
the FEIS/EIR. There is no new information relative to air quality that was not in
existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its
implementation are consistent with and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR,
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 7
Addendums, and Supplement. As a result, no new mitigation measures are
required in relation to impacts to air quality.
The Tustin City Council adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 to address significant
unavoidable short-term (construction), long-term (operational), and cumulative air
quality impacts for the Specific Plan. The City also adopted mitigation measures to
reduce these unavoidable adverse impacts.
Consistent with the findings in the FEIS/EIR, implementation of future development
on the Project Site could result in significant unavoidable short-term construction
air quality impacts because it is part of the "project" analyzed in the FEIS/EIR for
which this finding was made. Construction activities associated with the Project
Site were previously addressed in the FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new
information that shows there will be different or more significant short-term air
quality impacts on the environment from the Project than described in the
FEIS/EIR. There is no substantial new information that shows there will be
different or more significant long-term and/or cumulative impacts on the
environment as a result of the Project than described in the FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to air quality. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes
to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required. Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals for future
development of the site. However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement
also concluded that Specific Plan related operational air quality impacts were
significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding
Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January
16, 2001.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 8
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-143
through 3-153, 4-207 through 4-230, 7-41 through 7-42), Addendum
1 (Page 5-10 through 5-28), and Addendum 2 (Page 27 through 32)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional
or state habitat conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
In the area of the southern inlet that collects water from off-site a small wetlands
will be created with bulrush and cattail. Grasses and wildflowers will be planted in
the rest of the basin which will be selected on their ability to tolerate periodic
flooding. Trees will be planted above the basin to provide habitat for native bird
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 9
species. The selection of trees to be planted include; oaks, cedars, sycamores,
alders, and pines. The wetlands will provide a habitat for reptiles, amphibians and
small mammals which will attract larger species such as herons, egrets, osprey,
and hawks. As part of a larger parks project, the detention basin will become the
ecosystem for a variety of wildlife.
The project has the additional benefit of preventing pollutants from reaching the
Newport Bay and the Newport Beach. Both are popular destinations for the local
communities. The inlets into and out of the detention basin have trash grates to
capture debris as the water flows in and out of the basin. After a rain event, crews
will inspect the basin and remove any trash and debris collected by the system. By
assisting in the removal of trash and harmful pollutants, the basin will aid in the
efforts to keep the beach clean.
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to biological resources that were
not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The
Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan,
City's Community Park Master Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR.
There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative
impacts with regard to biological resources that would occur as a result of the
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to biological
resources that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared.
Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As
a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts on
biological resources. Based on current delineations of wetlands and jurisdictional
waters, the Project will not affect wetlands or jurisdictional waters. The impacts
resulting from the implementation of the Project, if any, would be those identified in
the FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to biological resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1)
changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 10
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-75
through 3-82, 4-103 through 4-108, 7-26 through 7-27), Addendum 1
(Page 5-28 through 5-39), and Addendum 2 (Page 33 through 35)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal
cemeteries?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to cultural resources that were not
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. The Project
proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific Plan and
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The impacts of the Specific Plan on cultural
resources, including any that may be present on the Project Site, were considered
in the FEIS/EIR.
It is possible that previously unidentified buried archeological or paleontological
resources within the Project Site could be discovered during grading and other
construction activities. Consequently, future development is required to perform
construction monitoring for cultural and paleontological resources to reduce
potential impacts to these resources to a level of insignificance as found in the
FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to cultural and paleontological resources. Specifically, there
have not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 11
previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2)
substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is
undertaken that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information
of substantial importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or
alternatives that was not known and could not have been known when the
FEIS/EIR was certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be conditioned as part of entitlement approval.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-68
through 3-74, 4-93 through 4-102, 7-24 through 7-26), Addendum 1
(Page 5-40 through 5-45), and Addendum 2 (Page 36 through 37)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
• Strong seismic ground shaking?
• Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
• Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 12
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of wastewater?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
Implementation of the Project would not cause any direct impacts to geology and
soils. The Project proposes to develop the same areas as proposed in the Specific
Plan and previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement.
There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative
impacts with regard to geology and soils that are identified as a result of the
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to geology and
soils that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR as prepared. Therefore,
the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As
a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to geology
and soils.
The FEIS/EIR found that impacts to soils and geology resulting from
implementation of the Specific Plan would include non -seismic hazards (such as
local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion,
and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-
intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced
settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure). The FEIS/EIR concluded
that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with
established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable
risk or the creation of significant impacts related to geotechnical issues. No
substantial change is expected during implementation of the Project from the
analysis previously completed in the certified FEIS/EIR.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to geology and soils. Specifically, there have not been: (1)
changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 13
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be made as conditions of entitlement approval.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-88
through 3-97, 4-115 through 4-123, 7-28 through 7-29), Addendum 1
(Page 5-46 through 5-49), and Addendum 2 (Page 38 through 40)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: — Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public
use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 14
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
The entire MCAS Tustin site was reviewed for hazardous materials prior to start
of redevelopment activities. Federal regulations require the Navy to complete
remediation of hazardous materials prior to conveyance of properties to other
landowners. Further, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring report, prior to
issuance of building permits, the City shall work closely with OCFA to ensure that
adequate fire protection measures are implemented in the project and eliminate
any negative impacts on fire protection services (Mitigation Measures LU2(o)(p)).
