Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 3861RESOLUTION NO. 3861 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT FINDINGS THAT THE MCAS PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (MCAS TUSTIN PROGRAM EIS/EIR) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16474, AND FINDING THAT THE MCAS PROGRAM EIS/EIR (MCAS TUSTIN PROGRAM EIS/EIR) IS ADEQUATE TO SERVE AS THE PROJECT EIS/EIR FOR THE CONCEPT PLAN 02-001, DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 02-029, AND APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. REVIEW 02-037, VARIANCE 02-004; HAVE BEEN THE CALIFORNIA The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: A. That Concept Plan 02-001, Tentative Tract Map 16474, Design Review 02-037, Conditional Use Permit 03-002, and Variance 02-004 are considered "projects" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, B. That the MCAS Tustin Final Program EIS/EIR previously certified on January 16, 2001 was considered through an Initial Study checklist for this Project. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find Tentative Tract Map 16474 is within the scope of the previously approved MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR and hereby finds Design Review 02-037, Conditional Use Permit 02-029, Concept Plan 02-001, and Variance 02- 004 are within the scope of the previously approved MCAS Tustin Specific Plan based on an Initial Study checklist evaluation attached as Exhibit A, as well as the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan previously approved by the City Council on February 3, 2003 with adoption of Ordinance No. 1257; the effects of the project relating to all environmental impact issues were examined in the MCAS FEIS/EIR. The applicable mitigation measures developed in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR are incorporated into DDA 03-01 or will be conditions of entitlement approvals (Concept Plan 02-001, Tentative Tract Map 16474, Design Review 02-037, Conditional Use Permit 03-002 and Variance 02-004); and, C. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find for Tentative Tract Map 16474 and hereby finds for Concept Plan 02-001, Design Review 02-037, Conditional Use Permit 02-029, and Variance 02- 004 that the environmental effects of the project are within the scope of Resolution No. 3861 Page 2 the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR and were fully examined in the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR; no substantial changes are proposed in the Project or have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken since certification of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR; no new information has become available since the certification of the MCAS Tustin FEIS/EIR, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 2116, and the requirements of CEQA regulations promulgated with respect thereto including Title 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15162 and 15168(c) no additional environmental analysis, action or document is required by the CEQA. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 10th day of March, 2003. (/ ...,~_~ n'da/) ¢ .- ~len n i n g s ~ Cha'~person 'E"LI~,~BETI:i ~,. BII~SACK- - ' Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3861 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of March, 2003. E~ZABE~H-A. BI~S~CI~ -- ' Planning Commission Secretary EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3861 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 and the following evaluation of environmental impacts (Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861) 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. BACKGROUND Project Title(s): Lead Agency: A, Development of 376 residential units in Planning Area 20 City of Tustin, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Project Location: Minoo Ashabi Phone: (714) 573-3126 Planning Area 20, MCAS-Tustin Specific Plan, bounded by the OCTA/SCRRA railroad right-of-way on the north, the City of Irvine medium density residential district and Harvard Avenue on the east, Jamboree Road on the west, and existing former military housing on the south. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: John Laing Homes 895 Dove Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 MCAS Tustin Specific Plan MHDR, Planning Area 20 Project Description: Approval of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the City of Tustin and John Laing Homes for conveyance of 25.3 acres and Concept Plan 02-001, Tentative Tract Map 16474, Design Review 02-037, Conditional Use Permit 02-029, and Variance 02-004 for the purpose of developing 376 multiple family and patio home residential units within the site. Surrounding Uses: North: OCTA/SCRRA Railroad R-O-W and City of Irvine, Residential East: City of Irvine, Medium Density Residential South: Existing Former Military Family Housing West: Jamboree Road B, Previous Environmental Documentation: Program Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Program FEIS/EIR) for the Disposal and Reuse of Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin (State Clearinghouse//94071005) certified by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. [~Land Use and Planning ~Population and Housing [~Geology and Soils [~]Hydrology and Water Quality ~Air Quality [-]Transportation & Circulation [-]Biological Resources [--]Mineral Resources ~Agricultural Resources ~Hazards and Hazardous Materials [~Noise [~Public Services ~-]Utilities and Service Systems [--]Aesthetics [~Cultural Resources ~Recreation ~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. Minoo Ashabi, Assc~c~te Planner Date: Christine A. Shingleton, Assi a~ City Manager Elizabeth A. Binsack, Community Development Director Date --~- ~ --0..~ Date 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? New Significant Impact [3 More Severe Impacts No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis [3 [3 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 ofFish 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 offish 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: New Significant Impact E] More Severe Impacts No Substantial Change From Previous 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? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis 0 0 0 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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? No Substantial New More Change From Significant Severe Previous Impact Impacts Analysis 0 © [] 0 0 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? New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis [5] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts No Substantial Change From Previous Analysis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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? New Significant Impact More Severe Impacts [3 [3 No Substantial Change From Previous Anal~,sis ATTACHMENT 1 OF EXHIBIT A OF RESOLUTION NO. 3861 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16474, CONCEPT PLAN 02-001, DESIGN REVIEW 02-037 PLANNING AREA 20 - MCAS TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN BACKGROUND The former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Tustin was officially closed on July 2, 1999 as a result of recommendations of the Federal Base closure and Realignment Commission. The City was designated as the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the reuse of MCAS Tustin and, acting as such, approved a Reuse Plan that provided for future land uses at the former MCAS Tustin on October 1996 and subsequently amended on September 1998 ("the Reuse Plan"). The Reuse Plan was subsequently reviewed and approved by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as consistent with federal law regarding the homeless. In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") of 1969, as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the federal government and City prepared a Joint Final Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Reuse and Disposal of MCAS Tustin. On January 16, 2001, the City of Tustin certified the Final Joint Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the disposal and reuse of MCAS-Tustin (referenced as FEIS/EIR herein). The project is the first development project within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, part of the approximately 1,153 acres agreed to be conveyed to the City by the Department of the Navy for redevelopment of the former Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS). On March 13, 2002, 977 acres were conveyed to the City and 176 acres were leased to the City. The project site includes a 25.3 acre site owned by the City and a privately owned adjacent 6.34 acre parcel (31.64 acres) located within Planning Area 20 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, bounded by the OCTA/SCRRA railroad right-of-way on the north, the City of Irvine medium density residential district and Harvard Avenue on the east, Jamboree Road on the west, and existing former military housing on the south. The proposed project is a subdivision request for a condominium map for the purpose of development of 376 units as follows: Multiple Family Condominiums (Row Town homes) Multiple Family Condominiums (Cluster 10 Plex) Patio Homes (paired) Patio Homes (detached) Total 58 Units 140 Units 52 Units 126 Units 376 Units In accordance with the requirements of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 3.9.3 (J) seventy- eight (78) affordable units of moderate-income, low-income and very-low income are required to be dispersed throughout the site. The affordable units are within the multiple family clusters with thirty-six (36) units on the south side of the project along Edinger Avenue and forty-two (42) units on the north side of the project adjacent to the OCTA/SCRRA railroad fight-of-way. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 2 Access to the site is provided from Edinger Avenue and Harvard Avenue. The main roads are thirty-six (36) feet wide and provide parallel guest parking on both sides. The patio homes and cluster condominiums are accessed by private drives with a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet. The site contains a 1.33-acre recreational site including a one (acre) private recreational area and facility improvements for which parkland credit will be provided in accordance with the requirements of the Quimby Act and the City's Subdivision requirements. The one (1) net acre of the recreational site is required to be accessible to the public. Access to the private park site will be provided by public access easements from two entry points to the site with recordation of an easement on the Tentative Tract map 16474. A portion of the site (0.33 acres) would also include private amenities available to the residents of the development. As part of the analysis of the MCAS Tustin FEIR/EIS for the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, Planning Area 20 was identified as a Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) site, with a development potential of 16-25 dwelling units per acre for a maximum of 588 units. The proposed development is for a total of 376 units, which is 36 percent less than the maximum number of units considered for the FEIS/EIR analysis. All related environmental impacts were considered for the FEIS/EIR and mitigation measures have been identified and approved for the specific plan, which are included in the DDA or with conditions of approval for the other entitlement portions of the project as identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program Matrix (Attachment 2 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861). The following information provides background support for the conclusions identified in the Environmental Analysis Checklist. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project is not located on a scenic highway nor will it affect a scenic vista. The project would be consistent with the permitted uses identified within the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Development of medium high-density residential units within Planning Area 20 was considered within the FEIS/EIR and will have no negative aesthetic effect on the site when mitigation measures are incorporated with approval of the project. All exterior design is required to be in compliance with Section 2.17.3(A) - Urban Design Guidelines for Residential Development of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, and the Landscape Concept Section 32.17.2 as they relate to design of Harvard Avenue north of Edinger Avenue, Edinger Avenue from Jamboree Road to Harvard, primary street comers and project entries. Since the site is bounded by three arterials and a railroad right of way, the Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 3 Landscape/Screening standards noted in Section 3.11.12, and noise attenuation requirements of Section 3.11.16 would also be required. The proposal includes a design review, which will ensure that the design of the project is cohesive and in harmony with surrounding uses. All exterior lighting would be designed to reduce glare, create a safe night environment, and avoid impacts to surrounding properties in compliance with Section 2.17.3 (A) of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and the City's Security Ordinance. The proposed project will result in no substantial changes to the environmental impacts previously evaluated with the certified Program FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 2-152 to 2-175, 3-143) Tustin Security Ordinance Tustin General Plan II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The project would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Managing and Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Also, the property is not zoned for agricultural use or a Williamson Act Contract, nor does the proposed use involve other change in the existing environment that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. The project site is not zoned or used as agricultural land; consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Page 3-83) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tusfin Specific Plan Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 4 Tustin General Plan III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. The proposed 376 residential units are designed at a lower density residential development than originally considered with development of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and in the FEIR/EIS. All environmental impacts related to development of the Specific Plan were considered in the adopted FEIS/EIR. The project would not result in a violation of any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Neither would it alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, nor cause any change in climate. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality plan or result in a cumulatively considerable. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Specific mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in certifying the FEIS/EIR. However, the FEIS/EIR also concluded that Reuse Plan related operational air quality impacts were significant and impossible to fully mitigate. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-143 through153, 4-207 through 4-230 and pages 7-41 through 7-42) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan 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? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 5 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) e) 0 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? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? The FEIS/EIR found that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would not result in impacts to federally listed threatened or endangered plant or animal species. The proposed project is within the scope of development considered with the analysis of the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR determined that implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (including the proposed project) could impact jurisdictional waters/wetlands and the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters/wetlands. The project site is not located in an area that would affect the southwestern pond turtle or have an impact on jurisdictional waters or wetlands. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-75 through 3- 82, 4-103 through 4-108, and 7-26 through 7-27) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 6 Vo 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? VI. Numerous archaeological surveys have been conducted at the former MCAS Tustin site. In 1988, the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO) provided written concurrence that all open spaces on MCAS Tustin had been adequately surveyed for archaeological resources. Although one archaeological site (CA-ORA-381) has been recorded within the Reuse Plan area, it is believed to have been destroyed. It is possible that previously unidentified buffed archaeological or paleontological resources within the project site could be significantly impacted by grading and construction activities. With the inclusion of a mitigation measures that require construction monitoring, potential impacts to cultural resources can be reduced to a level of insignificance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tusfin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-68 through 3- 74, 4-93 through 4-102 and 7-24 through 7-26) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan 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? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 7 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The FEIS/EIR indicates that impacts to soils and geology resulting from implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan would "include non-seismic hazards (such as local settlement, regional subsidence, expansive soils, slope instability, erosion, and mudflows) and seismic hazards (such as surface fault displacement, high-intensity ground shaking, ground failure and lurching, seismically induced settlement, and flooding associated with dam failure." However, the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin has concluded that compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. No substantial change is expected for development of the project from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-88 through 3- 97, 4-115 through 4-123 and 7-28 through 7-29) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). 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? Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 8 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The project will not create a significant hazard to the public through the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor are there reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the property. In addition, construction and residential uses would not emit hazardous emissions within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Navy has approved a Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) determining that the Quitclaim portions of the project are suitable for reuse as planned within the Reuse Plan for MCAS Tustin and as shown in the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. In addition, the project site is located within the boundaries of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan; however, it is at least four (4) miles from John Wayne Airport, and does not lie within an flight approach or departure corridor and thus does not pose an aircraft-related safety hazard for future residents or workers. The project site is not located in a wildland fire danger area. Compliance with all federal, state and local regulations concerning handling and use of these hazardous substances will reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin pages (3-106 through 3- 117, 4-130 through 4-138 and 7-30 through 7-31) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37) Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST) for Parcel 5, MCAS Tustin Tustin General Plan. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 9 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)? ¢) 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? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The proposed project includes construction of 376 residential units that would increase runoff. Design and construction of facilities to handle drainage of the site would be required as conditions of approval of the project. No long-term impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated for the proposed project. The proposed projects will not impact groundwater in the deep regional aquifer or shallow aquifer. The proposed project would not include groundwater removal or alteration of historic drainage patterns at the site. The project is not located within a 100-year flood area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury and death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor is the proposed project susceptible to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Construction operations would be required to comply with the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Newport Bay watershed that requires compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the implementation of specific best management practices (BMP). Compliance with state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, would avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 10 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-98 through 3- 105, 4-124 through 4-129 and 7-29 through 7-30) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37) FEMA Map (1999) Tustin General Plan IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited, to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The City of Tustin is the controlling authority over implementation of the Reuse Plan for the former base, such as land use designations, zoning categories, recreation and open space areas, major arterial roadways, urban design, public facilities, and infrastructure systems. On February 3, 2003, the Tustin City Council approved the Specific Plan for MCAS Tustin that established land use and development standards for development of the site. The proposed project meets the density requirements of Table 3-2 of the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan and development standards of Planning Area 20 as they relate to Patio Homes and Condominium units as noted in Sections 3.9.3 of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Compliance with state and local regulations and standards would avoid the creation of significant land use and planning impacts. Also, the proposed project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Compliance with existing rules and regulations would avoid the creation of potential impacts. Consequently, no mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-3 to 3-17, 4-3 to 4-13 and 7-16 to 7-18) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 11 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? XI. Chapter 3.9 of the FEIS/EIR indicates that no mineral resources are known to occur anywhere within the Reuse Plan area. The proposed project will not result in the loss of mineral resources known to be on the site or identified as being present on the site by any mineral resource plans. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Page 3-91) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan NOISE: Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The proposed project could result in implementation activities that generate noise. The FEIS/EIR indicates that full build-out of the base will create noise impacts that would be considered significant if noise levels experienced by sensitive receptors would exceed those considered "normally acceptable" for the applicable land use categories in the Noise Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 12 Elements of the Tusfin General Plan. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. However, the City of Tustin will ensure that construction activities are incompliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and the housing units are designed with adequate noise attenuation (i.e., window design, sound walls) to meet the allowable noise levels as required by the Tustin City Code for residential use. The project would be sound attenuated against present and projected noise so as not to exceed an exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms to reduce noise-related impacts to a level of insignificance. Compliance with adopted mitigation measures and state and local regulations and standards, along with established engineering procedures and techniques, will avoid unacceptable risk or the creation of significant impacts related to such hazards. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-154 to 3-162, 4-231 to 4-243 and 7-42 to 7-43) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan POPULATION & HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project would add 376 residential units on a vacant site, previously considered in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin for potential development of 588 residential units. The proposed number of residential units is 36 percent lower in density than previously considered. The project will not remove any existing housing or displace any people to necessitate construction of additional housing. No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: No mitigation is required. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (Pages 3-18 to 3-34, 4- 14 to 4-29 and 7-18 to 7-19) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 13 Tustin General Plan XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: The site is a vacant parcel within the MCAS Tusfin Specific Plan; however, the site was not part of the base or military housing. Development of the site would require public services such as fire and police protection services, schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and biking/hiking trails. Fire Protection. The proposed project will be required to meet existing Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) regulations regarding construction materials and methods, emergency access, water mains, fire flow, fire hydrants, sprinkler systems, building setbacks, and other relevant regulations. Adherence to these regulations would reduce the risk of uncontrollable fire and increase the ability to efficiently provide fire protection services to the site. The number of fire stations in the areas surrounding the site will meet the demands created by the proposed project. Police Protection. The need for police protection services is assessed on the basis of resident population estimates, square footage of non-residential uses, etc. Development of the site would increase the need for police protection services. The developer as a condition of approval for the project would be required to work with the Tustin Police Department to ensure that adequate security precautions are implemented in the project at plan check. Schools. The proposed project is located within Irvine Unified School District (IUSD). The implementation of the Reuse Plan would provide for a 20-acre school site to IUSD to serve the growing student population within its district. As a condition of approval for the project, the developer would be required to pay applicable school fees prior to issuance of the building permit. Other Public Facilities (Libraries). Implementation of the entire Reuse Plan would only result in a library demand of up to approximately 2,500 square feet of library space. This relatively small amount of space is well below the library system's general minimum size of 10,000 square feet for a branch library and would not trigger the need for a new facility. General Implementation Requirements: To support development in the reuse plan area, the Reuse Plan/Specific Plan requires public services and facilities to be provided concurrent with demand. The proposed project will be required to comply with FEIS/EIR implementation measures adopted by the Tustin City Council: Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 14 No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. So u rces : Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4- 56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The Reuse Plan provides for a new 85.5-acre Regional Park, a 24-acre Community Park and two Neighborhood Parks of more than five-acres and a significant number of regional and community riding and hiking paths