-
This project will be treating stormwater that flows into three water bodies which
have been included on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies, Peters Canyon
Channel, Upper Newport Bay and Lower Newport Bay. In the 2006 report, Peters
Canyon Channel has been listed for DDT and Toxaphene. Upper and Lower
Newport Bay have been listed for Chlordane, Copper, DDT, Metals, PCBs, and
Sediment. TMDLs have been or are in the process of being established for these
impairments.
The proposed detention basin will use landscaping and its capacity to aid in the
treatment of runoff from nuisance flows and small storms and provide flood flow
attenuation. This will have the effect of reducing runoff volumes associated with
these smaller storms, and to this extent, will help mitigate the effects of runoff on
hydro -modification of downstream receiving waters. The proposed constructed
detention basin will use natural processes to remove these contaminants from
urban runoff.
Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to hazards and
hazardous materials. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -
specific or cumulative impacts with regard to hazards and hazardous materials that
are identified as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new
information relative to hazards and hazardous materials that was not in existence
at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its
implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation
measures are required in relation to impacts from hazards and hazardous
materials.
As identified in the FEIS/EIR, the Project Site is within the boundaries of the Airport
Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) and is subject to height restrictions. The
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 15
Proposed Project is well within the 100 -foot height limitation included in the
Specific Plan. The Project Site is not located in a wildland fire hazard area.
The project site is not located within the 100 -year flood hazard areas (Zone X, Map
No. 06059CO279J). The project will not impair or interfere with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. Specifically, there have
not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified
as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-106
through 3-117, 4-130 through 4-138, 7-30 through 7-31), Addendum
1 (Page 5-49 through 5-55), and Addendum 2 (Page 44 through 47)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Southern Parcels 4-8, 10-
21 14, and 42, and Parcels 25, 26, 30-33, 37 and Portion of 40 and 41
Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL) for Southern Parcels Care -out
Areas 1, 27 3, and 4
Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP)
Tustin General Plan
FEMA Map #06059CO279J Map Date: December 3, 2009
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 16
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner,
which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee
or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post -construction activities?
m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas
of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment
maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor
work areas?
n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial
uses of the receiving waters?
o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or
volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 17
p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding
areas?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
The proposed detention basin will use landscaping and its capacity to aid in the
treatment of runoff from nuisance flows and small storms and provide flood flow
attenuation. This will have the effect of reducing runoff volumes associated with
these smaller storms, and to this extent, will help mitigate the effects of runoff on
hydro -modification of downstream receiving waters.
The assessment of expected stormwater/urban runoff pollutants for the project is
based on historic and proposed land uses. Based on guidance provided in the
Orange County DAMP, the expected pollutants are pathogens, heavy metals,
nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash and debris, oil and grease, toxic organic
compounds and oxygen demanding substances. All of these pollutants have
been identified as being generated by streets, and are known to be existing in the
watershed.
The proposed constructed detention basin will use natural processes to remove
these contaminants from urban runoff. The detention basin is also planned to
capture sediment and trash from first flush rain events. Plants such as bulrush
and cattails and the beneficial bacteria within the soils will provide natural
cleanup of pollutants that would otherwise flow to the Newport Bay and the
ocean. Secondary benefits include habitat creation and enhancement,
aesthetics, recreation, and education.
The project has the additional benefit of preventing pollutants from reaching the
Newport Bay and the Newport Beach. Both are popular destinations for the local
communities. The inlets into and out of the detention basin have trash grates to
capture debris as the water flows in and out of the basin. After a rain event,
crews will inspect the basin and remove any trash and debris collected by the
system. By assisting in the removal of trash and harmful pollutants, the basin will
aid in the efforts to keep the beach clean and may draw many annual visitors.
The Proposed Project would not cause negative impacts to hydrology and water
quality. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or
cumulative impacts with regard to hydrology/water quality that are identified as a
result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to
hydrology/water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was
prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the
FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to hydrology/water quality.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 18
As concluded in the FEIS/EIR, preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan
(WQMP) for the Project site in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards
would reduce water quality impacts from development activities to a level of
insignificance. The Project would not result in new or substantially more severe
impacts to water quality than what was previously identified in the FEIS/EIR. The
Project proposes no change to the drainage pattern and water management
systems previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The drainage pattern and water
management systems in the Project Site vicinity would remain consistent with the
Tustin Legacy Master Drainage Plan. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in
the FEIS/EIR relative to impacts related to groundwater supply, groundwater
levels, or local recharge have not changed. In addition, no change to the backbone
drainage system is proposed. Therefore, no new or more severe impacts related to
drainage patterns, drainage facilities, and potential flooding would result from the
Project.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to hydrology and water quality. Specifically, there have not
been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified
as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be made conditions of entitlement approval for the Project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-98
through 3-105, 4-124 through 4-129, 7-29 through 7-30), Addendum
1 (Page 5-56 through 5-91), and Addendum 2 (Page 48 through 51)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 19
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to
the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
The Linear Park will diagonally bisect the community. In the southwest corner of the
park will be the sculpted stormwater detention basin, vegetated with native and
naturalized plants and a botanic walk which emphasizes water wise planting. The
feature will be designed as somewhat "organic" intended to encourage exploration
of the outdoor environment and appreciation of our native plants. The growth
habitat and subtle seasonal change of native plants will be the underlying beauty of
this section of the park. When the park is opened to the public, kiosks will be placed
strategically in the park to explain the significance of the detention basin and the
intrinsic quality of plants to act as water treatment processes.
Although the Tustin Legacy Detention Basin will serve as a BMP during storm
events, it will serve the surrounding community and be part of a larger green belt, in
an area dominated by industries and commercial businesses. This Linear Park will
be the heart of the community, unifying the residential, commercial, and industrial
areas. Trails and paths will have native grasses and shrubs to enhance the
experience of the users. The paths will be composed of decomposed granite to
minimize impervious areas. The ecological zone around the basin will contain
amenity areas for passive uses such as seating and meeting spaces for the
adjacent office complex. This feature will be coordinated with the adjacent office
sites and provide a welcome respite from the daily grind. These features are
anticipated to bring the community together through a passive park connection.
The Proposed Project would not cause negative impacts to land use and planning.
There would be no change to development intensity, building height restrictions,
setbacks, signage, and other development standards. There are no new or
increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to
land use and planning that are identified as a result of the implementation of the
Project. There is no new information relative to land use and planning that was not
in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 20
implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation
measures are required in relation to impacts to land use planning.
The Proposed Project is consistent with the Specific Plan and does not increase
development intensities or introduce incompatible uses. Implementation of the
Project would not physically divide any Specific Plan land use, conflict with the
Specific Plan, or conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to land use and planning. Specifically, there have not been:
(1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require
major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. Mitigation measures
require the City to provide evidence of compliance with all requirements and
standards of the City of Tustin City Code; applicable measures will be required
prior to building permit issuance.
Sources: FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-3 through
3-171 4-3 through 4-13, 7-16 through 7-18), Addendum 1 (Page 5-92
through 5-94), and Addendum 2 (Page 52 through 54)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would
be a value to the region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 21
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
There are no known mineral resources located at the site. The Project would not
cause new impacts to mineral resources that were not previously analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There are no new or increased
significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to mineral
resources that are identified as a result of the implementation of the Project. There
is no new information relative to mineral resources that was not in existence at the
time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are
consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required
in relation to impacts to mineral resources.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to mineral resources. Specifically, there have not been: (1)
changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect
to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-91),
Addendum 1 (Page 5-95), and Addendum 2 (Page 55)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XI. NOISE: Would the project:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 22
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
Noise will be generated during project construction. The ambient noise
environment on the site is influenced by the surrounding roadways, existing uses.
After project completion, the project will not increase the ambient noise level.
Implementation of the Project will not cause any direct impacts to noise. The
Project site is located next to (existing and future) residential, educational and
institutional uses to the west, east and south. The design where passive uses and
parking lot are located closest to residential uses was intentional to minimize noise
and provide better accessibility to the public park uses within the 26 acre site. The
project is not located within two miles of airports. No new or increased significant
adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to noise are identified as
a result of the approval and implementation of the Project. There is no new
information relative to noise that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was
prepared. Therefore, the Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent
with the FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation
to impacts to noise.
The Project would not modify the noise -related land use distribution within the
Tustin Legacy site. All proposed land uses were included in the Specific Plan.
Consequently, long-term traffic -related noise impacts associated with
implementation of the Project have previously been identified and analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR. Short-term noise impacts were also analyzed in the previously certified
FEIS/EIR; implementation of any future project would be required to comply with
applicable adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and
standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, thus
avoiding significant short-term construction -related noise impacts.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 23
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to noise. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes to the
Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions of
the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; or (3)
the availability of new information of substantial importance relating to significant
effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not known and could not have
been known when the FEIS/EIR were certified as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. New development
within the reuse area shall ensure that interior and exterior noise levels do not
exceed those prescribed by state requirements and local City ordinances and
general plans. Plans demonstrating noise regulation conformity shall be submitted
for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits (Measure N-3).