through the property, a privately owned 159-acre golf course, play areas associated with schools, and child care facilities. Since the Reuse Plan process included public conveyance of approximately 35 acres of city parks and 85 acres of Urban Regional Park, individual developers were relieved of the requirement to dedicate land for park purposes. However, pursuant to the MCAS Tustin Specific Plan, the developers are required to provide in-lieu fees or public accessible park space (where approved by the City). This requirement will be included in the conditions of approval for the project. The proposed project would not generate an increase in the use of existing neighborhood parks since a park site would be included in the site. However a negligible increase in the use of regional parks or other recreational facilities may be experienced prior to development of the entire MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 15 Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin pages 3-47 to 3-57, 4-56 to 4-80 and 7-21 to 7-22 Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37) Tustin Parks and Recreation Services Department Tustin General Plan XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that 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)? The project site is accessed from Edinger Avenue and Harvard Avenue. Internal circulation of the site would be managed through private street designed in compliance with the roadway standards of MCAS Tustin Specific Plan Section 2.5.2(B) related to major arterials and private streets standards. The FEIS/EIR indicates that transportation and circulation impacts would be created through the phased development of the approved Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. A projected 216,445 Average Daily Trips (ADT) would be generated by full redevelopment of the base by year 2020 that, if left unmitigated, would overburden existing roadways and intersections surrounding the base property. The FEIS/EIR indicates that traffic circulation activities at MCAS Tustin generated a baseline of 12,400 ADT when the base was fully operational (1993). As a military facility, the EIS/EIR considered the traffic impact and developed a mitigation program to reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. This site will be conditioned to participate in its fair share responsibility for both on-site and off-site circulation mitigation and implementation measures. In addition, construction activities are required to be meet all Transportation related FEIS/EIR Implementation and Mitigation Measures (e.g., lane closures, street/utility construction, construction vehicle traffic, etc.). With this mitigation measure, potential impacts to transportation and circulation resources can be reduced to a level of Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CUP 03-002 Page 16 insignificance. Consequently, no substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the approved EIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observation FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (Pages 3-118 through 3- 142, 4-139 through 4-206 and 7-32 through 7-41) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). 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? 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? Since the FEIR/EIR analyzed the development of 588 units while only 376 units are proposed, there will be less demand on utilities than what was anticipated. However, new off-site and on-site backbone utility systems are required for development of the site as necessary to support the proposed residential units. In addition, development of the site is required to meet federal, state, and local standards for design of waste water treatment, drainage system for on-site and off-site, and water availability. The number of proposed units can be supported by the Irvine Ranch Water District for domestic water and sewer services. Drainage from the site is handled by connection to existing drainage facilities on Edinger Avenue and Harvard Avenue and ultimately to Peters Canyon Channel in which required improvements have been addressed by the previously adopted FEIS/EIR. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CLIP 03-002 Page 17 No substantial change is expected from the analysis previously completed in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin. Mitigation/Monitoring Required: Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR; these measures would be included as conditions of approval for the project. Sources: Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse of MCAS Tustin (pages 3-35 through 3- 46, 4-32 through 4-55 and 7-20 through 7-21) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Based upon the foregoing, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitats or wildlife populations to decrease or threaten, eliminate, or reduce animal ranges, etc. With the enforcement of FEIS/EIR mitigation and implementation measures approved by the Tustin City Council, the proposed project does not cause unmitigated environmental effects that will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the proposed project does have air quality impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the reuse and redevelopment of the former MCAS Tustin. The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan. The project proposes no substantial changes to environmental issues previously considered with adoption of the FEIS/EIR. Certain mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce impact but not to a level of insignificance. A Statement of Overriding Consideration for the FEIS/EIR was adopted by the Tustin City Council on January 16, 2001. Attachment 1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 3861 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Tract 16474, DR 02-037, CLIP 03-002 Page 18 Mitigation/Monitoring Required: The FEIS/EIR previously considered all environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Reuse Plan and MCAS Tusfin Specific Plan. Mitigation measures have been adopted by the Tustin City Council in the FEIS/EIR and would be included in the project as applicable. ~ource$ : Field Observations FEIS/EIR for Disposal and Reuse ofMCAS Tustin (pages 5-4 through 5-11) Reuse Plan and MCAS Tustin Specific Plan (Pages 3-33 through 3-37). Tustin General Plan CONCLUSION The summary concludes that all of the proposed project's effects were previously examined in the FEIS/EIR for MCAS Tustin, that no new effects would occur, that no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur, that no new mitigation measures would be required, that no applicable mitigation measures previously not found to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and that there are no new mitigation measures or altematives applicable to the project that would substantially reduce effects of the project that have not been considered and adopted. A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program and Findings of Overriding Considerations were adopted for the FEIS/EIR on January 16, 2001 and shall apply to the proposed project, as applicable. S:\CddLM1NOO\Tract 16474XJLH-Initial Study-analysis.doc