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-154
through 3-162 and 4-231 through 4-243), Addendum 1 (Page 5-96
through 5-101), and Addendum 2 (Page 57 through 60)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XII. POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 24
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to housing and any associated
population. There is no new information relative to population and housing that
was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. Therefore, the
Proposed Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As a
result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to population
and housing.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to population and housing. Specifically, there have not been:
(1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with
respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require
major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-18
through 3-34, 4-14 through 4-29, and 7-18 through 7-19), Addendum
1 (Page 5-101 through 5-111), and Addendum 2 (Page 61 through
62)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 25
The Proposed Project would require maintenance and operation management of
the park. There would be no substantial change to development intensity, which
would lead to an increased demand for public services. There are no new or
increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard
to public services and facilities that are identified as a result of the
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to public
services and facilities that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was
prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the
FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to public services and facilities.
Fire Protection
Fire protection for the Tustin Legacy Site was discussed and analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no
increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR.
Implementation of the Project requires compliance with existing OCFA
regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access,
water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and
other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations will reduce the risk of
uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection
services to the Site. Pursuant to the FEIS/EIR, the existing fire stations in the
Project vicinity with additional fire fighting personnel and equipment will meet the
demands created by the Project and other development within Tustin Legacy.
The City shall ensure that adequate fire protection measures are implemented in
the Project, prior to issuance of a building permit (Mitigation Measure (p)). No
new or expanded facilities were identified as being required and therefore no
physical impacts were identified.
Police Protection
Police protection for the project site was discussed and analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR. The Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no
increased or new environmental effects on the environment from those
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The City and Tustin Police Department will
ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project
(Mitigation Measure (s)). However, Tustin Police Department has reviewed the
Proposed Plan and it is anticipated that implementation of the Project would not
increase the need for police protection services in addition to what was
previously anticipated in the FEIS/EIR.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 26
Schools
The Project will not directly result in any residential development. Therefore, the
Project does not generate K-12 students and there is no impact to K-12 schools.
Therefore, there would not be a requirement to pay school fees for public uses
on the Tustin Legacy site consistent with Senate Bill (SB) 50 of 1998.
Pa rkq
The Project is a permitted use in Neighborhood E, Planning Areas 9, 10, 11, 12
of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and would have potentially beneficial impacts
by providing additional opportunities for parkland. Parks for the project site were
discussed and analyzed in the FEIS/EIR. The conceptual Project plans are
consistent with the City of Tustin Park Code and construction plans will be
reviewed for further compliance as set forth in Mitigation Measure (u). The
Project results in no changes to that previous analysis, and no increased or new
environmental effects on the environment from those previously analyzed in the
FEIS/EIR.
Other Public Facilities
The Proposed Project would not cause impacts to hydrology and water quality.
There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative
impacts with regard to hydrology/water quality that are identified as a result of the
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to
hydrology/water quality that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was
prepared. Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the
FEIS/EIR. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to hydrology/water quality. The FEIS/EIR concluded that public facilities
would be provided according to a phasing plan to meet projected needs as
development of the Specific Plan proceeded. The Project would not modify
conditions or proposed development which was already analyzed in the
previously approved FEIS/EIR; therefore, no substantial change is expected.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes
to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 27
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. Mitigation measures
(m) through (x). No further mitigation is required.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47
through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80 and 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum
1 (Page 5-112 through 5-122), and Addendum 2 (Page 63 through
65)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XIV. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or
change in uses that would result in increased use of existing parks or recreational
facilities. There are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or
cumulative impacts with regard to recreation that are identified as a result of the
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to recreation
that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement
was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to
impacts to recreation.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes
to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 28
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals.
Sources: Field Observation
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-47
through 3-57, 4-56 through 4-80, 7-21 through 7-22), Addendum 1
(Page 5-122 through 5-127), and Addendum 2 (Page 66 through 67)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan
Tustin General Plan
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 29
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
There are no net changes to the land use intensity or density and resulting trip
generation then what was analyzed previously. There are no new or increased
significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts with regard to
transportation and traffic that are identified as a result of the implementation of the
Project that were not previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and
Supplement.
Based on this analysis, there are no new or increased significant adverse project -
specific or cumulative impacts with regard to traffic and transportation that are
identified as a result of the implementation of the Project. There is no new
information relative to traffic and transportation that was not in existence at the
time the FEIS/EIR was prepared. As a result, no new mitigation measures are
required in relation to impacts to traffic and transportation.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to recreation. Specifically, there have not been: (1) changes
to the Project that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial changes with respect to
the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major
revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial importance
relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that was not
known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures were adopted by the
Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement.
However, the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement, also concluded that
Specific Plan related traffic impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate.
A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and
Supplement, was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-118
through 3-142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-42),
Addendum 1 (Page 5-127 through 5-146), and Addendum 2 (Page
68 through 73)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62,
Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104
through 3-137)
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 30
Tustin General Plan
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental effects?
d) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
h) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
i) Would the project include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment
control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment
basin, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could
result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and
odors)?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
The Proposed Project would not result in an increase of development intensity or
change in uses cause any direct impacts to utilities and service systems. There
are no new or increased significant adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts
with regard to utilities/services systems that are identified as a result of the
implementation of the Project. There is no new information relative to utilities and
service systems that was not in existence at the time the FEIS/EIR was prepared.
Therefore, the Project and its implementation are consistent with the FEIS/EIR. As
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 31
a result, no new mitigation measures are required in relation to impacts to utilities
and service systems.
The FEIS/EIR identifies that the City will require certain conditions for future
individual development projects identified as "Mitigation" or "Implementation
Measures" (pages 4-43 through 4-46) to be complied with as appropriate. The
Proposed Project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts
previously evaluated by the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement. There is no
possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the
environment.
Based on the foregoing, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental
EIR or other environmental document to evaluate Project impacts or mitigation
measures with regard to utilities and service systems. Specifically, there have not
been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified
as complete.
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures were adopted by the Tustin
City Council in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement; applicable measures
will be recommended as conditions of entitlement approvals.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 3-35
through 3-46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21), Addendum
1 (Page 5-147 through 5-165), and Addendum 2 (Page 74 through
76)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62,
Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104
through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 32
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
No Substantial Change from Previous Analysis. The Proposed Project is to
construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public
detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation, and a community
facilities storage and cafe building.
The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the
implementation of the Specific Plan, including mandatory findings of significance
associated with the implementation of the Project. The Project would not cause
unmitigated environmental effects that were not already examined in the FEIS/EIR;
there are no new mitigation measures required; and there are no new significant
adverse project -specific or cumulative impacts in any environmental areas that
were identified, nor would any project -specific or cumulative impacts in any
environmental areas be made worse as a result of the Project. All feasible
mitigation measures identified in the FEIS/EIR will be incorporated into subsequent
development project approvals.
Further, none of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 would
trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR to evaluate Project impacts or
mitigation measures with regard to environmental impacts. Specifically, there have
not been: (1) changes to the Project that require major revisions of the previous
FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; (2) substantial
changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken
that require major revisions of the previous FEIS/EIR due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified effects; or (3) the availability of new information of substantial
importance relating to significant effect or mitigation measures or alternatives that
was not known and could not have been known when the FEIS/EIR was certified as
complete.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001, MCAS Tustin Specific Plan
Page 33
Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Specific Plan.
Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR
and would be included as conditions of approval of the project.
Sources: Field Observations
FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Page 5-4 through
5-11)
MCAS Tustin Specific Plan/Reuse Plan (Page 3-35 through 3-62,
Page 3-70 through 3-81, Page 3-82 through 3-88, and Page 3-104
through 3-137)
Tustin General Plan
CONCLUSION
The above analysis concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously
examined in the FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums, that no new effects would
occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable
mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that
there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable to the project that would
substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A
Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding
Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001, and shall apply to
future development projects as applicable.
ATTACHMENT 3
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION 15-003
CONCEPT PLAN 2015-002 AND DESIGN REVIEW 2015-001
TUSTIN LEGACY LINEAR PARK
The Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows:
I. The Zoning Administrator finds and determines as follows:
A. That, as part of the City's MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the City of Tustin is
proposing to construct and maintain Linear Park, a 26 acre park and stormwater
detention basin (Project) within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan; specifically,
Neighborhood E, Planning Areas 9, 10, 11, and 12;
B. That the proposed project is consistent with the current overall development
potential, allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Urban Design
Guidelines as set forth in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, including massing and
siting of development, has been incorporated into the design process of the
sports park.
C. That the Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement.
D. That, pursuant to MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.7 (Neighborhood E,
Planning Areas 9, 10, 11, 12) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan district
regulations, recreation uses such as public or private parks, and cafes are
permitted uses. Section 4.2.2 of the MCAS Tustin SP requires a concept plan
to be prepared and submitted or updated for Zoning Administrator approval
concurrent with the submission of a new development proposal. Pursuant to
Tustin City Code (TCC) Section 9272, Design Review is required for review of
building design, site planning and site development;
E. That a public meeting was held on said application on April 23, 2015, by the
Zoning Administrator;
F. That proposed park and stormwater detention basin is consistent with the
current overall development potential, intensity, and/or residential capacity
allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan;
G. That the proposed park supports the following General Plan Land Use Element
Goals and Policies:
• Goal 1: Provide for a well-balanced land use pattern that accommodates
existing and future needs for housing, commercial and industrial land, open
space and community facilities and services, while maintaining a healthy,
diversified economy adequate to provide future City services.
Zoning Administrator Action 2015-003
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001
Exhibit A
Page 2
• Policy 1.11: Where feasible, increase the amount and network of public
and private open space and recreational facilities which will be adequate in
size and location to be usable for active or passive recreation as well as for
visual relief.
H. That the location, size and architectural features of the park will not impair the
orderly and harmonious development of the area, the present or future
development therein, the occupancy thereof or the community as a whole in that
the following findings can be made:
• The proposed project is consistent with the current overall development
potential, allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The Urban Design
Guidelines as set forth in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan including
massing and siting of development has been incorporated into the design
process of the park and stormwater detention basin.
• The Proposed Project would not cause aesthetic impacts that were not
previously analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement.
• The amenities and site layout of the Project has been designed with to
serve the surrounding community as a stormwater detention basin,
community facilities storage and cafe building and ecological park which is
part of a larger green belt. Trails and paths will have native grasses and
shrubs to enhance the experience of the users and provide linkages
between the development and surrounding uses. The proposed landscape
and hardscape theme and treatments, will create continuity and design
quality of architecture.
I. Public Works Department has reviewed potential traffic related to park use
and has determined that there is adequate capacity to support the proposed
use thereby creating conformity with the land use/trip budget.
J. Continuity and adequacy of all circulation systems, such as roads, access
points, trails, pedestrian ways and other infrastructure systems, and parking
needed to serve the project have been reviewed and found to be consistent
with the impacts analyzed in the FEIS/EIR, Addendums, and Supplement.
K. That monuments and additional wayfinding and kiosk signs will be located
throughout the Project site and are consistent with identification for the Tustin
Legacy project.
L. That on January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the program Final
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for
the reuse and disposal of MCAS Tustin. On December 6, 2004, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 04-76 approving a Supplement to the FEIS/EIR
for the extension of Tustin Ranch Road between Walnut Avenue and the future
alignment of Valencia North Loop Road. On April 3, 2006, the City Council
Zoning Administrator Action 2015-003
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001
Exhibit A
Page 3
adopted Resolution No. 06-43 approving an Addendum to the FEIS/EIR and, on
May 13, 2013, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 13-32 approving a
Second Addendum to the FEIS/EIR. The FEIS/EIR along with its Addendums
and Supplement is a program EIR under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The FEIS/EIR, Addendums and Supplement considered the
potential environmental impacts associated with development on the former
MCAS, Tustin;
M. That an environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that
concluded no additional environmental impacts would occur from approval of
the project (Exhibit A). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes that all
of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR,
Addendums and Supplement, that no new effects would occur, that no
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no
applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives
applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project
that have not been considered and adopted; and
N. Pursuant to Sections 15162, 151637 15164, and 15183 of the CEQA
Guidelines no new effects would occur.
II. The Zoning Administrator hereby approves CP 2015-002 and DR 2015-001
authorizing the construction and maintenance of a 26 acre park and stormwater
detention basin located within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan in Neighborhood E of
Planning Areas 9 through 12 subject to conditions attached hereto as Exhibit B;
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin at a regular
meeting held on the 23rd day of April, 2015.
ELIZABETH A. BINSACK
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
VERA TISCARENO
RECORDING SECRETARY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, VERA TISCARENO, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Recording Secretary
of the Zoning Administrator of the City of Tustin, California; that Zoning Administrator
Zoning Administrator Action 2015-003
CP 2015-002, DR 2015-001
Exhibit A
Page 4
Action No. 15-003 passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Zoning
Administrator, held on the 23rd day of April, 2015.
VERA TISCARENO
RECORDING SECRETARY
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CONCEPT PLAN 2015-003 AND DESIGN REVIEW 2015-001
TUSTIN LEGACY LINEAR PARK
(2) 1.1 Implementation of the project shall comply with the FEIS/EIR,
Addendums and Supplement mitigation measures as adopted by
the Tustin City Council.
(2) 1.2 Prior to permit issuance, the City shall ensure that adequate fire
protection measures are implemented on the trailhead structure t
and eliminate any negative impacts on fire protection services.
(2) 1.4 Prior to issuance of permits, the City shall prepare a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project site in
compliance with all applicable regulatory standards.
(2) 1.5 Prior to start of construction, the City shall work closely with the
Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security
precautions are implemented in the project.
(2) 1.6 Park hours shall be consistent with the City of Tustin Park code
and shall be closed after 10 PM curfew.
(2) 1.9 The project shall provide sufficient parking for the linear park use.
(2) 1.10 The project shall comply with the archeological, air quality, water
quality, noise conditions as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program for MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
SOURCE CODES
(1)
STANDARD CONDITION
(5)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
(2)
CEQA MITIGATION
(6)
LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(3)
UNIFORM BUILDING CODES
(7)
PC/CC POLICY
(4)
DESIGN REVIEW
***
EXCEPTIONS
State of California -Department of Fish and Wildlife
NO EFFECT DETERMINATION REQUEST
DFW 866 (Rev 01/13)
Lead agencies or project applicants that anticipate their project having no effect on fish and wildlife may use this form to request a "No
Effect" Determination (NED) from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department). This form prompts submittal of required
information specified in the California Code of Regulations (Title 14 Section 753.5(c)(1)(A)). The California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) document that was prepared for the project or a link to the webpage where the CEQA document has been published must also
be provided with the written request.
Requests should be submitted when the CEQA document is released for public review, or as early as possible in the public comment
period. Requests should include sufficient documentation to support a no effect determination, and must be submitted to the
appropriate Regional Office. Requests for projects with multi -region or statewide impacts should be submitted to the Habitat
Conservation Planning Branch.
If insufficient documentation is submitted, or if the project will cause a physical disturbance to habitat regardless of the magnitude of
effect or size of a project a NED will not be issued. Please refer to Title 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d) for determination
criteria.
Date Submitted: 4/14/15
Applicant Name: City of Tustin
Phone Number: 714-573-3126
Address: 300 Centennial Way
Fax Number: 714-573-3113
City: Tustin State: CA Zip: 92780
Email: astonich@tustinca.org
Contact Person: Amy Stonich, Senior Planner
Phone Number:
Address: 300 Centennial Way
Fax Number:
City: Tustin State: CA Zip: 92780
Email:
CEQA Lead Agency: City of Tustin
Project Name: Tustin Legacy Linear Park (Concept Plan 2015-002 and Design Review 2015-001)
SCH Number and/or Local Agency ID number:
CEQA Document Type:
IS61 -Document. e
94071005
Project Location: (Include street address, city, county, lat/long, township/range/section, or other description that clearly indicates the location of
the project site. Submit an aerial photograph and/or topographic map showing the project location if otherwise not included with the CEQA document)
MCAS Tustin, Planning Areas 9 through 12 in Neighborhood E. The property is located North of Barranca Parkway,
East of Red Hill Avenue, west of (future) Armstrong Avenue and south of (future) Warner Avenue.
Use "Comment" section on next page if more room is needed.
Brief Project Description: (Include details on the type of project; e.g. new construction [with square footage], demolition of existing buildings,
adaptive reuse of existing buildings, zoning amendments, general plan amendments, conditional use for sale of alcoholic beverages, etc.)
The City of Tustin is proposing to construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS
Tustin Specific Plan. The proposed park is designed as a passive park, public detention basin, with public access, a
parking lot, monumentation, and a cafe/restroom building.
Use "Comment" section on next page if more room is needed.
Justification of No Effect Determination [Explain how the proposed project has no effect on fish and wildlife consistent with 14 CCR §
753.5(d)]:
All of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR, Supplement, and Addendums, that no
new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would
occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found
to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or alternatives applicable.
Use "Comment" section on next page if more room is needed.
State of California - Department of Fish and Wildlife
NO EFFECT DETERMINATION REQUEST
DFW 866 (Rev 01/13)
COMMENTS (Continued from previous page)
Project Location: (Include street address, city, county, lat/long, township/range/section, or other description that clearly indicates the location of
the project site. Submit an aerial photograph and/or topographic map showing the project location if otherwise not included with the CEQA
document)
Tustin Legacy is located in central Orange County and approximately 40 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.
MCAS Tustin, Planning Areas 9 through 12 in Neighborhood E. The property is located North of Barranca Parkway,
East of Red Hill Avenue, west of (future) Armstrong Avenue and south of (future) Warner Avenue. Refer to attached
site plan locations.
COMMENTS (Continued from previous page)
Brief Project Description: (Include details on the type of project; e.g. new construction [with square footage], demolition of existing buildings,
adaptive reuse of existing buildings, zoning amendments, general plan amendments, conditional use for sale of alcoholic beverages, etc.)
Concept Plan 2015-002(CP 2015-002) and Design Review 2015-001 (DR 2015-001): The City of Tustin is proposing
to construct and maintain a 26 acre park and public detention basin within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The
proposed park is designed as a passive park, public detention basin, with public access, a parking lot, monumentation,
and a cafe/restroom building.
Amenities and improvements include landscaping and hardscape improvements to the detention basin (with planting
and irrigation), a resin trail with a decomposed granite shoulder; picnic tables; trash receptacles; decorative concrete
and seatwalls at the entry nodes; benches; trash receptacles; a concrete amphitheater a cafe/restroom building and
parking lot.
The proposed park and public detention basin is consistent with the current overall development potential, intensity,
and/or residential capacity allowed by the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
COMMENTS (Continued from previous page)
Justification of No Effect Determination [Explain how the proposed project has no effect on fish and wildlife consistent with 14 CCR §
753.5(d)]:
An environmental checklist was prepared for the proposed project that concluded no additional environmental impacts
would occur from approval of the project (Attached to ZAA 15-003). The Environmental Analysis Checklist concludes
that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on
the environment since the proposed project would not increase the overall development potential or residential
capacity currently allowed by the adopted MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and that the FEIS/EIR, Addendums and
Supplement are sufficient for the proposed project. Furthermore, the park use for Planning Areas 9, 10, 11, and 12, is
permitted in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan.
In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the checklist should be
considered and found to be complete and adequate prior to approving the project as proposed.
♦ A....� 4pwr
w1vr� YUM 1fwn�~.'Fw.awlrlY Pb.. � •.w.._........ ...w...ww,.....ws...v.....�wn.w.w.uw..w..nn.�..w.w..r... x,
,nUY u\NbY�, wpP1.i � MSP ».........>.vs .. . .. w...w_..r« w.wc�.aw..-r.... v...wwvv++wrwaa..+.cews.r.wx•....wre 11t�
RS�L.'i'4tl:kTi w' Y M169:3:n!!T'1, '1l V .qae MWN >\�II1 N. W f iwMM •+"•+•w�.�rww.•.•kr.. v w.'...•r..w..,+�v...+..v.r...+..�w+.•...•.«...•r....�....�.
iw wv'w1'/r P.M wW W1u Ws Nn11 fw p/i ; �'
07- 09 06 0
\ C?
r -
LL
U) LL
,Wt J
LO O
N 00
>+ (D
LL
N N
Y ; C/)
CM LL
J
O Q
cU U) T--
Ch U) W coO
O N dN' N M
CD
m a) U o >
> o >
� Q > cu L W
U W cu a a v) (n c
U D ob
UN
i U 04
(D CD 0 o « Ln o
Z m Z Z Z~ Z
a 0¢ a Q W a
aa. a a a
cu
W Z W W W Q L W
U) U) N
Z Q Z Z Z W Z
O Z OLL L) O O w 0
Q
r
r
r
O
N
N
N
a
0
U
CD
Z_
n
U
3
L
ca
a
L
ca
a)
c
J
7,
U
m
O
a)
J
C
N
H
O
O
ti
m
tQ
U
U)
O
3�
O
a
a
c
�U
CL
ca
a-
1
1 ■®L
M
T—
OD
O
r
jX*M
yTWy,ri+MWS- .WaM fl MMM' y� .. � i
--------------------
w it Mrri �.�s�� rinw[sAl..
..bh.LL. w ��'flM`,^ .... uwr.•uuv.unn a.a.uwuurvvwwuaawa.uw.auur.ruea.wn..r.ruuwww.va.w.w�.
����.i. p �M rn.el.�"�N.w•we �.o'�`y..�.a . ._.._ � � wx�
MNws Mv! 'aM�Yws a•.a.•u.,rrawu.,vw.wMmvruvaw.r+w u.n•wrvr..n...sw.v.wru.nn�r...,n.
�ea7'tt,a�: y ,mea �nr,'w w •.[+ror � www w., r w�.+rm
t,#,n 3#x 7fvs i SCE 3w. Sb$.i �i.,..o.. ... MN#7.WM ...__...,.,.......,.._....,..,.�..............,.,..,.,.�..,.,._,. ..,.,._.,.a.____,.�_,._..............___,.........__,...._ 3.
d , 'Ibv 4rpa~rew,lM ••
.3 1091
OU 06
' w �✓9,•!•...- ��`� 777 j
- 1Syy�y
LL
J
LO
LO
r
C LL
a) U)
N_
LL LL
0 J ti J
�LO
N m
L � .0 LO W OD
`� N 0) r
I 0 N
m .s U c w m
CD o >
Lo °-n
m ca cu c
w m a o a)°- �m -
N U) Q C Q J d' a)
C� CD (D O 0
00 c Z Z Z a L) M Z
N
CU/)U w w a W v7 m
J Lu
H IW— Iw— Z 0 a H
U)� ami
J Z Z Z W Q Z
Q
O O Ow 0
LL LL
Q
O
Ln
r
r
r
O
N
N
N
O
a
O
U
CD
Z_
U
cu
a
cu
a)
c
J
U
cu
O
J
C
7
O
ti
N
cu
L)
0
a
M
ai
0)
cu
cu
a-
F -
ch
00
O
v
iE
--3nN3
------- - Av
IL
-Dt
—S
oc
z
0
4c
z
w
uj
H
z
yj
LO
CLco
CD
ca
a)
?-,
ca
70
LU
LU
c
co
iE
--3nN3
------- - Av
IL
-Dt
—S
oc
z
0
4c
z
w
uj
H
z
yj
LO
CLco
CD
ca
a)
?-,
ca
70
c
co
CO
m
sL" Yl
Al
co
iE
--3nN3
------- - Av
IL
-Dt
—S
oc
z
0
4c
z
w
uj
H
z